Losers: The rich. Clinton proposes three new ways to tax high earners more, including a 4 percent additional tax on the less than 1 percent of individuals who earn $2.5 million or more per year; a new minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent, modeled on the “Buffett rule,” for individuals earning $1 million or more; and a hard limit on the value of deductions (outside of charitable contributions) that high earners can claim on their tax
The debates on tax cuts are making their way to headlines of every radio station, newspaper, and television station in America. Today, tax cuts would only benefit the wealthy and wouldn’t really benefit the lower class. “The administration and it’s congressional alleys are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of the business income primarily benefiting
As most people should KNOW that if you focus on getting more money from the rich, you’re losing jobs. Because, in order for there to be jobs you’re going to need money, and if you keep taking larger amounts from these successful companies; the amount of income the worker gets is reduced or they get fired because there just isn’t enough money to keep them working. Hillary Clinton thinks the American people should be taxed more in order for her “plan” to work. Taxes is what her plan consists on, so obviously she wants to raise taxes but as is the average American pays over $10,000-$20,000 in
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,
The free market-oriented Tax Foundation’s analysis estimated the revenue increase to be closer to $500 billion over 10 years. The report also found, though, that ultra-wealthy individuals would see the largest dip in after-tax income under Clinton’s plan, while most income brackets would feel minimal effects.
Donald Trump has finally released his tax plan. Hallelujah. His plan is filled with what many conservatives and liberals have been eagerly calling for. In part of his plan, he pushes for a flat income tax for all businesses at 15% and a repatriation rate at 10% claiming this will incentive companies to increase their presence in the US. He still relies on a graduated tax rate of 0%, 10%, 20%, and 25%, which is far more attractive to voters then the current rate of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. This greatly appeals to lower income individuals because the widely held belief is that everyone is taxed and this belief will be to Trump’s advantage. His attacks on Wall Street and their profits and high salaries appeals to many Americans due to lackluster job growth and wage
Amity Shlaes talks about how presidents such as Nixon, and Bush removed millions of Americans from the tax bracket completely and that those same exact people don’t want a proportional tax rate and want to tax the rich because “they can afford it”. That just seems unfair and unjust. The first video was very opinionated saying that the rich now make more money than before, of course they have the money now due to war times & depressions being over however, the less money they have the less likely they’re to make more investments into other things such as creating more offices, and hiring more people to work for their company
As said on npr.org by Danielle Kurtzleben “Donald Trump’s tax plan is indeed a large tax cut, but those cuts would largely benefit the highest earners. According to a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent could see their after-tax incomes increase by up to 16 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom four quintiles would see their incomes grow by 1.9 percent or less.” Donald Trump is focused on making the rich richer and the middle class less fortunate than they already
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.
Opponents claim that having the rich pay more in tax is class warfare. For example, former speech writer for former President Richard Nixon, Ben Stein, said on CBS's Sunday Morning, "I am not quite sure what my sin is. I worked for almost every dollar I have." He argues that the wealthy are being punished. "But for what? I don't own any slaves. I employ many people full- and part-time and they are all excited with their pay... what did I do wrong?"("Extending Tax Cuts") Ben Stein reports this as class warfare, Since it requires him to pay additional tax for working hard and earning more money. The bottom 40% of all income earners benefit greatly from the income tax code. "In fact, they actually pay negative income tax rates due to refundable credits, such as the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit wipe out their tax liability and pay out more money to them than they ever paid in. The income tax burden of low-income earners has trended for years"(Dubay). Since low income earners don’t have enough money to spend on their kids, the government gives them money. In some occasions the government gives these families more than they pay in taxes. Those who oppose this say that raising tax rates on the rich damages economic growth, because it reduces the incentives to work, save, invest, and accept economic risk. Raising taxes on the rich hurts workers at all income
Combating for public reform in the areas of taxation and policies for the wealthy will make positive difference in the economy. Income inequality has been increasing since 1970 (Hatch). One way to battle this issue is to vote to increase taxes among the wealthy. Though, this will not in a sense create income equality however, it would promote additional income and income distribution to lower income households. Through this method the standard income requirements to be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could be lowered, this provides a tax credit to qualified working family units. The EITC helps to reduce inequality among some working families, as this is common example redistribution of our nation’s wealth (Hatch).
By eliminating tax breaks for large corporations, repealing the excise tax on high-cost health insurance, and providing tax relief for middle-class families; the Democratic party hopes to boost the United States’ economy. They believe that increasing taxes on the upper-class and reducing taxes on the middle-class will allow citizens of the middle-class to have more money. This will also allow businesses to continue making money while paying their fair share of
Beginning with the Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s tax policy is “Relief for the Middle Class and an Environment for Long Term Growth.” Per the article, her reforms include unspecified cuts for the middle class and small businesses that share profits with employees. She also aims to raise taxes on medium-term capital gains, which is a new category that would increase the capital gains rate for high-income taxpayers, on investments held from one to six years, from a flat 20 percent to a range of 24 to 36 percent. As a result, higher taxes would be imposed on the wealthy and would discourage those who short-term buy and sell assets (Witte, 2016).
Many citizens of the United States voted for Donald Trump for reasons regarding inequality. During the 2016 Election, Trump planned to cut corporate taxes, “from a top rate of 35 percent to 15 percent; his plans to cut tax rates for the highest earners, from nearly 40 percent now to 33 percent at the top rate; and to reduce regulations on business” (The Washington Post). These were his
"Lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need. Everyone who pays income taxes benefits - while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans. I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we've enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart." -President George W. Bush1
The congressional proposed tax changes will adversely affect the U.S. middle class. According to Pew Research, which claims to obtain its data through non-partisan demographic research and public opinion polling, the American middle class, defined as those making two-thirds to double the median income, makes up about half the population. Further information in this paper is obtained from reliable sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which are typically regarded as center to left, As well as right-leaning sources such as Forbes magazine, whose chief editor, Steve Forbes, is a major Republican. The Congressional Budget Office and the US Census Bureau also supply reliable, researched data, and both Time Inc, Money, and