According to Mohr and Fourie (2004), the tax burden should be spread equitably among the various

Wealth is often harder to tax however it is often caused by income so the tax system previously described may be used to reduce wealth and thus stopping inequality. This system can also be found in wealth though, with inheritance tax being used progressively. For example any money above 325,000 is taxed at 40%. This then creates a source of revenue for the government but also stops people inheriting huge sums of money, stopping inequality. However this system has its flaws as the tax has to be paid first, it could also be argued as unfair as someone who works for their money is entitled to leave it to who they want, especially as it was already taxed when it was earned. This system has also caused many pensioners to move abroad where what they leave is taxed less. The money inherited is also often used by entrepreneurs to fund businesses so the system may also reduce the possibility for future in income tax. This systems also sonly raises

“The weight must be distributed equally — not upon each man an equal amount, but a tax proportionate to his ability to pay.” — Representative Justin Morrill (Republican — Vermont) (Shepard, 2010). Graduated income tax is a system of taxation in which people are assessed at a greater percentage of their

Within the United States, there is an unequal collection and distribution of resources. The current unequal or socially unjust tax system is a direct contrast to the social justice theories of John Rawls. The taxation discrepancy has ramifications on many important aspects of our society, such as health care, employment, old age security, and education. These issues affect everyone in our society, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Thorough more equal taxation, we have the potential to create a more society as a whole.

-Individuals should have the sense of fairness in, "what is distributed" or "what is right."

In the United States, there are real imbalances in our wealth and wages. If these variance are the fundamental reason for political inconsistency, then these private imbalances should be decreased in order to move toward a political system where power is dispersed among all citizens. Changes in the distribution of riches and income will not change through the economy but should be established through different sorts of public policies on the state and federal level.

Unfortunately, the two alternative principles of justice, the principle of equal distribution and the principle of distribution according to need, also present shortcomings. Under the principle of equal distribution, all students would be awarded

Generally, the income earners pay less income tax and more payroll taxes while the high-end income earners pay more income tax and less payroll taxes. The low income earners however get credit benefits as the government pays for their payroll taxes. Therefore, the high income racket still suffers the burden of individual taxes. In 2014, the bottom 20% had an effective tax rate of -4.5% while the top 1% faced an average of 24.6% a margin of 29% creates a very huge economical gap between the rich and the poor. This only ends up hurting the economy more. As a result, I believe the highest effective tax that should be applied to the top 1% should not be more than 20%. If it goes beyond 20%, they shall start demanding for tax cuts and further design ways to evade the tax payments.

Income inequality has been a topic of concern since the 1920’s. Never has it been of bigger concern than now. Since the year 2000, the separation between the haves and have not has widened tremendously. I don’t have issue with those that earn more being taxed more, but I do have an issue with how it is distributed to those that are less fortunate.

EQUALITY. A term used from previous ancestors that came to America for freedom. A term used from Americans that fought for their equal rights today. A term avoided in the state of being taxed. Two out of three tax systems are set to be genuinely unfair to Americans of the lower and upper class: a progressive system and a regressive system. Today, Americans are paying in a progressive tax system which is when the tax rate will increase if the taxable income increases (“Preface to…”). Americans pay an average of 18.2% on federal income, 10.6% on state, 7.65% on social security and Medicaid, 10.3% on sales tax and so forth (“How Much Tax…”). The one system that will work for our nation’s economy and benefit the people is known as the

Spicer (2008) links distributive justice and resource allocation by proposing four possible approaches to establish divergent criteria, they are: democratic means, age based, personal responsibility based, and cost utility.

In order to provide society with “fairness” every individual must be taxed at the same percentage

Policy makers have introduced a solution to the staggering proportion of taxes that Americans spend. The flat tax, based on an idea developed by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of Stanford University to create a fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system (Mitchell 1, 11). There are four basic criteria that make up a flat tax. First is a single low rate on taxable income, the baseline for taxable income would be raised to a certain amount dictated by a personal exemption. Second is simplicity, all Americans would fill out the same postcard-sized form to pay their taxes. Third is the reduction or elimination of deductions, credits, and exemptions, depending

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a

It’s important to understand that revenue must cover the total cost and that the benefit of the good must determine how the cost is shared. For example, take education. If the benefit is shared at a 60% public and 40% private split, then the cost share/tax incidence and revenue generation must also be shared at that same split. You will have the private benefit pay via service charges and the public pay via broad based taxes. Because the externality is broad based then broad based tax should pay part, like income or sales, or property. If you paid the full cost then you would subsidize the social benefit, less educated. The cost share should reflect the benefit share and the revenue structure should reflect benefits received. So, we would have service charges for education consisting of tuition and fees. The degree of subsidy is the same as the degree of externality you feel for the good. Since the public benefits greatly from educated people, they too, will fund education through a broad based tax like sales or property.