Progressive Taxation Better for Fairness

In this section of the paper flat tax will be compared with our current tax system in order to distinguish if differences it will make in the United States after its implementation. Along with that, the similarities between a flat tax and progressive tax will be noted too. As it is understandable that the ultimately targeted population for the flat tax is the upper class however when it comes to flat tax vs. progressive tax in the United States progressive tax system has been more welcoming than another method. However, as stated by Piketty and Saez (2007), in the United States the federal tax system has undergone three historical extreme changes which have pushed the federal tax system towards a less progressive side. Such in progressive tax system has provided the leverage of lower tax rates which benefits the one percent of Americans but not the majority of the American population. So although it is well circulated that the progressive tax methods have specific tax rates that ensure the higher

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

Wealth is often harder to tax however it is often caused by income so the tax system previously described may be used to reduce wealth and thus stopping inequality. This system can also be found in wealth though, with inheritance tax being used progressively. For example any money above 325,000 is taxed at 40%. This then creates a source of revenue for the government but also stops people inheriting huge sums of money, stopping inequality. However this system has its flaws as the tax has to be paid first, it could also be argued as unfair as someone who works for their money is entitled to leave it to who they want, especially as it was already taxed when it was earned. This system has also caused many pensioners to move abroad where what they leave is taxed less. The money inherited is also often used by entrepreneurs to fund businesses so the system may also reduce the possibility for future in income tax. This systems also sonly raises

Within the United States, there is an unequal collection and distribution of resources. The current unequal or socially unjust tax system is a direct contrast to the social justice theories of John Rawls. The taxation discrepancy has ramifications on many important aspects of our society, such as health care, employment, old age security, and education. These issues affect everyone in our society, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Thorough more equal taxation, we have the potential to create a more society as a whole.

The tax system in the United States has changed throughout the years, with many attempts to make it "fair" or "equal" while at the same time generating enough income for the United States government to thrive. It is a complex issue, and a controversial one at that. While it may not be possible for our tax system to ever be fair, it is important to make sure it doesn 't put more financial stress and pressure on one group than on another.

It is the general agreement of tax payers everywhere that the current tax system is way too complicated. You either need to have a certified public accountant help you do them or a specialized tax program to walk you through it. Not only that, but the costs associated with having someone prepare your taxes or buying the specialized computer program needed to navigate the myriad of entangled tax codes and laws can become quite expensive. But it is not only expensive for us, the individual tax payer, but it is also expensive for businesses and it is extremely expensive for the Federal government. Not

The use of flat (proportional) tax rate seems like a fairer option in my opinion. The reason why I think this is because we talked in class that the more money you make the higher your tax bracket is requiring the rich to pay more and the poor to pay less in comparison. This is causing companies to go overseas rather than staying in America which in effect could cause less jobs in America in general. Secondly, I feel that it would make a simple system and allow everyone to know exactly how much their going to pay for taxes.

The IRS argues against the flat income tax since it is regressive with all taxpayers paying the same tax rate. While it is true that the current federal income tax system is progressive, the primary argument for a flat or flatter tax is to simplify the tax system. A flat or flatter federal income tax system with a limited number of exclusions and deductions could accomplish the same goals in a much more expedient way.

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 United States economy, as known by all, is not in its best shape. One way in which the government gains money is by imposing taxes on people. There are many taxes that are placed on different things that everyone needs or already has. The United States uses a taxation system which is criticized by many. The system used in Progressive Tax; however, many people believe the system of Flat Tax, or Proportional Tax, should be the system that is used for taxing.

The United States tax system is in complete disarray. Republicans and Democrats agree that the current tax code is complex, unfair, and costly. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms (Armey 1). The main reason the tax system is so complex is because of the special preferences such as deductions and tax credits. Complexity in the current tax system forces Americans to spend 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to manufacture every car, truck and van produced in the United States (Armey 1). Time is not the only thing that is lost with the current tax system; Americans also lose

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

As a contrast, the United States has a lower cumulative tax system, and the tax burden is mainly borne by the income recipients. The more the income, the heavier the tax burden. This article

In addition to economic issues, taxation is also a political issue. Political leaders formulate tax policies to bring reforms in the taxation system in order to promote their agendas. The major tax reforms include: increasing or decreasing the tax rate, imposing new taxes on certain products and changing the definition of taxable income. It is evident from the research studies that no one deliberately wants to pay taxes. U.S’ tax policy reflects expression of influence - i.e., those who have power are successful in paying low taxes and their burden is shifted to people who have no power. Therefore retired individuals, small business owners and farmers find ways efforts to reduce their tax burden. Since its existence, tax policy has been enormously used for promoting political and economic agendas.