Talk:Alternative minimum tax

message: In the "Arguments Against" section, I tagged the bullet that the AMT amounts to a flat tax as dubious; the graph earlier in the article shows the AMT rate increasing (albeit at a decreasing rate) with an increase in gross income.  A flat tax would show a constant (independent of income) rate. Sketch051 13:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sketch051, look again at the y-axis label, it's in relative terms. It can only asymptote to the level of the flat tax. Pdbailey 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the upper of the two graphs, which shows "Tax (thousands)" on the y-axis.  A flat tax which simply exempted the first $40k would have an x-intercept of $40k and be a straight line with a slope of the flat rate.  The graph shows that the rate continues to increase with an increase in income, and thus is not a flat tax.  It does grow slower than the conventional tax curves, so it is a flatter tax, but it is not flat. Sketch051 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. The top graph does have the value of the tax in dollar denominated terms on the y-axis. And you are correct that on a graph with linear x and y axises with the income on the x-axis and tax on the y-axis, the line would slop upward with a slope of 0, 0.26, or 0.28 (the tax rates). However, the x-axis is logarithmic, so the slope will increase. As an aside, if you know how to program in a computer language, you could probably read the code used to generate the graph. Pdbailey 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd missed that.  Would you be willing to regenerate the graphs in linear-linear or log-log?  I think the average Wikipedian might understand them more intuitively that way. Sketch051 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think log-log is confusing and linear-linear severely reduces the scale that is visible. In the sense that an x-y pair on the graph represents the tax at that level, I think readers can understand a graph--which is to say that I don't think the slope is the idea of this graph, I think the x-y pairs is. Also, log linear graphs appear all the time in newspapers. Pdbailey 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've been getting distracted by the one point (how 'flat' is the AMT) and have forgotten that the graphs do adequately show that the conventional income tax levels are getting closer to the AMT line over time. I'd still like to leave the change in the Argument Against ("flatter tax" instead of "flat tax") due to the fact that deductions are merely more limited, rather than eliminated see True Flat Tax. Sketch051 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to that wording. Pdbailey 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea of flatness or fairness of the AMT is not that it is maintained "on top of the standard tax code" (the current situation) but keeping the AMT and getting rid of the current tax system.  The argument for retention is that the AMT would replace the current system.  The argument is for the AMT model over the current income tax, not both.  Also, what do you mean by a "true flat tax".  If you're stating it in the sense of one income rate applied to everyone, no such proposal exists in congress.  There are many flat tax proposals in congress, each with some level of progressivity built in, normally through exemption up to a certain income level.  I do agree that the AMT is subject to easy manipulation by Congress (as does any income tax system that allows exemptions or the positioning of one income group against another), just as the current system progressed from Reagan's change into today's 65,000 pages of tax code.  However, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not forcast on what could happen.  Morphh  (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Tag Added 

message: This page needs updates. As it is, it does not comply with the NPV rules.
Edited to remove non-npov statements made at end of previous edit without citations.
: I just edited the article to try to improve the NPOV situation. Please make comments on my success here. Pdbailey 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the template to the whole article; another sections seems to imply that it damages the economy, which I would tend to disagree with.  This article is also too technical and needs some cleanup.Squad51 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you specifically state what you think the problem is?  On the section you just NPOVed....  the AMT hits medium to high income individuals and families with large income tax deductions.  Because state income taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, the AMT has a tendency to hit individuals in high tax states, such as California, New York, New Jersey, etc...  As it turns out, these states tend to be on the coast and generally vote for democrats.  Maybe its a bit cynical, but Republicans, who are normally concerned with high taxes, have been less concerned with the AMT. Mgunn 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the harm from the AMT...   Any tax causes distortion of economic activity, and economic theory says the harm increases with the square of the tax rate.  Any non-Pigouvian tax is automatically harmful.  The general policy question is whether the government spending is worth more the harm caused by the tax.  That said the AMT has some structure that is considered less harmful than the standard tax system (it has fewer deductions) and some features that are considered more harmful (poor treatment of savings, rates might be excessively high). -- Mgunn 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's unclear to the reader that people critiquing or defending the AMT have a point of view. In fact one expects a tax system that brings in more income than the regular tax to have supporters and detractors which we can and should capture.  In Wikipedia we present different sides of debated issues all the time.  Why wouldn't we do that here?  I do think someone as experienced as you are could help clean things up and sharpen the article, but not to the point that we only say it's a controversial tax and there's no consensus.Mattnad (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have added POV flags to the "controversies" related parts of the article.  These clearly express particular points of view without indicating such.  Further, the size of these in relation to the article raises significant undue weight issues.  These sections should collectively be replaced with a short paragraph indicating that controversies exist and no concensus exists.Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it's unclear to the reader that people critiquing or defending the AMT have a point of view. In fact one expects a tax system that brings in more income than the regular tax to have supporters and detractors which we can and should capture.  In Wikipedia we present different sides of debated issues all the time.  Why wouldn't we do that here?  I do think someone as experienced as you are could help clean things up and sharpen the article, but not to the point that we only say it's a controversial tax and there's no consensus.Mattnad (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV 2010

message: I just added a figure and would love comments on it. If anyone can see errors in my calculation or wants to see changes you can either make them (I've included the code, and you can edit it are run it in the GPLed statistics programing language called R) or you can make comments and I'll try to incorporate them. Pdbailey 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  figure 

message: An anonymous editor just removed the emphasized portion of , "While many parties agree that the AMT needs to be changed, some argue against its outright repeal. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that because households with annual incomes above $200,000 are the source of more than half of all AMT revenue, more than half of the benefits of repeal would go to high-income households. In addition, they state the cost of repeal is prohibitive," without comment. I'd suggest it is a regression and the original text before the edit should be reinstated. Anyone else have an opinion, or does the anon. editor want to explain the edit? Pdbailey 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article was so far better before that the edit may or may not have been vandalism, so I did the rv after 24 hours of no comments. Pdbailey 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it was removed but validating the data and finding a source for it would be a first step.  It might have been better for them to add a  tag but it appearrs the editor thought the information to be untrue (or perhaps just a bias statement).  Morphh  (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read through the reference provided? I think it's quite clear. If you disagree, maybe there's something here. Pdbailey 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh didn't notice that it was after the next sentnece.  I'll try to have a look later but my initial thought was that it was unsourced.  Morphh  (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arguments against 

message: What do you think of a new section on proposals to reform the AMT?  Several policy groups on both the right and left have offered solutions, and it might be helpful to sketch these since it's becoming a bigger issue. RS102704 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Morphh  (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reforming the AMT 

message: Do we really need the teer-jerker tale of an engineer at the Rambus corporation's suicide? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this suicide was totally about the fact that Rambus stock plunged when it became clear that Rambus wasn't going to be allowed to shove the overpriced, under-performing RDRAM standard down consumers throats by banning DDR and persecuting motherboard makers who enabled 133MHz SDRAM. Doesn't anyone else remember the performance and cost issues with RDRAM? In any case, the suicide wasn't about a tax liability so much as it was about a decision to:
1. Quit his job at age 53, which he called retiring. (A dozen years early)
2. Hold onto a stock thinking it would keep skyrocketing in value.
3. Completely ignore the fact that he could be totally bankrupt and still have A DEGREE FROM M.I.T. -and- an awesome resume.
He had a lot to keep living for. His suicide wasn't caused by a tax law, it was caused by low self-esteem, a failure to realize the value of his personal assets that couldn't be taken from him, and some really bad stock decisions that wiped out his dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs)  (30 July 2007).
:I removed the section because the logic was not strong, and it was labeled "recent" but was clearly over 5 years old. Pdbailey 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rambus Engineer Suicide 

message: I just removed the following, "The IRS estimates that by 2010, 34% of all individual filers who pay income tax will be subject to the AMT." because it doesn't have a reference. Please provide one before including it again. Pdbailey 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  34% of all filers 

message: I edited the reference to the AMT serving to flatten the tax burdens amongst taxpayers.  The comment made it appear that the AMT increased the "simplicity and apparent fairness" of the tax code. While certain flat tax proposals would make for a simplified taxpayer experience, the AMT actually adds complexity.
128.192.120.180 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in favor of the AMT 

message: A new, anonymous editor removed certain information on dubious grounds. I restored the information. As odd as it may sound to a newcomer, there is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits "non-neutral, politically motivated information." Neutral point of view does not require that the SOURCE be neutral. In Wikipedia, neutral point of view requires only that Wikipedia editors craft articles in neutral language. The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that "CBPP, Tax Policy Center, and Brookings/Urban are all widely recognized as liberal think tanks" does not disqualify their use as sources in Wikipedia. Please review the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view".  The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.  Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral point of view does not prohibit non-neutral information from liberal think tanks

message: I post as AMTbuff on fairmark.com and reformamt.org. I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the AMT, but the real go-to guy for AMT is Kaye Thomas. He runs the fairmark.com site, which provides world class tax information to the world for free. I've never met him in person, but Kaye is the one guy I'd trust for any answer on any tax question, especially AMT. I've never seen him make an error.
I'd like to volunteer for any and all technical improvements to this article. Let the suggestions begin. I've started by adding an explanation of the AMT exemption, its phaseout, and the effect on effective marginal rates. I also added some information on minimizing AMT, although there's actually precious little you can do once the AMT catches you. Feel free to edit anything I write for style, since my writing is often too informal. Oh, and I may be gone for days or weeks at a time, but... I'll be back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMTbuff (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AMTbuff joins the crew

message: An example would help.  Take a simple tax case and list income tax and AMT tax.
'However, the AMT Exemption is phased out at 25 cents per dollar '
(you never list what the base exemptions are.
Also what is the 26 /28 % cut off?
71.123.131.239 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the specifics. I have seen many examples of AMT calculation, but they never seem to improve understanding of what is actually going on with the AMT. AMTbuff (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page was some what unclear 

message: Didn't congress "temporarily" repealt the AMT for the 2007 tax year ordid that not pass? I seemto remeber it was all over the news a few months back?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr who, you may want to use the [thomas.loc.gov/ library of congress] website to find a bill that was proposed but did not pass. Looking at the 2007 tax forms, the AMT has not been repealed. Pdbailey (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Didn't Congress Put an injunctionon the AMT for the Tax year 2007

message: I don't follow Pdbailey's objection to the change in this section.  I agree with the point in his comment, I just can't see how it is connected to the specific deletion at issue.
The phrase I had deleted, but which Pdbailey wants to keep in, is "The expansion of the AMT was intended by Congress to make the Bush tax cuts more affordable", citing a CBPP source.  Pdbailey's comment is "in budgeting, the amount of inflow is critical, this is a huge argument".
Fair enough, but:
(1) The disputed sentence is a statement of fact about something we can only speculate on, i.e., Congress's intentions.  (Unless Congress includes a specific finding of fact, or "whereas" clause, which thye did not in this case.)
(2) The disputed sentence does not accurately reflect the argument in the cited source.  (That argument has even more problems.)
(3) The section title is "arguments against repealing AMT"; almost nobody really is against repealing AMT on the grounds that they want to preserve the Bush tax cuts.  (Well, maybe the Wall Street Journal editorial writers, but that's it.)  The Congreessional Republicans cited in the CBPP source wanted to repeal the AMT.  The CBPP certainly doesn't want to preserve the Bush tax cuts.  So even if this argument fit somewhere, it wouldn't be here.
(4) Pdbailey's comment is on the overall budgetary effect of repealing the AMT.  That really is a major argument against repeal.  But it is already listed in this section, as the last bullet point.  (Maybe it should be the first bullet point?)  Repealing AMT would cause a massive increase in the (official) deficit, because the (official) deficit assumes revenues based on the AMT reverting back to its official long-term form (AMT exemption of 45000 for MFJ, etc.).  Every budgetary decision for the past 20 years has made this assumption, so of course spending levels have been based on the assumption that the AMT will continue.
PMcGarrigle (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against repealing AMT 

message: Something should be done to reconcile these two claims, or they should both be removed:
Advice to accelerate income when you will be liable for AMT is therefore exactly backwards for most taxpayers.
and
Another way to avoid AMT liability is to stay out of the $150,000 to $415,000 income range. For example, it might be better to realize a $1 million capital gain all in one year rather than dividing it into two or three years.
Does anyone know if either of these pieces of advice has any merit or how we might give them appropriate coverage? -- The_socialist talk? 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction 

message: I added a "dubious" tag next to the "hence" in the passage: 
The deduction for state and local taxes in the normal income tax code can encourage wealthy areas to raise taxes and, in effect, redirect monies that would normally go to the federal government (and hence[dubious – discuss] to residents of poorer states) to their state and local governments, where it can be spent on their own citizens.
"Hence"?
The argument seems to me to be far-fetched anyway.  A better argument is that when state and local governments spend extra money, some of the benefits flow back to the taxpayers themselves.  If a state decides to offer heavily subsidized public transit, paid for out of state tax receipts, then taxpayers benefit to the extent they use public transit.  Similarly for libraries, parks, and so on.
PMcGarrigle (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms and Controversies / Taxpayer Incomes 

message: The Avoiding AMT section is written in second person and purports to give advice to the reader.  It reads like it would belong much better on something like WikiHow than in an encyclopedia.  John Darrow (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think it should be moved or reworded so as to avoid WP:NOTHOWTO? PDBailey (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I reworded it remove the second person. If we ever get a WikiHow article on the AMT, then moving it there would be appropriate. That will likely be years from now, and we can all hope that the AMT will be history by then. AMTbuff (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding AMT section 

message: I'm sorry, but this article is still extremely hard to follow.
I came here to, basically, find out what AMT is, and at what income it is effective, and I have to say, with respect to this basic information, the article is a clear FAIL.
Could somebody put somewhere near the beginning just a clear explanation of what it is, and then put all the details later? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very technical and i agree with you.  I've updated the intro to make it a bit more approachable up front.  As what income it hits, that's impossible to pin down since it varies depending on AGI and the types and value of itemized deductions.  That's one of the major issue with the AMT in that it's difficult to plan for and can surprise people.Mattnad (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Unclear 

message: I have added a new section AMT details replacing portions of the old Structure section with significantly expanded explanations and references.  The diagram was moved up to the history section (since it compares rates in 2001 and 2004).  I moved the table of exemption amounts to history also, added AMT rates and expanded columns to accommodate this, and added commas for readability per Wikipedia guidelines on presenting amounts.  I deleted without enhancement the subsection on phase out; even as an experienced tax pro I found the way it was written confusing.  Comments and edits welcome. Oldtaxguy (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section added: AMT Details 

message: The changes made recently to citations were not entirely correct.  The "Further reading" section has and should have only one capital letter.  Willis|Hoffman is how the publisher cites the book, not Willis & Hoffman. The use of the date for the citations is important, as the volumes cited change each year.
:It would be better to fix minor problems you saw with my corrections (and thus make incremental corrections) than to revert. Try to do that in the future, it's usually more productive this way and leads to better articles. If you compare my most recent edit with my original one, you'll see what I mean. There were obvious problems with citations, as well with ambiguous references to "below" which actually appears "above" (and vice-versa) in the way article renders, which I tried to fix in my original correction. With respect to Willis|Hoffman vs Willis&Hoffman, it's usually better to adhere to a common style when making citations (at least within the same article). Also your argument about publisher's self-citation doesn't hold any water - they could put "|" for a number of different reasons, including the typographical style, this is not a good reason in itself to follow their choice of substitute character for "&". Also consider what if they chose to self-cite Willis&Hoffman as e.g. "The Best Book in the World" -- would you still stick to the publisher's convention? Now, if you really want to be constructive in your edits, try looking up the missing page in Willis&Hoffman and put it in the text of the article, since you obviously have access to the book.cherkash (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting changes to citations 

message: I have removed two paragraphs that were fully redundant with other discussions in the section.  The editor is listed as a student with a project on this article. Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing paragraphs inserted as apparent student exercise 

message: I modified the Growth section to remove speculation, statements unsupported by their sources, and incorrect statements.  The references to 2009 and 2010 were projections based on assumptions about what the law and economy would be.  2008 is latest actual data, which I have cited (it was released in December 2010).  The purported statement by the CBO director was incorrectly quoted.  His actual statement included much more than AMT.  I added additional info from IRS SOI (cited).  Finally, I removed an external link to advertising. Oldtaxguy (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Growth of AMT section 

message: I flagged this section as in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NOTHOWTO .  Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic section:  How to avoid... 

message: I believe the entire article that these parts are taken from is WP:UNDUE.  I retained it only because of WP policy on not deleting material.  Addition of this material to AMT burdens the article with a level of detail, and an increase in the opinion section, that is unnecessary.  I think a single sentense is appropriate, with a reference to the article on options. Comments?  If no objections, I'll revert or modify as time permits. Oldtaxguy (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Content-wise, I like this new subsection. I can see your point about increasing article a little, but this material reads well and is easy to understand. So overall it gives a good exposition of this (sub)topic. I'd say let's keep it (after making sure the claims are verifiable – specifically the one about comparative size of tax due vs. credit that is eventually received). cherkash (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge etc from AMT and stock options 

message: The line "each taxpayer must pay the greater of AMT or regular tax" is wrong, you add AMT to regular tax then subtract your credits. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is substantively correct:  the taxpyer owes the higher of TMT less credits or regular tax less credits. The statement is made in an introductory paragraph on the basics of the AMT. Getting to the fine legal point of difference between TMT and AMT requires a lengthy technical addition to the article. If you have a simple way of stating this, please do so. Keep in mind that little about any WP article on tax is precise. The articles attempt to explain; they're not treatises. Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect fact 

message: "Those that do get caught by the AMT are typically upper middle class persons making approximately $200k-$500k."
No source is given for the claim that that income range is "upper middle class", and  that range of incomes is roughly in the top 2% of incomes according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States#Income
Most references I find from a quick search peg USA upper middle class at a rough range of $90k-$200k or so.  68.59.185.53 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Can you provide those references. 018 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper middle class? 

message: AMT basics table lacks 2011 rates, exemption limit, exemption phase-out, etc.  
Are those available?  If so, very salient to add in. 
Ocdnctx (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMT basics table needs 2011 rates added 

message: Since Wikipedia style is not to capitalize the words in an article name (after the first word), except when they would otherwise be capitalized anyway, I don't see why the article is named Alternative Minimum Tax rather than Alternative minimum tax.  John M Baker (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of article name 

message: I propose the following sentence under "AMT basics" be changed as indicated below for conformity with IRC Sect. 55(e):
Original:
In addition, corporations with average annual gross receipts less than $7,500,000 for the prior three years are exempt from AMT, but only so long as they continue to meet this test.[3]
Revised:
In addition, corporations with average annual gross receipts of $7,500,000 or less for the prior three years are exempt from AMT, but only so long as they continue to meet this test.[3]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxNerdLove (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMT basics - IRC Sect. 55(e) 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now don't go and me all reasonable on us here.  What's the point of having a tax topic if it doesn't lead to complaints from one side or another ; Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternative minimum tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/individual-taxes/172842-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternative minimum tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502050655/http://www.taxpolicycenter.org:80/newsevents/events_amt_facts.cfm to http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/events_amt_facts.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=577&org_name=NTU
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was surprised to see that the AMT wiki article still hasn’t been updated for the TCJA impact, a year later.  But really, I shouldn’t be surprised – as of Dec 6, 2018, the IRS still hasn’t updated its “Instructions for Form 6251”  for the Personal AMT.  There are quite a few outdated websites still up.
Also, I think the AMT wiki-page hadn’t been significantly updated since 2013. 
I have tried to update the article appropriately to show the TCJA impact, with three caveats: I am not really a subject-matter expert.  I prepare taxes, and I can and have done research on the TCJA impact on the AMT.  I have tried to source everything clearly, back to authoritative/original sources where at all possible.  But this should be scrutinized well by people who know this information maybe better than I do.  
Secondly, I have not deleted anything.  I think a fair bit of the old information is no longer relevant now, except possibly to historians.  (Note the detailed information for 2009-2013.) But I will leave the deletion, as well as the fact-checking, to people who have deep knowledge of the subject.
Thirdly, I’m not a highly skilled Wikipedia editor.  I’m making all of the changes manually in wikitext markup language, largely trying to copy existing styles.  There may be Wikipedia conventions I’m not aware of.  It’s likely I’m making manual errors as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnabonzo (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated for Impact of TCJA in 2018 

message: Hello, I massaged the Intro, also the start of Section 1.
The Intro says that the 2012 law indexed the AMT's figures for inflation.  It makes the same statement about the 2017 law.  I've been editing Capital gains tax in the United States and know that one of the "cost-limiting" innovations in the 2017 law is to index inflation using the United States Chained Consumer Price Index, which doesn't rise as quickly as the regular Price Index.  I know they did this for ordinary income tax rates and capital-gains rates, and suspect they did likewise for the AMT.  So while it is true that the 2017 law indexed the AMT for inflation, what really happened in 2017 was a deceleration of the indexing!  Am I right?  Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexing for inflation 

message: > Alice calculates $15,246 in ordinary federal income taxes on $100,000: $100,000 - $12,200 standard deduction = $79,800 taxable income, at ordinary rates of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, would pay $15,246.50 in taxes.
100,000 - 12,200 = 87,800, not 79,800.
The "ordinary rates" of "10%, 12%, 22%, 24%" does not specify which rates apply to which brackets. I think it would be helpful to simplify, perhaps to a single tax rate, or at least to explain how $15,246.50 is derived.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razziabuissa (talk • contribs) 06:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example math doesn't add up and is opaque