Economy: Taxes are Good Especially at the Macroeconomic Level

However, these long and short term economic improvements are only what is predicted to happen and there negatives to the reduction in income tax. A factor that the government must take into account is the budget deficit, can the government afford to simply cut income tax that is a large source of revenue for the budget. A worsened budget deficit could have devastating impacts upon the economy, for example less people able to have the benefits they require, (this would also reduce demand in the economy as those on benefits generally spend the money they have as they do not have spare to save, this may damage the economy even further) or a reduction in money towards health care. Also, a reduction in income tax does not necessarily mean

rate, in periods of higher income tax the GDP sees an increase thus proving that higher taxes do not create a drag in the economy. When the top marginal tax rate is at a 75 to 80 there is an about 4.6 GDP growth creating this “Sweet-spot”.

if there is a high “sin tax” (i.e., taxes levied on goods such as alcohol and tobacco products that are

A government is responsible in maintaining and improving the country’s structural elements, such as economy, military, agriculture, education and so on. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, the government requires a budget, which it acquires through taxation of the population. In the reading “Why I Like to Pay my Taxes”, Neil Brooks insists that taxes are a good thing, and that they are necessary for society to function, and beneficial in all aspects. He also criticises: people that see tax increase as negative, call taxation a great burden and a restriction of freedom. Neil Brooks shows bias by displaying only the pros of taxation. It is fair to say that arguments with regards to the pros and cons of taxation are a very grey area. The

Fiscal policies, if used efficiently, can be extremely effective and helpful to the economy. However, many pros and cons are tied to this method. Firstly, fiscal policies can be effective because they can focus spending to precise purposes.1 Therefore, the money that the government spends can be used on the things that would benefit the economy the most. Additionally, the government can reduce negative externalities with the use of taxes.1 An example of this would be taxing things that have a negative impact on the environment, such as companies producing an immense amount of pollution.1 Additionally, the government can also tax companies that are using too much of a limited resource.1 By doing this, the government not only can use the money gained from taxing to help the economy, but they would be reducing externalities such as these in order to help the country. Lastly, the effects of a fiscal period are much more immediate and quicker in comparison to a monetary policy,1 This means that the recessionary

According to Benjamin Franklin, "nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes". Given that there is little one can do with regards to death, short of living in a sort of stasis where nothing has any consequence and no one communicates, the only impact we can do is to try to limit the impact our taxes have on us.

The recent global economic recession, the slow recovery, and the looming threat of a “double dip” recession have left most Americans bewildered. The issues are complex. The way ahead is unclear and fraught with danger. No one in seems to be quite sure what to do. Politics bicker over ideological talking points while nine percent of their constituents can’t find a job. The price of food, housing, and healthcare rise but wages remain stagnant. The housing market continues to flounder while interest rates hover near zero. While the debate about over the nation’s debt rages across Capitol Hill, our leaders seem unable to address the problem in a meaningful way. Most of them, however will agree that we do have a problem. The President’s 2010

The author firstly points out the problems of tax system. Too complicated, too many special allowances and specific taxes, and too much money drained out of the pockets of working Australians. The author cites many examples, such as national insurance, tax accountancy guides called ToUey's, the Byzantine complexity, the final report, The Single Income Tax, to state the necessity to propose a very radical yet necessary change to how the government raises taxes, aimed at making the system cheaper, fairer and more legitimate. The cost of complexity is high and, in addition, complexity has led to the tax system having lost legitimacy as many people do not even really understand how much tax they should pay, let alone how much others should pay. That opacity, a direct consequence of complexity, inevitably leads many to suspect others of not paying their fair share. Data is listed to support the view that the complicity of tax system has damaged the legitimacy of the

I agree with you that with the neoliberalism views, under Thatcher in UK and Reagan in US, the administration cut taxes significantly. Harvey states: “Corporate taxes were reduced dramatically, and the top personal tax rate was reduced from 70 to 28 per cent in what was billed as ‘the largest tax cut in history’” (Harvey 2005). So, cutting taxes seems like a good idea, but at the same time the government most likely will start cutting budget, cutting back on some government programs. The rich started to accumulate more wealth and those in need for various government programs, were disadvantaged. In result, there was a shift for greater social inequality and the economic power of the upper class was reestablished.

When given the option to merge three municipalities, people, living within these towns, would seem hesitant to choose to support the merging because of a lack of support showing that this a good thing. The lack of research done on the effects of merging of three towns, shows that nobody really know what will happen if the consolidation was passed. The three towns of Round Lake Beach, and Round Lake Park would merge into one Round Lake area, as well as, all the business and public services that each town offers would merge into one. The people in support of this merger suggest that merging these three town will save the townspeople money by reducing taxes the people pay.There is a lack of evidence to show how much money merging the three towns would save. The reduction of taxes may be a good thing but it affects more than just the local businesses, local governments, it has effects over the schools and their teachers, police departments, hospitals, and fire departments.

Taxes should not be seen as a waste but as a treasure. The treasure that will get you affordable health, public transportation, parks, and a public

Another part of the Trump tax plan that is beneficial to economic growth is the elimination of the estate tax, better known as the death tax. The estate tax, in a nutshell, is a tax on your right to transfer property after death. According to the IRS “It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.

According to recent news, Rep. Fred Costello filed a bill (HB 1181) that would eliminate property taxes and replace them with increased sales taxes. Several studies have found that commercial and industrial investment tends to be more responsive to tax rates than residential investment. This means that the increasing shift of the property tax burden to businesses may cause them to reduce or eliminate commercial investment, leading them to investment in other areas where the property taxes are less burden. Studies have shown that tax breaks for residential property, such as Save Our Homes, will increase housing prices for the benefited properties. Higher property taxes suppress housing prices. The dissimilar nature of the tax burden caused by

Most commonly, sin taxes are excise or consumption taxes that charge fees for guilty pleasures or human indulgence. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Sin taxes, therefore, are intended to encourage citizens to consume or use taxed items responsibly or discourage behavior associated with the consumption of taxed items. Goods or services generally taxed through sin tax policy have some common characteristics including inelastic demand, promote behavior that is harmful to the individual, and promote behavior that is harmful to others. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Goods or services targeted by sin taxes have an inelastic demand because they are generally habitual, addictive, or highly pleasurable. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Further, these goods or services are targeted by sin tax legislation because consuming or utilizing the good or services can lead to self-destructive behavior, negative consequences for communities, and generally are considered socially undesirable. Thus, sin taxes are not prohibitive; citizens are allowed to consume targeted goods and services as long as the tax is not steep enough to make consumption of the good or service impossible. (Viscusi 556) Further, the voluntary nature of sin taxes is generally more tolerable than involuntary nature of income taxes. (Schmidt, Barr and Swanson 1677)

The reason for tax rates is not always directly related to economic growth. For example, a higher tax on alcohol and cigarettes may serve to reduce their consumption habits.