Gst Reform Proposal Essay

The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.

Whilst William McBride, chief economist for Tax Foundation website, sided with tax cut policy saying that to strengthen the financial state, “we should lower taxes on the earnings of capital,” “workers and the businesses that hire them,” Chye-ching Huang and Nathaniel Frentz, both are senior Tax Policy analysts, completely debunked the evidence McBride provided to support his argument, which includes the review of twenty-three among twenty-six studies he thought to advocate the idea. Indeed, as one conducts research, regardless of what sources it comes from, agreement over tax issue should never be found as a unanimous answer. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to reach a definite conclusion rests on the fact that although some statistics may show economic growth was in step with tax cut, correlation does not mean causation: just as ice-cream sale and murder rate increase during summer time, it is baseless to assume that higher ice-cream consumption leads to higher odds for crime. Moreover, because there is a great amount of research has been done on taxes, different interpretations from these data are understandable. Before concluding that “nearly every empirical study of taxes and economic growth published in a peer reviewed academic journal” finds cutting taxes improves the financial status quo, thus, people need to consider

Expansion of the Medicaid coverage to all new eligible adults and increase fee for service and managed care by primary care physicians will be financed by federal funding. This will cause an outreageous increase in the Federal deficit from the historical 2.9% Gross Domestic Product to more than 20% by 2050.

The view on the current government tax policy is considered “bloated, complex, and antiquated system” that overburdens United States taxpayers. Back in 1996, a proposal was brought by Republicans to Congress which was then passed, but sent to Clinton who later vetoed

Government expenses for social programs aimed at the poor would potentially be reduced. This might result in slightly lower taxes for other

But the most crucial question they face is not how to make Western Australia happy with the fairness of GST distribution. Nor even whether the three Labor premiers – now balanced with the three Coalition ones – can convince the federal ALP that Tony Abbott’s

In this view governments are small, protectors of individual choice and focussed on the wealth creation that will trickle down to the more vulnerable. This Strategy was commissioned by the State Government but it only has some of the policy levers to tackle cost of living. Income support is a Australian Government matter as are most of the macroeconomic levers influencing the cost of living. Also taxation revenues are dominated by the Australian Government, and state taxation accounts for only a small proportion of total government revenues. Nevertheless there are goods and services over which the State Government has some control of pricing policy. Within these constraints, the Strategy focuses on feasible options for the State Government to pursue. The aim is to identify a framework and set of actions that can be delivered in the context of an already tight State Budget. This is especially important given that the State's revenue base is already largely regressive, that is the poor pay relatively more. In times of fiscal constraint where State Government departments and Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) are to find savings, they often turn to strategies, which are also regressive. In recent months we have witnessed an array of responses by departments and GBEs designed in part to improve their bottom lines. These responses include increases to user charges such as public housing rents and adult education fees,

The first component of the Hamilton proposal is establishing a social safety net. This is estimated to reduce the federal debt by $265 billion in the next ten years. This is done by 4 different ways. The first is transitioning to bundled payments in Medicare. Which will intends to establish a global payment system where providers are paid a fixed fee to cover all spending. This will provide incentives to treat diseases and encourage improvements in quality all while cutting costs, an expected $100 billion over the next ten years. The second part is reforming federal support for risky development. This calls for the reform of federal disaster programs which will reduce risk in public and private investments in disaster prone areas, and is expected to reduce the deficit by $40 billion. Next is restructuring the cost sharing and supplemental insurance for medicare, this is expected to save $125 billion over ten years.

The implementation of national sales tax alongside other tax systems will increase the income for the federal government and enable the government to reduce the current national debt (Hodge, 2017).

These goals will improve taxes for most people, and help to pay for a

One benefit of government intervention in Australia is the more efficient allocation of resources in the market. Australia’s current policy for this reallocation of resources is to take money from select industries using taxes and

A change to lump-sum taxation (Specify whether increase or decrease is needed to shift IS curve to the right.)

They use figures to show to separate families of differing incomes. One has an income $12,000 and another has an income $120,000. Next, they estimate a cost of living at $600 and $48 in taxes from a state with an 8 percent sales tax. The low-income family pays “4.8 percent of their income” and the high-income family pays “less than one-half of one percent of their income.” The point they are trying to make is that a sales tax hurts the poor, and a progressive income tax does not burden the poor. However, progressive income taxes might look like a good solution but they have hidden consequences. Companies have to pay large amounts of money due to the income tax and they put that hidden burden on their customers, driving prices up to cover the big business taxes. When the poverty stricken buy something they are really paying the high business

Clearly regressive and proportional taxes present a growing problem in regard to rising poverty rates in the United States.

Further taking the economic perspective into account, this would even help the nation as a whole by increasing its total production and achieving economic growth. This in turn could lead to greater equality amongst the citizens and the whole theory about levying taxes prospective in nature could be dropped without having any arguments.