it comes in pints?

How dumb am I that I had to read that three times before I figured it out?

Der.

Either I'm stupid, or I'm just so blinded by my seething hatred of the AMT that I'm not seeing it...is it a division issue?

OK, I'm with Ricki... what gives?

I THINK I see it now....is it that "cost" is being defined differently in the two phrases, as in "It will require x dollars to implement this" versus "we won't be able to rook the taxpayers out of x dollars any more"?

Closer, but not quite there.

One is fairly well known and documentable, the other is even less than a WAG?

I don't know why I'm so dense about this today...

(WAG = wild-assed guess)

It's either 45-50 billion, or 60 billion, which is 600 billion divided by 10 years, right?

Okay, maybe I'm the one being dense this morning, but here's my answer:

1) A decrease in revenue (particularly tax revenue) is NOT a "cost" by definition

2) Worse, a smaller increase in revenue, which is what these numbers represent, is NOT a "cost" by any definition (except a politician's)

3) WORST, these numbers are based not on normal tax revenue but on increased revenue arising from inflation that throws more people into the AMT (FIVE TIMES as many people next year as year, according to this article).

I personally find that appalling on many levels, grammatical and otherwise.

(wondering if Ken took his OCD meds today...)

I was thinking that the person used "will" for the fix and "would" for the repeal - in other words, this is what is going to happen vs. that crazy nonense which is 12 times worse. More of a semantical sleight of hand than an actual grammatical error, at least at my first glance. Ken's answer, however, makes more sense.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have bolded only the word "cost".

In any case, the politicians are, once again, wringing their hands over the choice of increasing taxes or increasing revenue.

Guys guys guys! Let's get with the program here. There's nothing wrong with that passage that a good, heartfelt FUCK THE FUCK OFF cant cure. Or will cure. Or, perhaps, would cure.

In any case, the Congressional Budget office can FTFO.

(does the "wow, I coulda had a V8" gesture)

Leave it to Val to remind us of the simple pleasures in life, like a good FTFO. :-)

I saw it right off the bat, Ken, as I've ranted before about people claiming that tax cuts "cost" the government. That's bullshit and really kind of a scary mentality in my book.

Whats AMT? :-(

The Alternative Minimum Tax. It was originally intended to hit the ultra-rich who managed to escape taxes, but it hasn't been indexed since the 1960s (IIRC), so it is now hitting regular people very hard.

Yeah, arithmetic is a real pisser. =)

Well put Dave. "Costing the government money" assumes a falsity - that it is rightfully theirs and not ours; that they have any money of their own to begin with. Another reason why I would abolish withholding taxes. Cut 'em a check every month or every quarter and then you'll feel the bite and wonder what the hell they're up to.

"...but it hasn't been indexed since the 1960s (IIRC), so it is now hitting regular people very hard."

Not to mention that there's the insult-added-to-injury that when you're done doing your taxes, you also have to figure THAT little pischer up and see which one you owe.

(I've come close in the past. I may get screwed by the AMT this year.)

I know there are potential problems with a flat tax, but every year when I give up the better part of a day of my Spring Break to do my taxes (I know, I could hire someone, but I'm cheap that way), I think of the hundreds upon hundreds of person-hours wasted as people curse and sweat and hunch over calculators...

Hell, I'd be willing to consider a national sales-tax in place of an income tax if it meant not having to make three separate trips to the library to hunt down obscure forms every year.

(Not to mention: I would be rewarded for my general cheapness.)