Progressive Tax Rate

However, there are also some drawbacks associated with raising taxes. Tax is a form of leakage from the circular flow of income leading to negative multiplier effect. If the government increases income tax rates, it might create disincentives to work. It is because when income tax increases, the opportunity cost for leisure time decreases; and people will have to work longer

One brother has 4 cookies. Another brother has 2 cookies. The brother with 4 cookies did 2x the work to get these cookies. Big brother come along and takes 3 of the first brother’s cookies but only 1 of the second because it’s only fair they have the same amount. How does the first brother feel? This analogy shows the current progressive system of tax and one reason it is flawed and unfair. If America had a flat tax it would leave the first brother with 3 cookies and the second with 1 and 1/2. Sound more fair? This is why America should have a modified flat tax system because it is more fair to the people, it will promote economic growth, and it will make paying taxes easier.

The arguments regarding federal progressive income tax has been represented to us through the United States Supreme Court, on the floors of congress, and in media. The revenue from taxes reached the objective of financing wars from the Civil War through World War II. At the same time deteriorating the economy with fewer dollars that could be used on imports, exports, and services (Henchman). Today, the United States deficit is $18,800,241,350,538.12 this is a grand total of 58,405.32 owed by every man, woman, and child (Brown). The legal illusion is presenting the question, is income tax legal? There are Americans today who believe income tax is not legal and stand by their beliefs in a movement that has cost many individuals considerably. I am interviewing such a person, his name is Bobby Ray and the history he presented to me was interesting, and has left me with more questions than answers.

However, these long and short term economic improvements are only what is predicted to happen and there negatives to the reduction in income tax. A factor that the government must take into account is the budget deficit, can the government afford to simply cut income tax that is a large source of revenue for the budget. A worsened budget deficit could have devastating impacts upon the economy, for example less people able to have the benefits they require, (this would also reduce demand in the economy as those on benefits generally spend the money they have as they do not have spare to save, this may damage the economy even further) or a reduction in money towards health care. Also, a reduction in income tax does not necessarily mean

One example of the progressive tax system is the federal estate tax. This tax only effects the wealthiest of families, those with assets in excess of ten million dollars, families with less than ten million dollars are exempt from this tax. Income taxes are also progressive; as an individual’s income increases there tax burden also increases. But there are provisions that unequally favor the most well to do. These include provisions for stock dividends and profits from real estate sales to be taxed at much lower rates

Yes it is true that everyone in this country is stated to be equal, but it is hardly fair considering that a majority of the country that struggles for just necessities to survive, pay as much as those who live leisurely and above most of the population in terms of wealth. This also becomes an issue with how much of tax is being collected by the government. Krugman puts a chart in his essay, showing that the tax percentages have been cut in about half. Krugman specifically says, “Between 1979 and 2006 the top tax rate on earned income was cut in half; the tax rate on capital gains was cut almost as much; the tax rate on corporate profits fell by more than a quarter” (Krugman 570). These kind of statistics are a huge issue for our country since the amount of money our country makes is decreasing. On the other hand, raising taxes won’t solve anything due to those in need of money as of now, but instead there can be a slightly higher charge for those in the upper-class. This will not only help the country’s income of taxes , but also lower the richest 1 percent of citizens to about 4.5 percent. Now number like these may not seem large or significant, but they actually are a major step towards the solution to solving the issue of social

rate, in periods of higher income tax the GDP sees an increase thus proving that higher taxes do not create a drag in the economy. When the top marginal tax rate is at a 75 to 80 there is an about 4.6 GDP growth creating this “Sweet-spot”.

Why shouldn’t the wealthiest of Americans pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes? Certainly, things would get better if the wealthy paid more taxes. This philosophy is why welfare continues to exist today. People worry more about what is right for the other person without looking at themselves and taking responsibility. It is overrun with individuals who prefer to be on welfare than to work hard and contribute to society. This doesn’t mean welfare is not needed, but that it should not be a career. It offers no permanent solution, but only prevents a real solution from being realized. So why should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes just because they can afford it? They work hard, so shouldn’t they be allowed to keep what they earn? This is not an example of scrooge-like behavior, but that hard work should have its rewards. The way to a better life should start with hard work and the desire for independence from government support. This would help people regain personal pride and become productive members of society, rather than a drain on its resources. It is not a crime for the wealthiest to earn high incomes. Shouldn’t hard work pay off? Why be penalized by paying a higher percentage of your income when you worked hard to make that income? Simpler solutions are required.

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

If taxes are proportional, the tax rate remains constant for any income level, whereas taxes that are progressive, its tax rate gets higher as the income level increases.

In America, we enjoy freedoms that we often take for granted. We have the power to decide things for ourselves, such as our leaders, our rights, and our liberties. We have the ability to debate and evaluate the effectiveness and the relevance of a law or bill, and we must use this power when it comes to the methods of taxation. Currently, the US uses a progressive income tax as its means to raise revenue. Deborah Lee and Richard A. Grant, in “Counterpoint: Expanding Sales Taxes Helps the Rich, Hurts the Poor,” believe that a progressive income tax is the fairest and most constructive ways to fund the government, and that such a tax benefits the poor more than a sales tax.

The United States Federal Government currently functions on a “progressive tax system”. A progressive tax system is based on ability to pay and therefor requires members of higher socioeconomic standing to pay higher federal income tax rates. The idea is that wealthy people, whether they are wealthy as a product of their own intelligence and labor or wealthy by inheritance, can afford to pay higher tax rates and still maintain a quality of life well beyond what is considered livable or even standard. This procedure understandably creates a lot of upset in the upper-class community. According to the IRS, in 2007, more that 44% of income tax revenues came from the top 5% of earners and more than 50% came from the top 10%. In the same year, the 400 wealthiest Americans, bringing in an average adjusted gross income of $345 million paid an average federal income tax rate of 17%, whereas the average tax payer during the same time period paid only 9.3% of their gross income to the federal taxes. In 2010, about 45% of all

Some Americans have this idea that because the one percent of Americans who make a higher adjusted gross income should have to pay more taxes than the ninety nine percent of Americans who don’t make as much. Some think they don’t pay near what they are supposed to in taxes. That they get out of paying taxes, because of their wealth and who they are. Who is to say that the people who make the bottom 50% don’t pay enough or what is “fair”. Shouldn’t there be an equal amount that everyone has to pay. Everyone pays the same amount for consumables no matter your gross income, what is the difference with taxes. Should you be punished because you make a higher income than your neighbor? Should you have to pick up your neighbor’s “slack”?

In a Progressive Tax system, a larger percentage of income is taken from those who are wealthy or have a large annual income, in taxes. Those who have low incomes do not have as high tax percentage to pay because progressive tax is based on

Revenue that comes from state income tax is said to be progressive, that is because state taxes fall differently on different taxpayers depending on the taxpayer’s income level. Typically, the percentage of income tax paid rises as the taxpayer’s income does, thus the reason they are progressive. The opposite is true for sales tax revenue. These taxes are regressive because regardless the taxpayer’s income, tax rates remain constant. This is sometimes a disadvantage for poorer taxpayers because they have to spend more of their income on what they need (Sims, 2004). The allocation of these funds for elementary and