Herman Cain's Plan to Reduce Legislation and Boost the Economy

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

Obama believes that the government plays a central role in helping everyone to deal with critical challenges. This is because its effects are far reaching and having an adverse impact on middle class Americans. Moreover, there is less opportunity for young adults who go to college and earn degrees. Yet, they are finding a job market that is unwilling to hire them. To deal with the issues, the President believes that Washington should have a stimulus program that is focused on: improving job growth, reducing taxes on the middle class, encouraging small businesses to innovate, supporting state / local governments and discourages outsourcing. (Killough, 2012)

The current tax code for the United States is almost 74,000 pages long. Or to put that into a different light: About 116 copies of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It is small wonder that a few of the announced candidates for President of the United States, have again begun to kick the tires on the topic of a Flat Tax. But is a flat tax actually a solution to our country’s growing tax complexity? What are the potential economic effects of a flat tax (both positive and negative)? Finally, is a flat tax even a viable solution? In short, will it work? As a concept, a flat tax is spectacular. Simplicity at its finest. As a fiscal policy, I believe that same simplicity must be examined and inspected closely.

However, raising taxes on the rich and corporations is not as helpful to our economy as most people think. Although raising taxes on the top percent of people and companies appears to create more income for the government, the result will make it harder for middle class and lower class citizens to grow. Some argue that by combining several key changes, including the simplification of the tax code to avoid loopholes and the decrease of taxes on the rich and corporations, there will be an improvement in the national economy. Although this may seem a bit counterintuitive, it makes more sense when looked at closely. By lower taxes and remove all loopholes, smaller businesses are given further opportunities to grow instead of facing financial roadblocks and government

A flat tax system in the United States by definition refers to taxing household incomes at the same rate regardless of income levels. Advocates of a flat tax system argue that it will simplify U.S. tax codes and eliminate other taxes. Opponents of a flat tax system argue that it only benefits wealthy individuals and would eliminate the IRS causing wide-spread unemployment. Here are some of the pros and cons of a flat tax system.

If the government starts doing that it would be fairer because everyone is getting the right amount of tax based on their income. But right now the rich and poor have to pay the same amount of money and it doesn’t matter about their income. Right now the rich should not really care about the taxes because they are rich and it doesn’t matter to them. But the taxes do matter to the poor people because they have really less amount of income and a large amount of taxes will affect them. The government has all records of people’s incomes and other information, so if the government makes a rule that the people with more income pay more taxes and the people with less income pay fewer taxes, it would be much better. But the taxes go to the government and the government makes the America better by making newer roads, better environment, and

In conclusion, there are several valid points on both sides of the argument of adopting a flat federal tax. Doing so would undoubtedly make the process of filing taxes much easier, but in my opinion, flat rate taxes should not be an option. I do not find it fair to tax a certain percentage of income which would be a big hit to lower income households and businesses, but a more minimal hit to someone with a higher income. To a wealthy person, that percentage of money could mean sacrificing something relatively unimportant,

Immigration is a highly contested issue in the United States. The most recent immigration reform that was proposed passed the Senate in the summer of 2013 but has yet to be introduced onto the House floor. At the same time, the country is home to 11 million immigrants without authorization to live in the United States. The current immigration policies are outdated and do not benefit those wanting to live in this country or the legal citizens of this country. With a new policy that reintroduces worker visas for unskilled labor, a clear path to citizenship and the close monitoring of employers, the United States could regain control of the immigration system while benefiting both the immigrants and citizens of this country.

More savings will thus reduce that rate and so presumably spur more entrepreneurship and so on” (Worstall). Worstall proves not only is non-taxed income possible but it can be done over time. Tami Luhby, senior writer for CNN Money, interviewed Gerald Friedman from the Economics Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Friedman mentions that Bernie Sanders helped him do an experiment which worked. Friedman, however, argues that “Sanders ' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money [$1 trillion on infrastructure] into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes… (Luhby). The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire. If there is more spending, people will have more to do, Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate” (Luhby). Mr. Sander’s plan is similar to our current President Barack Obama’s plan. He poured money into the economy but it was by artificially inflating the Stock Market and economy. We still have high unemployment and now an additional $10.6 trillion in national debt. (Sargent)

For those out there who believe the Barack Obama has cared about creating jobs in this country—I’m sorry, but I’m about to give you some bad news. He never has or will care about jobs. Why? It’s not the way Democrats think. I mean come on, why would they want you to have a job? They are still trying to blame Bush and the Republicans for the mess they have “inherited” and are asking you for patience. What they forgot is that this is the same party that told you that if you elected them, they would right the ship in no time—which explained the massive liberal victories in 2006 and 2008. However, since the Democrats have taken majority in the House and Senate—they have not done a damn thing to improve the unemployment situation. With the

Flat tax is a system that would impose a single tax rate on all income subject to tax. Income would be taxed once and only once. Individuals and businesses would pay the same rate. The plan eliminates all deductions and credits. The only income not subject to tax would be a generous personal exemption that every American would receive. And no loopholes. Just a simple tax system that treats every American the same.

"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 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.

Barack Obama has a plan; a big economic plan to fire up business and create jobs. He will, of course, unveil his brainchild after returning from Martha’s Vineyard for a much-needed vacation from campaigning. He thinks that lolling with his liberal high rollers ($50,000 per week rent) and breathing some Atlantic saltwater air should completely clear any proven methods for job creation that might enter his mind.

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