The United Kingdom's Labour Party recently pledged to lift Britain's top marginal tax rate from 45 per cent to 50 per cent.
The reaction was interesting because it illustrates the way people in politics sometimes talk past one another in political debate.
The policy has been partly framed as a deficit reduction measure and partly as an effort to create a "fairer" economy.
In critiquing the proposals, detractors have focused on the first of these, pointing out that the analysis of Her Majesty's Treasury is that the higher tax rate only accounted for an additional £100 million in tax revenue.
In isolation, that seems like a lot. Given that the UK Budget deficit exceeds £116 billion, however, the proposal would not meaningfully
…show more content…
. . tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now".
Clearly thinking about the long-term, he was willing to suffer short-term deficits as a result. Once enacted, however, the Kennedy tax cuts spurred immediate and sustained growth in tax revenues.
The Centre-Right can point this out until blue in the face - but doing so completely misses the point.
Ad Feedback Polls show that large majorities of the British public would support the move. About 40 per cent would do so even if it raises no revenue.
For the current generation of progressive leaders, stiff marginal tax rates are not exclusively (or even primarily) a means of raising money for the government to spend. Decreasing the wealth of the rich is considered a legitimate end unto itself - even if nobody else benefits.
For instance, in the 2008 Democrat Party primaries, then candidate Barack Obama wanted a big increase in America's capital gains tax.
In a debate with Hillary Clinton, the moderator pointed out to him that when the rate had been decreased under Clinton's husband, more revenue was generated than was under the higher rates.
The same thing had happened when George W Bush cut the rate even further.
Mr Obama averred that he would still increase the rate "for purposes of fairness".
Or consider France's new top tax bracket of 75 per cent, which goes
The JCT reported an earlier version of the Senate tax bill would increase deficits by $1 trillion between 2018 and 2027, noting the number accounts for around $408 billion in economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office reports the total addition to the deficit could trigger a $25 billion cut to Medicare.
He claimed an undue tax burden, excessive government regulation, and massive social spending programs hampered growth. Reagan proposed a phased 30% tax cut for the first three years of his Presidency. The bulk of the cut would be concentrated at the upper income levels. The economic theory behind the wisdom of such a plan was called “SUPPLY-SIDE” or “TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS.” (Reaganomics. (n.d.). Tax relief for the wealthy would allowed them to consume and fund more. This would put the economy in a better position and their would be more job
Reagan then wanted to make large tax cuts, approximately 25%. Reagan was very well liked and his charm on TV and support from the “boll weevils” had help pass this bill as well. The plan called for "supply-side economics,” but more commonly due to the time of Reagan’s presidency and ideals of Reagan they were nicknamed “Reaganomics.” Which are policies that supported businesses. Such as lower taxes and less government intrusion. These “Supply-side finances” would help to boost investment, establishment, employment, and ultimately through its growth, it would reduce the federal
Leading up to the year 1981, America had fallen into a period of “stagflation”, a portmanteau for ‘stagnant economy’ and ‘high inflation’. Characterized by high taxes, high unemployment, high interest rates, and low national spirit, America needed to look to something other than Keynesian economics to pull itself out of this low. During the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign focused on a new stream of economic policy. His objective was to turn the economy into “a healthy, vigorous, growing economy [which would provide] equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” Reagan’s policy, later known as ‘Reaganomics’, entailed a four-point plan which cut taxes, reduced government spending,
While campaigning in 1980’s Ronald Reagan promoted his solution to fixing the economic debt that the United States accumulated over the years. This solution was named “Reaganomics”. The United States was left with a $2.6 trillion dollar debt from President Reagan theory by cutting taxes, and the Federal Revenue would increase because economic activity will increase. President Reagan focused cutting down
Reagan’s 1981 Program for economic recovery had four policy objectives, reduce government spending, reduce the marginal tax on income from labor and capital, and to reduce regulation and finally to reduce inflation by controlling the money supply
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
Our live top marginal tax rate is 39.6% which would be kept there in the House bill, but the Senate bill seeks to reduce it down to 38.5%, which is favored by supply-side economic theorists who state that this reduction will let the economy grow.
The country was billions of dollars in debt. Lowering the government's income by lowering taxes would only make this worse. But Reagan believed that lower taxes would help the economy. With a stronger economy, people and businesses would make more money. These increased profits would mean more taxes would be paid because the extra money would be taxed. The economic program Reagan implemented during his presidency became known as Reaganomics. This approach to healing the economy focused on low taxes, fewer and cheaper government programs, and high military spending. Reaganomics was intended to keep inflation down. The president believed his program was the best way to rebuild America's failing economy. (Benson 79)
The UK taxation system subjects individuals’ incomes, including interest on savings, pensions, and salaries to income tax on the basis of ‘bands’ – the first £ 9,440 (which recently rose to £ 10,000) is exempt from taxation, with any income between this limit and £32,010 attracting a basic rate of 20%, that between £32,011 and £ 150,000 attracting a tax rate 40%, and anything in excess of £150,000 attracting a rate of 45% (BBC, 2014). Prior to April 2013, earnings exceeding £150,000 were taxed at a rate of 50% - the 5p rate of income tax - such that a person earning £200,000 would be taxed at 40% for the first £150,000 and an additional £25,000 for the extra £50,000, as opposed to the £22,500 they would pay under the current 45% rate. The government’s decision to reduce the high-band rate from 50% to 45% in April last year was aimed at stimulating economic growth and facilitating the process of recovery. The Labor Party’s plan is geared towards facilitating income redistribution by raising the high-band rate of income taxation from the current 45% to the original 50%.
There are three different types of tax systems presented in this article: Progressive income tax, Flat tax, and the Fair Tax. The progressive tax system is what we have in the US and is common in countries across the world. It bases the percentage of income tax you should pay by the amount of income you receive. Basically, if you have a large income then the rate of tax you will pay is larger and, furthermore, if you have a low income you will have a lower rate to pay. Many conservatives dislike this system because it forces the top percentage of taxpayers to pay a majority of the tax revenue. “According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of taxpayers have consistently paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90% since 2003…” It treats people differently and it allows for
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
President Obama has introduced a variety of fiscal policy changes during his presidency; some of his ideas, however, did little to strengthen the economy as they were intended to do. For example, in 2001, as President Bush had just entered office, he ushered a reduction of income tax rates in addition to other tax cuts for the middle class, through Congress. While these policies were initially quite slow in boosting the economy, the economic benefits eventually began to surface around 2003 and the economy did begin to exhibit stronger growth. However, President Bush’s tax policy was set with an “expiration date”, set by Congress through a budget process called “reconciliation”
Reagan’s policies and practices on planning required the administration as well as Reagan to set objectives and to determine what course of action would be needed to achieve those objectives. President Reagan’s term indicated to time when there were numbers of Americans living below the poverty level, his goal was to expand economic prosperity. In order to be successful in the economic expansion, the president had the strategic plan to input the largest marginal tax cut in American history that the media referred to as Reaganomics. Reagan deemed that a tax cut of this nature would finally spawn more returns for the federal government, thus “this new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs” (Reaganomics, 2008-2014).
The United States is in a recession; it has been facing some of the worse economic times since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. One option to fix the economy is to change the corporate tax rate. To lower it or to raise it, that is the question economists have been speculating. America's high corporate tax rate and worldwide system of taxation discourages U.S. companies from sending their foreign-source revenue home, which makes U.S. companies defenseless to foreign acquisition from the international opponents (Camp). Corporations and United States citizens have been fighting for a tax reform, which would hopefully help the American economy; either by lowering the corporate tax, or by raising the tax.