The Alternative Minimum Tax...

**Provost Harrison** · February 6, 2012, 17:11

Is this thread some convoluted way of KH telling us just how loaded he is?

**Wezil** · February 6, 2012, 17:14

Maybe, but his wife makes more.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · February 6, 2012, 17:35

Originally Posted by Dinner

No, KH stopped because he knew I had gotten it right and he'd simply missed the post where I explained myself. That's why I posted it a second time. As usual you just jump in after the fact and try to cheer lead without actually contributing anything new to the conversation but I guess that's always been you're style. If anything DinoDoc does your schtick better because he can at least condenses his condescension into a one liner while it takes you a whole paragraph to say the same.

Actually he is still awaiting an example of reduction of marginal tax rate as opposed to a reduction of effective tax rate.

The examples you have provided twice so far simply give a reduction of the effective tax rates. Twice retarded going for three?

**DinoDoc** · February 6, 2012, 17:51

Originally Posted by Provost Harrison

Is this thread some convoluted way of KH telling us just how loaded he is?

It looks like an "expose" on perverse incentives built into the tax code and and explanation of how big a pile of crap the AMT is.

Besides he works at Goldman. Of course he's gonna be pulling down mad bank.

**KrazyHorse** · February 6, 2012, 17:53

Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Actually he is still awaiting an example of reduction of marginal tax rate as opposed to a reduction of effective tax rate.

The examples you have provided twice so far simply give a reduction of the effective tax rates. Twice retarded going for three?

This.

**Dinner** · February 6, 2012, 18:59

Bullshit, the marginal tax rate is the highest tax bracket you paid based on the last dollar you earned. Assuming the person in question is not a payer of the AMT if you're just over the limit into another tax bracket deduction can indeed lower your total earned income resulting in you dropping a tax bracket which means you've lowered your marginal rate. I've said this three times now and KH knows it (even if he won't admit it) while I seriously doubt Ogie knows much of anything as he's usually just a cheerleader who never brings anything new to the conversation.

This question has been answered over an over so it's time you admit it since you know I'm right. That's the difference between marginal and effective (as explained over and over) and to reduce marginal rates you'd have to actually cut the tax rate by reducing the tax paid by a bracket (or eliminate a bracket) which is self evident and explained prior.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · February 6, 2012, 20:53

Originally Posted by Dinner

Bullshit, the marginal tax rate is the highest tax bracket you paid based on the last dollar you earned. Assuming the person in question is not a payer of the AMT if you're just over the limit into another tax bracket deduction can indeed lower your total earned income resulting in you dropping a tax bracket which means you've lowered your marginal rate. I've said this three times now and KH knows it (even if he won't admit it) while I seriously doubt Ogie knows much of anything as he's usually just a cheerleader who never brings anything new to the conversation.

This question has been answered over an over so it's time you admit it since you know I'm right. That's the difference between marginal and effective (as explained over and over) and to reduce marginal rates you'd have to actually cut the tax rate by reducing the tax paid by a bracket (or eliminate a bracket) which is self evident and explained prior.

You truly are a twit. The examples you provide merely give a indication of the degree to which a tax bracket applies but does nothing to reduce the marginal rate of the bracket. Hence the reason you have been talking about effective rate the entire time while conflating marginal rate. Truly retarded.

**Al B. Sure!** · February 7, 2012, 00:29

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse

The fact that you think it's hilarious satire demonstrates once more that you didn't absorb anything taught to you in college.

Apparently no one taught you sarcasm.

Your consideration of getting a divorce for the economic benefits would be/should be satire but unfortunately it is not.

**rah** · February 7, 2012, 08:33

Considering how important economic benefits have influenced marriage throughout history, I don't see why dissolving a marriage can't be economically influenced.

But I'm with PH on this one.

**MikeH** · February 7, 2012, 09:27

4.7% of AGI is a ridiculously high amount. I'd consider getting divorced for tax purposes for that.

Being married or not married shouldn't affect tax rates of working individuals.

**Flubber** · February 7, 2012, 13:14

Originally Posted by MikeH

4.7% of AGI is a ridiculously high amount. I'd consider getting divorced for tax purposes for that.

Being married or not married shouldn't affect tax rates of working individuals.

QFT in all respects. I find it obscene that marriage could negatively impact your tax situation. I think the idea situation would be that it be tax neutral

**Flubber** · February 7, 2012, 13:16

Originally Posted by Provost Harrison

Is this thread some convoluted way of KH telling us just how loaded he is?

I would think not. KH had never been shy about stating that fairly directly

**Provost Harrison** · February 7, 2012, 15:31

Originally Posted by DinoDoc

It looks like an "expose" on perverse incentives built into the tax code and and explanation of how big a pile of crap the AMT is.

Besides he works at Goldman. Of course he's gonna be pulling down mad bank.

Wow, you really do want to suck him off, don't you?

**Dauphin** · February 8, 2012, 15:02

53% marginal tax rate? Those earning over £150,000 in the UK almost pay that (52% inc NI). Those earning a little over £100,000 pay more than that (62%). No AMT required.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · February 8, 2012, 15:11

Dauphin did you mean over one million pounds (as opposed to one hundred thousand) in the second sentence?

**Dauphin** · February 8, 2012, 15:18

Nope. The marginal rate is higher at £100,000 to £115,000 than at £150,000+.

**KrazyHorse** · February 8, 2012, 15:47

Fact: most meaningful estimates of labor supply elasticity imply that the laffer curve's peak is somewhere in the high 50s. Utility maximization wil suggest marginal rates substantially lower than this, and longer-term disincentive effects on human capital accumulation will drop it even further.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · February 8, 2012, 15:56

Originally Posted by Dauphin

Nope. The marginal rate is higher at £100,000 to £115,000 than at £150,000+.

Interesting.

**Jon Miller** · February 8, 2012, 16:21

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse

Fact: most meaningful estimates of labor supply elasticity imply that the laffer curve's peak is somewhere in the high 50s. Utility maximization wil suggest marginal rates substantially lower than this, and longer-term disincentive effects on human capital accumulation will drop it even further.

Have you read this paper?

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/p...tcheva2011.pdf
( http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piket...1_12slides.pdf )

They argue against the pure supply side value of ~57% due to avoidance and bargaining contributions (and favors high contribution to elasticity due to bargaining).

JM

**Lefty Scaevola** · February 8, 2012, 16:57

Originally Posted by Dauphin

53% marginal tax rate?

I am guessing that he is in NYC with federal, state, and city income taxes added up.

**Provost Harrison** · February 8, 2012, 18:11

Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Interesting.

Tell me about it

**Spaced Cowboy** · February 8, 2012, 20:27

Just finished my taxes, last year turbo tax told me to pay in ~$8000 in estimnated taxes. This year's return netted me an ~$8000 refund (and the stupid software is telling me to pay ~$3000 in estimated taxes this year).

We made about $10,000 more this year as well, but I think I finally got my withholding in the right zone.

But on another note, WTF is up with FICA. They lowered it to 4.2% from 6.2%...I thought Social Security was hurting? How can this help. Also since this is a social program, why is there a cap on wages that it the taxes is taken upon? Seems like the whole point is to tax businesses and people to pay for the less fortunate, why cap it, make those CEO's pay their full share.

**Provost Harrison** · February 10, 2012, 06:52

Of course they should...progressive taxation should be a cornerstone of the tax system, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. And the UK system really does obfuscate how much tax you are actually paying by its ridiculous complexity...