2016 Presidential Race Picking Up

During the past couple of decades, the decline in the middle class has been associated to the political agenda of the Republican Party. By ending governmental subsidies and other programs created to build the middle class, has ultimately ceased the growth. However, realizing the importance of the middle class to our fragile economic platform, the Democratic and Independent political parties are desperately trying to create and revamp the middle class

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

The American government has struggled with the issue of taxes and the budget for over a hundred years. Class conflict, adversarial political parties, and convoluted economic philosophies have resulted in a never-ending debate over taxation. The New York Times newspaper article, “Senate Panel Vote Backs Budget Plan”, from June 1993, discusses the current feelings of the time in regards to the budget and taxation. Moreover, the article mentions factors such as democrat-republican debate, trickle down economics, and high verse low taxes for the middle class. The issues discussed in this 1993 article differ only slightly from the taxation conversation of today. However, now in 2011, we face a budget crisis that threatens the American economy

The newly president elect, Donald Trump, has lead his campaign with a great emphasis on the campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again.” This phrase is used to represent a time much like what Putnam describes of his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio. In the 1950s, Putnam’s hometown was the “embodiment of the American Dream,” a place in which all classes of people were able to live and grow together. In order to alleviate financial pressure from the lower classes, Trump states "In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages." Trump’s tax plan will exempt single adults whose income is equivalent $25,000 a year, or married adults who jointly earn less than $50,000 a year from paying income taxes. This plan does show favor to the individuals who reside in this tax bracket,

Tim Dickinson published an intriguing article in the Rolling Stone, “How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich”, which scrutinizes the complicated history of the American government. Dickinson’s objective is to persuade the audience that the Republican party is giving leniency towards the upper class through the reduction of taxes, which results in the upper class becoming even more wealthy and the middle and lower classes struggling to make ends meet. He not only utilizes credible sources in order to convey the unreasonable actions of the Republican party, but also uses a multitude of historical facts pertaining to the central concept of his argument to strengthen his statement.

11). He further states that those of the republican party during this era “had little reluctance to negotiate over issues of taxing and spending” and would “declare the resulting compromise a victory, and move on” (Lofgren, 2012, p. 11), there was still the possibilities of bipartisan coalition. Now however, we see stark differences. Although Republicans have been traditionally been more solicitous to those of the upper-class, we see now a primary focus on the wealthy – more so, republicans now appear to be strictly oriented and geared towards the concerns of the rich as opposed to the middle class or “blue-collar” workers (Lofgren, 2012). They do this through the reduction on taxes for said classes, reducing regulations on businesses, and by maintaining a stellar relationship and “open-door” with the giants of wall street. To put it frankly and as best described by Lofgren, republicans are now simply captives to corporate loot (Lofgren,

Recently, our nation’s congress is in a standstill with a divided government. We have more republicans in the legislative branch, but our president is democrat making it very difficult to get anything done. We need a president who can create greater cooperation between democrats and republicans while representing the middle class. Currently, the top one-tenth of one percent has more wealth than the bottom 99 percent combined. This outrageous inequality has to be prevented by dissolving wealth towards those in the bottom. America does have the highest corporate tax rates, but this does not give a liable reason to not pay them, large American companies such as GM and Seagate are making massive profits while paying 0% tax. Therefore, we need economic

It is with out a doubt that in our country the United States of America the lower and middle class have the common perception that the government and the “super rich” have some kind of unknown agreement to maintain extremely lower tax rates on the “super rich”. What do the “super rich” do with all the saved money coming from the tax cut is another unknown, perhaps some luxurious new home, car, or maybe put it to work and continue getting richer. While all this may be true to some degree, one of the “super rich” elite members has stepped fourth not only once but a few time but none compare to his current attempt to make change.

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

Individuals in the United States are being unfairly taxed on their capital gains. For several reasons that I have outlined below, the capital gains rates should not be increased and in fact should be cut.

President Barack Obama’s international tax reform proposal aims at preventing American multinational companies from using current international tax loopholes to avoid being taxed on offshore profits. It also eliminates purported tax incentives for companies perceived to have moved jobs overseas. But more importantly, Obama’s reform attempts to rectify a longstanding tax issue in America, prevalent since the Kennedy Administration and its enactment of the Subpart F regime. The Subpart F section of the Internal Revenue Code was the result of a compromise between an Administration that desired to implement a worldwide taxation system to curb further erosion of the US tax base and a Republican-led Congress that sought to encourage U.S. foreign investment. Although Subpart F has succeeded in increasing the international income stream subject to U.S. taxation, savvy multinational corporations have not only found loopholes in Subpart F but have also avoided the code section altogether by simply filing an election to opt out of corporate status and into disregarded status by way of the check-the-box regulatory regime. This independent study starts by detailing the many methods used by multinationals to avoid the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Then, this document examines the Subpart F regime and other relevant law in an effort to understand the statutory language that allows for corporate tax avoidance. This study then takes a look at two American

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.