Conservative View On Tax System Essay

This idea of reducing taxes to increase investment within the economy sounds like a good idea but hasn’t lived up to its expectations historically. The idea of supply side economics wasn’t a new idea for the American tax code. During the early 1920s, income tax rates were cut multiple times which averaged to a total of most rates being cut by a little less than half. The Mellon Tax Cuts named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. He believed that changes in income tax rates causes individuals to change their behavior and practices. As taxes rise, tax payers attempt to reduce taxable income by either working less, retiring earlier, reducing business expansions, restructure companies or spending more money on accountants to find tax loopholes. If executed properly tax cuts can actually benefit economic growth, data from the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) showed that the across-the-board tax cuts in the early 1920s resulted in greater tax payments and larger tax share paid by those in the higher incomes. As the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners were cut from 60 percent or more to just 25 percent, the amount that this tax group payed soared from around 300 million to 700 million per year. (See Figure 2) This sudden massive increase in revenue allowed the U.S. economy to rapidly expand during the mid and late 20s. Between 1920 to 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and

One popular method of tax reform that some of the experts in this field think is worth considering is implementing a flat tax also known as a consumption tax. J. D. Foster says that “any tax with a single tax rate could be considered a flat tax.” An article from the website Tax Policy Center defines consumption as being “income less savings” (Gale). The major difference between an income tax and a consumption tax is the way savings are taxed. With an income tax all income is taxed when it is earned and again when interest is earned on any savings. Critics of an income tax say that this is double taxation and

The Fair Tax is not a tax break. It ensures revenue neutrality meaning that the FairTax will give the government the same amount of revenue as the income tax system while spurring economic growth. The critics of the FairTax say that the rate should be at least 10% higher in order for the government to have revenue neutrality. With the substantially higher sales tax rate people may evade this tax and just buy the necessities. A vast majority of poor people are all in debt because they spend even when they don’t have money, when people have more money they save anyway. This fact leads critics to believe that since the poor and middle class spend the most they will be bear the burden of the substantially higher sales tax. FairTax answers this criticism by saying that the government will fully reimburse taxes for those whose income is below poverty level. The “prebate” discussed earlier and the elimination of FICA taxes

First off, there are many people who do not even know what a flat tax is. By definition, a flat tax is described as, “a very precisely defined and coherent tax structure: a combination of a cash-flow tax on business income and a tax on workers’ income, both levied at the same, single rate” (Keen 4). Now, this just means that every person and every business, no matter the income, would be taxed at the same rate. Realistically speaking, when people talk about taxes, it is a matter of who wins and who loses. If we decided to adopt a flat tax system, people of lower income families would be suffering, “Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370” (Gale 155). With this being said, the families of higher income would actually be thriving of a system

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.

People do not enjoy talking about taxes because they are too political, confusing, and depressing. It is no secret that the American tax code is a mess and something many economists describe as too broken to fix. Despite this, politicians have never stopped from trying to “fix” the code, yet they have had very little success. The U.S. Government’s tax code currently comprises “more than 67,000 pages of complexities” (Boortz, Linder, & Woodall 14). The Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) was founded in 1995 with one goal: create the simplest and best tax reform plan that would work in the modern market and economy. The AFFT’s best solution was a bill which they promptly called the FairTax.

With the presidential elections coming up, different tax policies are being debated between the candidates. Whether it is proposed by a Democratic or a Republican presidential candidate, there have been many possible solutions presented on how to reform the current tax code. Focusing specifically on four candidates, two from the Democratic Party, and two from the Republican Party, I will compare and contrast their respective tax proposals. While the Democratic candidates generally agree with President Obama’s current tax code, all four candidates are looking to reform it in some way in order to, in their own eyes, better the current tax code affecting today’s citizens.

“I love paying my income tax! This tax system is so easy to understand!” said no United States citizen, ever. No one has ever said this because it is highly unlikely that no one actually enjoys struggling with the complexity of the current income tax system in the United States. The concept of contributing to the good of the community, county, state, and nation through taxation is not new, nor is it generally opposed by American citizens. Most tax paying citizens do not take issue with paying for police and fire protection, roads, and national security with tax dollars. However, what they do take issue with is the fact that the current tax code is a complicated nightmare. It is a bureaucratic mess of rules, regulations, and perhaps even infringements upon personal rights. Because of the complexity of the current tax code, the United States should implement a flat tax system for personal and corporate income tax to ensure consistent and fair taxation and to render the tax code as more user-friendly.

Our current income tax system today is very complex, unfair, inhibits saving, investment and job creation, imposes a heavy burden on families, and weakens the integrity of the democratic process. It can't be fixed and must be replaced. The U.S. income tax code is a long and complex system. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. The administrative costs of the tax system far exceed those borne directly by the IRS. Each year Americans devote 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van produced in the U.S.

"A revolutionary change in our tax system is fundamental to re-energizing the American economy and restoring the American dream" (Moore 1). Currently, there are two major plans being considered to try and fix the tax system in the United States. These two plans are the Flat Tax and the National Retail Sales Tax. "Both the Flat Tax and a National Sales Tax would replace today's discriminatory tax structure with a single low rate. Either plan would promote the kind of capital formation that America needs to boost workers' incomes and raise long-term economic growth" (Mitchell 1). This means that the flat tax would take away the savings from the government and pass them on to the citizens and businesses. By doing this, there would be a rise in long-term economic growth.

The current federal income tax system in the United States (U.S.) is progressive based on the vertical equity principle. However, the tax code is getting increasingly complex and the wealthy are able to avoid paying taxes through loopholes. Hence, more people are yearning for fairness in taxation. With the looming 2016 presidential election, Senator Rand Paul’s proposal of ‘Fair and Flat Tax’ appears to have the most significant change to the current tax policy and I will now analyze if this proposal will improve the efficiency and equity of the U.S. tax code.

This may sound like a tax plan that will relieve the financial burden on lower-income taxpayers, directly benefiting the poor, but in actuality, cutting taxes for all in a regressive manner gives substantially more money to the wealthiest taxpayers and a very small amount to lower income taxpayers. According to his plan, a typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1, 600 more of

Controversy will always follow humans where ever we go. Humans have argued over many issues for centuries, often times with no conclusion or “correct” answer ever in sight. One common issue that has been debated since the early 1900s is whether or not the more wealthy individuals in a society should be taxed more heavily than their poorer counterparts. Many have argued over the pros and cons of the taxation of richer people, but when one looks at it objectively, the pros far outweigh the cons. Not only do the pros outweigh the cons, but a question one must ask oneself is whether or not prosperous people really need that extra money? Richer people should be taxed higher because it is better for the economy, social classes will

The supporters of the Flat Tax system are quick to point out this system's attributes but not as quickly as the criticisms by those who oppose it. The filing of taxes each year would be much easier because there would be one set rate to pay. This type of system also discourages, and makes it almost impossible, to find and use any existing schemes that are present to avoid paying taxes. However, because there is a set rate at which everyone needs to pay, this system is quite unfair. Those who earn and have a lot of money should not pay the same amount as someone who has only a fraction of their wealth. The wealthier you are, the more you should pay because you can afford it. If there is a set tax rate it would be too high to some people and pocket change to others. A system like this also takes away many, if not all tax deductions. An event like this would cause irreparable injury to the middle class, who often times rely heavily on money they will get back from tax deductions.

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