This is an updated version of an article published on March 15.

Hardly anyone likes the alternative minimum tax, a provision that both President Trump’s skeletal tax plan and the House Republican overhaul would eliminate.

At its most basic, the A.M.T.’s goal is simple: In a tax system with enough loopholes to fill a macramé tapestry, the idea was to ensure that the richest taxpayers were not able to skip out on paying altogether. A version was introduced in 1969 after Congress discovered that — are you ready? — 155 taxpayers with taxable incomes over $200,000 paid no tax.

But critics across the political spectrum have long complained that it has failed to live up to the promise. Both Mr. Trump and the House Republicans’ proposed overhaul of the code would eliminate the individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes. During his Democratic presidential campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont suggested replacing the A.M.T. with a flat 28 percent rate on deductions for high-income households. Even the National Taxpayer Advocate within the Internal Revenue Service once called it the most serious problem facing taxpayers.

The minimum tax has gone through several iterations, but the essential intent has not changed: to limit the amount of deductions available to the richest Americans. Over the years, though, inflation has eaten away at its effectiveness — as has the exclusion of interest and dividend income, which insulates the richest Americans.