Limits Of Paying Taxes In The United States

As long as the rich get richer, I highly doubt there is anything to reverse or change the current status.

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.

Many people think we should. For instance, the New York Times author Patricia Cohen argues in her article, “What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts”, that raising taxes on the top percent of Americans would bring in much more revenue to the government and cause little to no damage on the economy (Cohen par. 18). Furthermore, she explains that if we increase the tax rate to 40% in the top 0.1% of households, which have an average income of $9.4 million, then that would give around $55 billion in extra revenue the first year alone (Cohen par. 12). This is a great amount of revenue that could pay for a wide variety of government programs such as economic stimulus packages.

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

This argument is mostly dished out by The Republican Party, they also say we need to cut taxes and lower government spending. Both of these claims make no sense and have no logical evidence behind them but like the first argument against higher taxes the only evidence is pessimism. There is more evidence against it, “Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed” (Blodget). With a 500 billion dollar deficit, “a $503 billion deficit” (Amadeo), lower taxes would not help. Cutting back government spending would do more damage to the economy because one of the first thing to be cut back would most likely be education, keeping the people who cannot afford private school less educated thus having less educated people and as the world continues to grow smarter leaving behind the children of The United States would not be a good

To understand limits to economic growth you must know the meaning of economic growth. Economic growth is a sustained expansion of production possibilities measured as the increase in real GDP over a given period (Rittenberg, L. & Tregarthen, T.). The country’s inhabitants is now much larger and is living longer, which many programs such as social security and military retirement may not be prepared for. Many source of economic growth can be link to improvements in technology and increase rate of productive with less employees. Only thing that can limit production would be the lack of capital or resources.

I think this would be a good thing because the wealth is distributed fairly and we still have hard workers and smart workers. Americans thought 60 percent were the poor, 20 percent were middle class and the remaining 20 percent was between the rich and richer (Gilson). The thing that shocked me the most is the actual distribution of wealth. A whopping 90 percent of people are considered the poor and only make an average of 29,840 dollars a year (Gilson). That’s almost the entire United States. One to ten percent of Americans make 161,139 a year, top one percent makes about 1,019,089, top 0.01 to 0.1 makes 2,802,020 and the top 0.01 percent makes about 23,846,950 (Gilson). That means that one percent of American make more in an hour that what middle class people make in an entire lifetime. I honestly think in a situation like this, people of the middle class and lower should not pay any taxes or a high amount. The poor even pays more in taxes. The one percent of the richest pays only five percent in taxes (Jilani). The rich of nine percent pays 21 percent and the 90 percent of the poor pays a whopping 73 percent of our income

This article written by Dave Roos explains the American situation that is already in the title itself “Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?” To further explain, Mr. Roos pointed out that the politicians and organizations believe that the richest Americans pay the largest share of taxes. He then gives an example of the top twenty percent of Americans that earn 53.4 percent but pay 67.2 percent of total income tax. Another shocking point that was made was half of all Americans don’t pay income tax at all; reason being that they are the 99 percent. That being said, the 53 percent of Americans who pay income tax must be given credit for keeping the US in business. This statistics states to be true because only 49 percent

Our current income tax system today is very complex, unfair, inhibits saving, investment and job creation, imposes a heavy burden on families, and weakens the integrity of the democratic process. It can't be fixed and must be replaced. The U.S. income tax code is a long and complex system. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. The administrative costs of the tax system far exceed those borne directly by the IRS. Each year Americans devote 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van produced in the U.S.

The wealthy should pay more taxes because the government isn’t gathering enough tax dollars to afford everything the people need, the rich can pay back taxes at the end of the fiscal year, and it is patriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes. Stephen B. Young in “Should the Wealthy Pay More Taxes” states that we don’t have anyone else to tax but the rich. The poor and middleclass can not contribute enough to help the economy grow (Young). We simply aren’t taxing the rich enough. They must pay more.

Tax rates have been falling around the world for decades. In the countries where there are the lowest taxes, such as Chile and Singapore, there is the fastest economic growth. If the U.S wants the economy to grow, then they should not raise taxes. First, the U.S tax system is already wrong and unfair. Americans that make a lot of money, pay more in taxes. According to John Lott, “Fives times more income means paying 33 times more in federal taxes”. Most Americans work incredibly hard for their money, especially business owners. Decreasing tax rates will allow more Americans to want to work and will help the economy grow.

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

Tax system is a legal system of imposing and collecting taxes from the citizens of the country. As it has been stated by Albert Einstein, the hardest task in the world is to understand the tax system of a country. The United States’ tax system is so complicated that its tax code contains almost 3 million words and 6,000 pages. Moreover, the taxes implied by city and state governments add more complexity to the federal taxation system. In this case, we do not need to understand the complexity of tax code system in order to get acquainted with the significant role of taxes in American society.

What do you think would happen if the rich paid more taxes? Would there be a better economy or would it be worst, maybe even stay the same. Increasing the taxes would help out our economy in a few ways. one way that it would help out our economy is that not only would there be less of a concentration of profit at the top of our social ladder there would be more revenue for the funding of civil union jobs. Also not to mention causing the bigger corporations to have to pay more so they would be unable to escape with the majority of the illegal activity they do today. Lastly if the government were to crack down on offshoring it would help with collecting taxes and the money would return to the people and back into circulation for our economy. Here are some reasons why the rich should pay higher taxes.

The future is uncertain, as such conventional wisdom dictates that governments must intervene in the economy to help enhance growth and ensure stability. However, is too much intervention a bad thing? There are many reasons why it is so but one such reason is that in an economy where there is excessive government intervention and ownership such as in the Soviet Union, there was a lack of risk and subsequently lack of innovation as rather than satisfying customers the concern of a producer in the system was to satisfy the state. The lack of a reward for working harder, due to all businesses being owned by the state reduces incentive to produce or innovate and this leads to inefficient outcomes in an economy. This is a contrast to a capitalist society where innovation and hard work can lead to personnel gain in the form of money. Price ceiling and price floors are price control mechanisms that are used to, respectively set a maximum price, and a minimum price. One such problem as a result of implementing these is that they will artificially cause a shortage or surplus, respectively, of the good or service due to affecting supply and demand. This prevents the good/services to be at the equilibrium price, which is where economic outcomes would be most efficient. So should governments intervene? Regardless of the aforementioned downsides this has always been a topic of debate between Keynesian economists and classical economists, but a widely accepted consensus is that some level