The Taxation Issue
One of the greatest challenges that Republican President Donald Trump is facing today is that of fulfilling his promise to the affluent Americans that he would lower the taxes that are being levied on them. Many economists have voiced their opinion on how such a move might widen the current gap between the wealthy and low-class Americans, a matter that is apparently not convincing President Trump. House Republicans returned to business last week after their August recess, a top agenda for them in the subsequent sessions will be drafting a ‘major tax-cut bill for Congress to pass’ (Editorial par. 1). It is not clear how the debates on this proposed legislation will turn out, but I am hopeful that whatever happened on the
…show more content…
The authors of the articles reviewed are using a plain and straightforward language to address the American audience and the whole world. It’s aim being to consider the mess that the Trump administration is, and likely to cause if it introduces a new law that will reduce taxes levied on the wealthy. Leonhardt, for instance, agrees with Adolph Wagner’s proposition that taxes should rise when societies become wealthier. Many individuals desire that their schools, hospitals, and military become better as their levels of life rise. If this is to happen, they have to part with a larger portion of their money in the form of taxes. But if they are unwilling to do this then they should not expect anything more from their governments. Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs that Trump’s administration is reluctant to accept.
Unlike the editorial that is relatively direct with its proposals on what the Trump government should do to raise revenue levels without necessarily having to lower the taxes on the rich, Leonhardt’s opinion is critical of the Republicans’ move, terming it as a ‘nice fantasy.’ The NYT editorial calls the reforms Mr. Trump is suggesting a ‘false promise’ and instead advocates for changes in the corporate taxes. It terms such a move as a ‘sensible path’ that
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.
The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute
Parent Corporation owns 85% of the common stock and 100% of the preferred stock of Subsidiary Corporation. The common stock and preferred stock have adjusted bases of $500,000 and $200,000, respectively, to Parent. Subsidiary adopts a plan of liquidation on July 3 of the current year, when its assets have a $1 million FMV. Liabilities on that date amount to $850,000. On November 9, Subsidiary pays off its creditors and distributes $150,000 to Parent with respect to its preferred stock. No cash remain to be aid to Parent with respect to the remaining $50,000 of its liquidation preference for the preferred stock, or with respect to any common stock. In each of Subsidiary’s tax years, less than %10 of its gross
The American government has struggled with the issue of taxes and the budget for over a hundred years. Class conflict, adversarial political parties, and convoluted economic philosophies have resulted in a never-ending debate over taxation. The New York Times newspaper article, “Senate Panel Vote Backs Budget Plan”, from June 1993, discusses the current feelings of the time in regards to the budget and taxation. Moreover, the article mentions factors such as democrat-republican debate, trickle down economics, and high verse low taxes for the middle class. The issues discussed in this 1993 article differ only slightly from the taxation conversation of today. However, now in 2011, we face a budget crisis that threatens the American economy
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.
BBC: For the longest, Republicans have said the U.S. tax system is in need of repairing and Trump is the one taking the stand on it. He’s called for significant tax cuts which
In the article “Job One: Tax Code Rewrite,” William O’Keefe, an author who cares about tax reform, argues that the Obama Administration should rewrite the tax code in order to reduce the unemployment rate. He supports this claim with a formal tone by using opinions and anecdotes as evidence. According to William, we need “systematic reforms to our tax code and regulatory policy.” The author targets a tax reform audience that cares about the economy. William’s purpose is to persuade readers that Obama’s stimulus tax bill will not help the economy or business in the long run. This work is significant because it challenges the Obama Administration to rethink their priorities.
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
Democrats and Republicans in the United States have contrastive stances on the implication and enforcement of taxes. Typically, members of the Democratic Party support a progressive tax, which taxes higher earners at a higher rate. Republicans, however, tend to agree with a flat tax. This policy taxes everyone at the same rate, regardless of income. Although these two ideologies are the most common, there is still a place for a third or fourth opinion from other political parties. The Democratic and Republican views on taxes don’t include every possibility for the United States.
It is clear that the political spectrum has two distinct sides, where leftist or liberals are constantly competing with rightist or conservatives to promote their political ideas. In the case of Steve Brouwer and David Horowitz: it is no different. Each of these writers clearly define where they stand in the political spectrum. Brouwer’s stance is on the left or liberal unlike Horowitz where he maintains more conservative views on the right. In this essay, I will contrast the writings of Steve Brouwer’s “If We Decided to Tax the Rich”, and David Horowitz’s “The Intellectual Class War.” Although some superficial similarities exist, the
It is with out a doubt that in our country the United States of America the lower and middle class have the common perception that the government and the “super rich” have some kind of unknown agreement to maintain extremely lower tax rates on the “super rich”. What do the “super rich” do with all the saved money coming from the tax cut is another unknown, perhaps some luxurious new home, car, or maybe put it to work and continue getting richer. While all this may be true to some degree, one of the “super rich” elite members has stepped fourth not only once but a few time but none compare to his current attempt to make change.
Seth Klarman is a republican billionaire hedge-fund manager who, generally, doesn’t share a lot about his personal beliefs to the public. So it was very shocking when he designated his Baupost Group (the hedge-fund group that he manages) letter to the topic of the president, who he called a mad man, back in February of 2017. In the letter, he criticized investors who have faith in Trump’s promise to bring tax cuts. Klarman said that investors who are hypnotized by Trump’s bold statements will be upset and disappointed when little to no change occurs. He also said that if Trump did deliver on lower tax rates, Americans should not rely on ‘voodoo economics’ to take care
Since the recent passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, on October 21, 1998, making the Internet tax free, there has been an intense debate on whether to tax or not to tax Internet purchases. The conservative side, also known as the Republicans, is opposed to Internet taxation saying that it is too costly to collect taxes on Internet purchases. They also believe that since Internet retailers do not have a physical presence in every state, why should the state receive sales tax on a nonexistent store in that state? This would be taxation without representation (par. 18 Lukas). On the other hand, the liberals, also known as democrats, believe that taxation of the Internet should be lawful because
When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.