Comments on: 2009 AMT Tax Brackets

By: taxed

taxed — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:13:34 +0000

Looks like it is a great idea for married couples to get a legal divorce and still live together (not sure whether my spouse would agree to it!)

By: XP

XP — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:49:11 +0000

The AMT was supposed to be aimed at the wealthy who don’t make their money from a regular job and claim too many deductions, costing society. Since they live in this great society and have prospered beyond what they reasonably need to survive, it seems fair that they give back to this society that made them wealthy so that others can go to school, roads can be maintained, and small businesses can grow into bigger ones and the whole of society is brought up, etc. But in this country that is seen as a bad thing. And now the AMT has been brought down on the middle class. You can thank both of the major parties for this…they are equally guilty because they are all politicians for the wealthy…a plutocracy that aggressively protects the plutonomy that they have created. Its not fair, I know. But TIA (this is America). This is what we said we wanted through our votes and hatred for taxes. Deal with it.

By: JD

JD — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:10:13 +0000

We live in Illinois, pay state income tax and high real estate tax, and have been hit with amt for last 4 years. It really is the state and real estate tax exclusion from the amt calculation that causes us to go into the amt rate at 35% (our income is in the $250 range. We are married with 3 children (2 in college) and nearing 50. I am quessing we’re in the same income tax bracket at Oprah….hmmm. If there’s going to be a progressive tax system, then spread it out.

By: J. Simmons

J. Simmons — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:24:47 +0000

If I end up having to pay this tax because my spouise and I make 200K/year, while some trailor park skank can stay home and collect a tax free welfare check, I’m going to go absolutely postal. This country is unbelievable, keep penalizing us for educating ourselves, working hard, and keeping this economy afloat. Who in the hell is running this show?!

By: jim

jim — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:21:42 +0000

I have been falling under the AMT for the last several years. I have two kids (not six !), nonetheless, I live in Long Island where my property taxes are quite substantial for a modest house. My wife and I are quite hard working and i find it very disheartening to loose nearly 50% of my pay to “taxes” whether it be state, local or federal in nature. My principals have stopped me from forming a Limited Partnership or corporation, but now I am starting to feel quite strongly about protecting the money i earn for my wife and family. I am wondering what my options are.

By: some miss the point

some miss the point — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:26:42 +0000

Some are missung the point about the marriage penalty, it;s a double dip. Not only is the tax rate higher, but you also lose deductions. So someone like me with six kids, pays more and has loses those deductions. Also the rate dropping after $433K is totally inconsistent with the ability to pay theory that our tax code is founded on. So again, the aristocracy in congress, are hypocrits. Why does this happen? Take a look at their tax returns, it’s public record, most are millionaires, and if yo uhad a lot of money, and you passed the laws, who would you tax? Yourself? or The people that elected you and you are supposed to represent?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:43:40 +0000

I’m married and last year I didn’t have to pay AMT. This year our income didn’t change by much but I now have to pay AMT. So any extra income Obama threw in our paychecks is going right back to him in April. I would have not accepted his lousy gift since he is just an Indian giver!

I thought AMT was for millionaires. I’m now paying AMT so show me my mansion, yacht, and lear jet!

By: JK

JK — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:52:21 +0000

RobertSeattle-The Marriage Penalty is $3,244 in the situation you presented not $198.
I agree with Shawn. The reason people are upset is that if you live together you would pay $3,000 less in taxes than if married.

By: shawn

shawn — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:38:07 +0000

Many people with pooled/shared expenses are taxed at the “single” rate (e.g., roommates, unmarried couples living together). They are, if you will, “richer” than if they lived alone. There is no reason married individuals should be treated differently (and I’m single).

The marriage penalty is significant for most couples and most tax levels. But if the cost is small, as some people claim, then why complicate the tax laws by having different rates based on marital status? If outcome A is about the same as outcome B, but A is simple and B is complex, why impose B?

By: heho

heho — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:20:29 +0000

Married couple have pooled expenses, like a house. Their housing cost are not double of what singles have. So with combined income and pooled expenses, the feel rich factor is more. I don’t see why few extra hundered dollars are considered marriage penalty.