Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.
Congressional Summary:Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
increase and extend through 2008 the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts;
extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities;
Reference: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act;
Bill H.R.6275
; vote number 2008-455
on Jun 25, 2008
Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes.
H.R.4351: To provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), via an offset of nonrefundable personal tax credits. [The AMT was originally intended to apply only to people with very high incomes, to ensure that they paid a fair amount of income tax. As inflation occurred, more people became subject to the AMT, and now it applies to people at upper-middle-class income levels as well. Both sides agree that the AMT should be changed to apply only to the wealthy; at issue in this bill is whether the cost of that change should be offset with a tax increase elsewhere or with no offset at all. -- ed.]
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. RANGEL: We have the opportunity to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. Almost apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair tax provision, that certainly no one has come to me
to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. Nobody, liberal or conservative, believes that these AMT taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. But also, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. So what is the problem?
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. McCRERY: This is a bill that would patch the AMT, and then increase other taxes for the patch costs. Republicans are for patching the AMT. Where we differ is over the question of whether we need to pay for the patch by raising other taxes. The President's budget includes a 1-year patch on the AMT without a pay-for. That is what the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently, 88-5. The President has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. Republicans have argued against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. In many ways PAYGO has shown itself to be a farce.
Reference: AMT Relief Act;
Bill HR4351
; vote number 2007-1153
on Dec 12, 2007
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act;
Bill HR 4297
; vote number 2005-621
on Dec 8, 2005
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation.
Conaway scores 0% by the CTJ on taxationissues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
Closing corporate tax loopholes
Adequately funding important government services
Reducing the federal debt
Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
A BILL to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes:
Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed.
The repeal shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Source: Death Tax Repeal Act 09-HR205 on Jan 6, 2009
Replace income tax & employment tax with FairTax.
Conaway signed H.R.25 & S.296
Repeals the income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax.
Imposes a national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
Sets the sales tax rate at 23% in 2011, with adjustments to the rate in subsequent years.
Allows exemptions from the tax for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions.
Prohibits the funding of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after FY2013.
Establishes in the Department of the Treasury: (1) an Excise Tax Bureau to administer excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); and (2) a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax.
Terminates the sales tax imposed by this Act if the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (authorizing an income tax) is not repealed within seven years after the enactment of this Act.
Conaway signed Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"
Politicians often run for office saying they won't raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing.
In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate's constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.
Since its rollout with the endorsement of President Reagan in 1986, the pledge has become de rigeur for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts.
Source: Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" 10-ATR on Aug 12, 2010
No European-style VAT (value-added tax).
Conaway signed H.RES.1346
RESOLUTION Opposing the imposition of a value-added tax:
Whereas a value-added tax (VAT) is a type of sales tax that is assessed on goods at every stage of production;
Whereas a VAT is a hidden tax that is ultimately passed along to consumers, but is embedded into the price of goods and services and therefore not transparent to the consumer;
Whereas the average tax burden levied by the Federal Government since 1980 has been 18% of GDP;
Whereas, within the next 15 years, Federal taxes are projected to rise to the highest level in US history;
Whereas adding a VAT on top of the existing Federal income tax would increase the burden on United States taxpayers to unprecedented levels;
Whereas the average VAT rate in Europe has risen from 5% when the tax was first introduced in the 1960s to 20% today;
Whereas European countries that have imposed a VAT have seen their total tax burden rise to an average of over 40% of GDP;
Whereas such high levels of
taxation and spending crowd out private investment, which stifles economic growth and leads to chronically high levels of unemployment;
Whereas the IRS has calculated that US taxpayers spend approximately $200 billion and 7.6 billion hours a year to comply with Federal tax laws;
Whereas a VAT would only add another layer of complexity and compliance costs to a fundamentally unsound tax system;
Whereas the burden of a VAT would fall most heavily on low-income and middle-class Americans; and
Whereas a VAT would do nothing to restore fiscal accountability in Washington, but would simply bankroll wasteful and inefficient Federal Government spending:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That--
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that imposing a value-added tax would be a massive tax increase that would cripple families on fixed income and only further push back the US economic recovery; and
the House of Representatives opposes a value-added tax.
Source: Opposing the Imposition of a VAT 10-HRs1346 on May 11, 2010
