Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (3332)	10/31/2001 2:39:04 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

I thought that there was some relief in the pipeline for those individuals who were caught in the AMT nightmare caused by the options they received which spiraled down to worthless while they owned outrageous amounts of tax because of the way the AMT figured the tax owed.

To: Mark Adams who wrote (3332)	10/31/2001 2:56:12 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

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. Why? Have you considered the possibility that both groups benefit or doesn't that fit into the theory of equal punishments? 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. Why are you sure? More need to satisfy your need for revenge? I still have to wonder why we are removing the AMT for corporate entities, but not individuals. Because it punishes wealth creation whereas the purpose of the AMT for individuals was to prevent abuse of investment and thereby reduce wealth creation even for the wealthy. 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. It's all about fairness. No? My own response to my second question is "Tax policy should not focus on short term economic stimulus, rather long term policy impacts"