PMcGarrigle

Alternative Minimum Tax

Hi. I'm not sure why you are removing the impact of the the 1986 Tax Reform act, but it's well documented these changes happened. I'm sure you mean well, but a very reliable source, as quoted, cannot be removed just because you personally disagree with it. Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Many changes indeed happened in the 1986 tax reform, both for the regular tax and for the alternative minimum tax. However the characterization of the effect of these changes, both outside and inside the quote, is inaccurate, so I removed the entire passage.

For example, prior to the 1986 tax reform capital gains had been taxed at a lower rate under the regular tax, and the reduction was treated as a tax preference item under the AMT. The 1986 tax reform taxed capital gains as ordinary income and removed the AMT preference item status. Prior to 1986, the treatment of capital gains accounted for around 85% of AMT paid. Therefore, it is very odd to say, as the passage we're disputing does, that the 1986 tax reform "greatly expanded" the AMT: it's a pretty one-sided way of looking at it. In the short term, it greatly narrowed it. In the longer term, the single largest factor in increasing AMT exposure is the indexation of the regular code and the non-indexation of the AMT -- which did not happen in the 1986 tax reform.

I agree that accurate quotes from very reliable sources should not be removed. But on the AMT in particular, the NY Times is not particularly reliable and in fact often seems confused. I would advise anyone to read this Wikipedia article rather than anything in the NYT. As for the quote, it doesn't use neutral language and it omits a large amount of information. Most of those families who own their homes in high tax states in fact knew nothing about the AMT for another 15 or 20 years, so if the 1986 bill was targeting them, it didn't do such a good job. It would be more accurate to say that "A law that was [in its origins, in 1969] aimed at [155] untaxed rich investors [but had already changed substantially by 1986], was [further] refocused on [a variety of exemptions that, combined with the lack of indexation and 20 years of congressional inaction, and the further AMT rate hikes under Bush I and Clinton in 1990 and 1993, led to increased AMT liability on] families that own their houses in high-tax states." Not quite the same thing! PMcGarrigle (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I may not be as close to all of the details as you are (and you seem well read on the topic), but the NY Times is considered to be a good quality, reliable source. So I can't agree that it's "not particularly reliable" as you mentioned. That said, there's nothing wrong with adding more detail about how we've arrived at our current state, which I think is your goal. The seeds that were planted in 1969 and 1986 took a while to grow into what we know is the AMT today. This delayed impact does not make the history moot. The 1986 tax reform act is part of the story, as are other changes in legislation before and after. As for neutral language in the quote - a reliable source is not required to be neutral. Obviously it's critical of the AMT but that's not new. There are many other quotes and passages in this article that are not neutral either. Mattnad (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a subscriber to the NY Times for a long time. Unfortunately, it did not prepare me well for my encounters with AMT.

I have no objection to including the quote but think it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. AMT is confusing enough to many people (and costs them enough real money, as I can vouch for personally) that it does readers a disservice to start them out with what is at best a drastically oversimplified view. The material around the quote isn't accurate.

Oops, forgot the signature. PMcGarrigle (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See this Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Hi. Your continued efforts to remove content from this articled is now a discussion point here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_Times_Article_on_Alternative_Minimum_Tax

I suggest you make your case there as to why you believe the NY Times is not reliable source per WP:RS before you go back to reverting well-sourced edits on Alternative Minimum Tax article. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)