SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: GraceZ who wrote (3331)10/31/2001 2:35:11 PM
From: Mark AdamsRead Replies (2) of 24758
 
You want me to give you a reason why a retroactive repeal of the AMT on corporate returns is justified, yet you can't give me a good reason why AMT was ever justified in the first place. I think if you were sitting in jail for a crime and then the law covering that offense is later found to be unconstitutional would you feel it was justified for them to apply the change retroactively to your case?

Business decisions were made on the basis of the rules as they existed at that time. By retroactively changing the playing field you reward one group at the expense of another. I can't deliver a specific example of a group that decided not to invest or structured an investment in a different manner to avoid AMT, which in effect injures their competitiveness as a result of the retroactive change, but I'm sure one exists.

I still have to wonder why we are removing the AMT for corporate entities, but not individuals. I was thinking that the proposed legislation was proposed by those most injured by the existing AMT rules, and they didn't understand or think through or care what the ramifications were for other groups.

My own response to my second question is "Tax policy should not focus on short term economic stimulus, rather long term policy impacts"
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext