Eighteen Years of Political Gridlock Essay

In today’s society the majority of American taxpayers want to know which party gives them the most “bang for their buck.” The Democrats favor the Keynesian theory, which suggests managing the economy by keeping it on an even keel and avoiding fluctuations in the business cycle. This theory suggests stimulating the economy by putting money in the hands of consumers to trigger demand. This would increase government spending and possibly cut taxes in the process. On the contrary, Republicans tend to favor the Supply Side theory. This theory suggests economic stimulation can be achieved by focusing on increasing supply rather than demand. In other words, if companies make it, consumers buy it.

The main concepts of the article are describing the corporate welfare system and how it is responsible for growing economic imbalances between the poor and rich populations. The article elaborated on how we cannot ignore the issue anymore because of the substantial loss that we are facing by letting the gap grow (Huff, 1993). The article also goes into the IRS and how there are tax exemptions and deductions that people qualify for and what is allowed.

Democrats, better yet known as America’s modern day Republicans, were composed of “non-producers”—bankers, merchants, spectators—who sought to utilize their government affiliations to enhance their wealth. This was done at the disadvantage of the “producing classes”—farmers, artisans and laborers. The Democrats adopted a hands-off policy regarding

In the The Politics of Bad Ideas, Bryan Jones and Walter Williams examine the United States’ economic policies of the past quarter century and explore the policy practices of the nation, while stressing the importance of evidence-based policy. Jones, a political scientist, and Williams, an economist, argue that the persistence of bad ideas in shaping American policy continues to exist, despite evidence that certain policies do not work. The Politics of Bad Ideas examines why bad economic ideas, such as cutting taxes without cutting spending, have become so influential in shaping fiscal policies. Using in-depth scholarly research and economic analysis, Jones and Williams explore why these bad ideas continue to thrive, despite overwhelming evidence that they in fact cause damage to the federal government's economy in the long-run. The

Despite dipping below ten percent between the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the income gap in the United States has climbed steadily over the last fifty years. From its low point in 1973, the wealthiest Americans’ income share now exceeds even that which they held in 1928, on the eve of the Great Depression. Experts have pointed to several potential culprits, including the underrepresentation of lower- and middle-class citizens in legislatures, the shrinking power of organized labor, the expanding power of organized business, and a tax system that seems to disproportionately favor those at the top at the expense of those on the bottom. These factors vary greatly in level of impact and the feasibility of potential solutions,

Class-warfare is a term that is often thrown around by Republicans to describe any attempt to tax the upper-class, and yet Republicans and Democrats alike have found common ground when it comes to eliminating the carried-interest tax break. Recently, President Barack Obama met with Business Roundtable, an association comprising of the nation’s top CEOs, to argue his case for eliminating the prominent tax loophole. He states that the tax loophole provides no recognizable economic benefit, but instead is causing the middle-class to suffer financially as a consequence. With the current income disparity levels at record highs, the financial industry has also become the new target for many 2016 presidential nominees such as Sanders, Clinton, Bush, and Trump to name a few. So the question that begs to be answered is “will

Nevertheless, designing an intelligent budget is essential to the policy cycle because nearly every public policy requires some kind of government expenditure. As James E. Anderson writes in Public Policymaking, “many important programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation primarily entail transfers payments – moving large sums of money taxpayers to government and then to beneficiaries, who spend it on goods and services in the private economy.” One of the major budget battles explained in Cliffhanger revolves around disagreements over how much tax revenue should be collected from citizens; Obama gives strong preference to budget plans that include more taxation of the wealthy, while his Republican led Congress constructed a budget that cut spending on programs like Obamacare and allow room for lowered income tax rates. In fact, Ryan’s The Path to Prosperity aims to eliminate Obamacare completely from the federal budget equation and cap discretionary spending. After examining the way that taxation and spending affect policies and programs,

A recent Tax Foundation report determined that not all tax expenditures are equal, urging policy makers to abandon some. The urging comes from the report’s author and economist Alan Cole.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Taxation has always been a hot-button issue in the United States, as it was one of the primary reasons the United States revolted from the British. The media have once again turned its attention to the issue of taxation, but primarily on the increasing of taxes solely on upper-class citizens. The United States currently employs a progressive tax rate, which means that the upper class already is liable for a higher percentage of taxes. During the current presidential campaign, each of the candidates has their own unique idea of tax reform. Some of the candidates’ tax plans cut taxes for all through the change to a flat tax rate, while other plans do quite the contrary and raise taxes for all. The candidates who are favoring the increase of taxes on the wealthy are attempting to enact laws, which increase funding for government programs, attempt to redistribute the wealth to the lower class, and eliminate the debt of the United States. However, the candidates who are attempting to enact a flat tax rate are attempting to eliminate outdated government programs and to help to increase jobs. A higher tax rate on the wealthy through a progressive tax system, at a cursory glance, may appear to be beneficial, however, I am arguing to show the negative effects not only for the wealthy but the United States economy as a whole.

This policy brief focused on the continuous increase of income inequality in the United States since the 1970s and how states could minimized it. The brief noted some differences in the redistribution policies in some states that may help explained this variation in income equality. Hatch and Rigby (2014) then measured four kinds of State tax and economic policies that can explained its impact on the income distribution among the top one percent and the overall income distribution. The income redistribution policies are as follows: (i.) increase the tax rate on the wealthy people such as capital gains tax, top marginal earnings, and corporate income tax; (ii.) reduce the taxes on the poor such as the provision of tax credits, and reduce the sales tax on goods and services that mostly affected the poor; (iii.) regulate the labor market that will warrant sufficient minimum wages, with the removal of the right to work laws; and (iv.) the relationship between state expenses on the poor through health, welfare, and education that may further increase the overall income inequality.

For the first time in 50 years, a tax bill passed that granted larger cuts to the wealthy and business owners in hopes to stimulate savings, growth, and investment that will help everyone else. This bill wiped out several years of revenues ($150 billion/year) traditionally used for incremental program increases and deficit reduction. In 1983, the President has able to regain deferral spending powers taken away by a provision in the 1974 Act. This provision was negating by the Supreme Court an unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the separation of powers (Wildavsky et al., 2004, p. 90).

Tax reforms have been introduced quite frequently by the US Federal Government in recent years. In this paper we shall only be examining Trump’s tax plan, that is, the plan of the President supported by a friendly Republican Congress. The plan concerns federal taxes levied on individuals and businesses . It owes much to the tax reform plan of the GOP (Great Old Party = Republicans), and has been broadly debated. The stated principal aim of Trump’s Plan is to change the US tax system by making it more growth friendly, specifically through a reduction in the tax rates on individuals and businesses, in accordance with today’s prevailing approach. Other declared minor aims are: to introduce tax relief for middle-class Americans; to

Liberals and Conservatives cannot find any settlement regarding federal government involvement. Taxes help carry out the nation’s needs but the amount of money collected is the issue. Conservatives feel that those who earn money should keep their money to promote more business. On the other end of the spectrum, Liberals find that having higher taxes can create new jobs and opportunities. These opposing ideas establish that the issues concerning taxes cannot be resolved. Liberals need money to support their government programs while Conservatives believe that these programs are wasteful of tax money. These perspectives on taxes have a direct correlation on which class they would like to benefit in society. When Liberals create new jobs from tax money, they intend to support the lower class and provide new opportunities for them. In comparison, Conservatives fund the upper class so that business owners can invest in their own businesses. This causes political and social tensions on who is going to receive the most monetary benefits from the government. Along with these issues, federal government involvement becomes more complex when the economy is debated on how it should be controlled. Conservative and Liberal views on who they want to benefit in society have similarities to how they want to control the nation’s economy. The Market System is the Liberal view in which the government regulates the economy to prevent business corruption and harm against the lower class. On the contrary, for America to have economic growth, Conservatives want a Free Market System where business can function without government control and wealthy business owners can invest in their own business. These two ideas make the nation’s economy controversial. The differences in who receives the

As the tax cuts enacted by George W Bush during his presidency come to a close, the importance of reconciling spending and taxation has produced a spirited debate as to the best manner in which to solve the debt crisis. One voice in the debate is that of Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of the holding company Berkshire Hathaway and one of the richest men in the world. He has come out against the status quo tax policies, stating “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.” However Mr. Buffet’s analysis of the situation fundamentally assumes two things about raising the taxes on the rich: first, that

In 1995, US Congressional lawmakers introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restrict federal spending to the sum of its collected revenues in any given fiscal year. The “Balanced Budget Amendment” would’ve taken full effect in 2002, guaranteeing a balanced federal budget unless a budgetary deficit was approved by two thirds of the Senate . The proposed amendment passed the House of Representatives but came up one vote short in the senate. More than two decades later, the US budget remains an incendiary topic; Total federal debt exceeds $15 Trillion dollars and the Federal Budget Deficit