[geeks] KVM for Sun Sparc Servers with USB keyboards

[Lionel Peterson]

On May 7, 2009, at 11:58 AM, adh at an.bradford.ma.us (Sandwich Maker)  
wrote:

> " From: Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at gmail.com>
> "
> " >From wikipedia[0] (reach for your grain of salt, but this  
> shouldn't be
> " too controversial):
> "
> " "The AMT was introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[1] and became
> " operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income
> " households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they
> " owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time.[2]"
> "
> " And the links lead to:
> "
> " [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax
> "
> " [1] Pub. L. No. 91-172, 83 Stat. 487 (Dec. 30, 1969).
> "
> " [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36988-2004Mar6.html
> "
> " Here's a link to a Congressional Budget Office document on the  
> subject:
> "
> " http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5386/04-15-AMT.pdf
> "
> " Which has as it's conclusion:
> "
> " "Conclusions
> "
> " Over the coming decade, a growing number of taxpayers
> " will become liable for the AMT. In 2010, if nothing is
> " changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability
> " and nearly every married taxpayer with income between
> " $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax.
> " Rather than affecting only high-income taxpayers who
> " would otherwise pay no tax, the AMT has extended its
> " reach to many upper-middle-income households. As an
> " increasing number of taxpayers incur the AMT, pressures
> " to reduce or eliminate the tax are likely to grow."
> "
> " (the above quote is from the linked document, from 2004)
>
> ...so of course the correct move would be to raise the amt threshold
> until it again targeted only the extremely wealthy - but also of
> course, the wealthy and their political puppets will be careful to
> steer the debate well away from any suggestion of that sort...

Personally, the answer is to go back to the year it was enacted (1970)  
and recalculate the new threshold for AMT taking inflation into  
account. You can't repeal it (political third-rail), and it makes no  
sense to pick a new arbitrary number...

It was written to focus on 155 specific taxpayers, guaranteeing that  
the 200 Million other taxpayers would agree to it, but now it may  
impact about 50% of all households that earn between $100K-200K, a  
number substantially larger than 155. As i recall, the past  
administration suspended this temporarily, and if this is allowed to  
kick back in, let's see the ruling party spin this as a repeal of a  
Bush taxcut, even though it takes money out of the pockets of hundreds  
of thousands of people BELOW the oft-discussed $250K/yr income level  
(the folks that were guaranteed a tax cut)...

Should be fun.

BTW, has the OP gotten a useful answer on KVMs for his USB Sun servers?

Lionel