Talk:Tax Reform Act of 1986

External link didn't work

The link http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/History.html does not work, so I removed it. Maybe that can be found somewhere on tcf.org, but I had no luck. So I replaced it with another I found. - Taxman 16:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced reference to book

There is a reference to Showdown at Gucci Gulch in the external links section but it does not provide a link to the book. I'm not sure what should be done with it. 69.232.79.195 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Flow of housing"

I'm still not getting how that wording is accurate, but either way it's horribly difficult to understand. Imputed income is exactly what is meant here. The IRS doesn't tax housing, especially not "flow of housing" which has no meaning in common English, they tax income and imputed income is a concept that refers to this idea. But also since imputed income isn't taxed in the US, we should probably simply reduce or eliminate the discussion on it here and clarify the bit on the shift in incentives in another way. - Taxman ^Talk 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to the talk page. I guess we disagree on what is the most clear phrase. I think consumption flows is something only talked about by Ph.D. economists, while imputation is relatively common fare for those who might understand the concept. Let's go with your wording. O¹⁸ (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Section 1706

Clarified to reduce confusion.WikiZambino (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regressivity?

The article does not cover how progressive or regressive the tax changes were except for quotes like this:

"Revenue neutrality was achieved by offsetting tax cuts for individuals by eliminating $60 billion annually in tax loopholes and shifting $24 billion of the tax burden from individuals to corporations by ..."

I think the primary purpose that most people will have when they visit this page is, did the tax changes increase the relative tax burden of the poor or was it truly neutral from a progressivity perspective?2601:8C3:8200:E081:D82:896B:D7FB:133D (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Most people who are curious about the details of a particular change in U.S. Federal tax law are primarily interested in a variety of other issues. Famspear (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fails to mention

This article fails to mention, and hence is misleading, that 6 million American poor were removed from the tax rolls as a result of deductions for those who earned under $12 000. http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/066C3B71D4C8F8CA85257930006459EE?OpenDocument — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.86.20 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, as stated by many reliable sources. I finally made the edit that you requested here: [1]. CatPath (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Rifle Shot Transition Rules

I find this fascinating:

"...rifle shot transition rules, which were provisions used to grant transitional relief from the repeal of favorable tax provisions that are so narrowly drafted that only one taxpayer (or, in some cases, a very few taxpayers) would qualify. These rules were often cryptically worded to conceal the identity of the intended beneficiaries.

For example, the Tax Reform Act included a rifle shot transition rule for “two new automobile carrier vessels which will cost approximately $47,000,000 and will be constructed by a United States-flag carrier to operate, under the United States-flag and with an American crew, to transport foreign automobiles to the United States, in a case where negotiations for such transportation arrangements commenced in April 1985, and definitive transportation contracts were awarded in May 1986.” Similar examples include exceptions for an unnamed “detergent manufacturing facility, the approximate cost of which is $13,200,000, with respect to which a project agreement was fully executed on March 17, 1986,” and an unnamed “computer and office support center building in Minneapolis, with respect to which the first contract, with an architecture firm, was signed on April 30, 1985, and a construction contract was signed on March 12, 1986.”

These examples, while amusing, are just a few of the estimated 650 such exemptions that were made through the legislative language of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that were believed to cost more than $10 billion combined..."

http://www.novoco.com/journal/2012/12/news_ww_201212.php

http://articles.philly.com/1986-06-08/news/26046183_1_federal-income-taxes-tax-bill-analysis-of-tax-data

Fxm12 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's not just the Tax Reform Act of '86 that has those kinds of provisions. There are many other similar provisions in uncodified portions of various pieces of legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, particularly since 1954, that are specifically tailored to apply to only one entity, or to only a few entities. Famspear (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tax Reform Act of 1986. 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.embeddedart.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

AMT reference to 2007

What does a reference to an NYT article in 2007 about a 2007 tax plan have to do with an article on a 1986 plan? Also, the external link for this does not go to a specific article.

Thanks for catching that. I corrected the reference so that it links directly to the NYT article. CatPath (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Did it broaden the tax base?

From the lead: "The act was designed to ... broaden the tax base. . . The act also ... remov[ed] approximately six million lower-income Americans from the tax base." I think this needs clarification. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, my graduate education is in mathematical economics and I have been an enrolled agent for over 40 years, and with that background, I have been intimately familiar with the 86 Act. I find it peculiar that the measure that eliminated over two-thirds of all itemized deductions, curtailed IRA contributions, made unemployment compensation and Social Security benefits taxable, and eliminated a large chunk of business losses under the PAL rules can be glossed over with barely a mention of "broadening the tax base". The avowed purpose of the Act according to Stockman was to lower the maximum tax rate by half and shift the incidence of taxation from the wealthy and the very poor onto the middle-income groups. I don't think ignoring the structure of the Act and its place as the most massive redistribution of income through the tax system in American history is intentional, but it surely provides a surreal picture of the Act, concentrating on the trivia (a whole section on the provision requiring Social Security numbers for all dependents, causing reported dependents to drop by seven million the following year) and leaving the purpose and main effects uncommented. Obviously, I am not the one to correct this as at the time I was an IRS-approved provider of CPE and both lectured and published on the '86 Act, But I would be happy to provide material and assist anyone who wants to take a crack at it. There is a reason the Congressional authors were so proud of themselves they renamed the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, which remains to this day. Jmarsh48 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)