Social Security Payout Analysis

One of the major problems that this act of legislation causes economically is an unequal taxation of different groups based on their income. Those who make $400,000+ are taxed a rate of 39.6% of their total income. (H.R 8, 112th Congress) This does not incorporate sales tax and property taxes that are also taken each year as well. In the book “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, one topic that is discussed is how taxes discourages production. In the case of The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, those who are of working class category will not see a change in their tax rates. This is great since the monetary funds that they do not pay in taxes they can either invest or use in the market. However, the taxes for those who are of upper class status have the burden. As Hazlitt

The Fair Tax Plan is a sales tax proposal to replace the current U.S. income tax structure. It would allow all taxpayers to pay the same amount of tax, whether they are wealthy or poor. The current tax code has over 60,000 pages, which wealthy people can afford to hire someone to find loop holes that will keep them from having to pay taxes; whereas someone poor wouldn’t be able to afford someone to help them find loop holes, causing them to have to pay taxes no matter what. The fair tax plan code is about 132 pages which allows for greater transparency and understanding for both the wealthy and poor, and it would allow everyone to pay the same tax rate on things they buy. Many view this as a negative aspect because sales tax will be increasingly

Pursuant to Public Law 92-603, states were provided with the option of “supplementing” the federal SSI benefit. If a state choose to supplement the federal SSI benefit provided to claimant and complied with federal requirements then the state’s supplement would not be counted as income reducing the federal SSI benefit. If the state’s program did not comply with federal requirements, the state’s supplement would be counted as income resulting in a possibility of the claimant losing their SSI benefits. Thus resulting in “a greater welfare obligation (or at least, welfare problem) for the recipient's state of residence.”

Two important factors that determine a workers' income, regardless of their class, are their race and gender. Minority groups as well as women are less likely to receive an income they deserve, regardless of the job. They are seen as less educated and less capable of doing certain jobs, and they are restricted in advancing and achieving a more suitable income. Only the top capitalists, white males, are receiving the bulk of the nation's income revenue and all the benefits that come along with it. They are the richest people of the United States and instead of being taxed like everyone else, they are allowed even more lee-way. "There is a solution to this problem that will save small farms and businesses, eliminate the ‘death tax' for all Americans and still preserve the integrity of the federal budget: Tax the net worth of the very richest Americans on a regular basis during their lifetime" (Eitzen & Leedham pg. 40). The already rich continue to earn more and more money with their jobs, and they are not being taxed in proportion to their income. They have gotten away with accumulating more of the nation's wealth, while others struggle to make it in life.

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

(Black, 565-483) This means that every working family still pays taxes, however their taxes would be cut, meaning they would be paying less taxes than before. As for the “ millionaires” and higher class of society they will still pay the same taxes as they did before. This policy is more likely to be considered as equal because it is not rated fair when people from different social classes with a big difference in their incomes pay the same taxes. Especially because the taxes will eventually be lowered for the lower classes because they would be unable to afford paying the regular and high taxes. This will also lead in the cut of taxes for the high social class, which then makes the whole concept unequal. Not just for the people but also for the national economy (Witcover, 791-545).

We live in a time of uncertainty. One of which is financial uncertainty, which affects all Americans regardless of social economic status. According to the Congressional Budgeting Office the US national debt is on track to being equal 78% of the gross domestic product by the year 2024 (Trumbull). Social Security pay outs have neared a level that will soon be unsustainable without a significant increase in taxes. Corporate taxes are now close to 40%, and considered to be one of the highest tax rates in the world (Stone). Former U.S. representative John E. Linder stated that the corporate tax rate has forced many of our good paying manufacturing jobs to be relocated outside the country in order to stay competitive. Making it difficult for low wage earners to transition up in income and support their families like previous generations. The problem for the American job market could be resolved if it were not for the 15 trillion dollars remaining in off shore financial centers because of the high cost due to taxes when the money is repatriated. In addition to the corporate costs, taxes have driven 2 to 3 trillion dollars into an underground economy where no taxes are paid at all (Linder). Jonathon Gruber wrote in his book Public Finance and Public Policy, that tax evasion is estimated to be $280 billion dollars a year! For those who do pay, the estimated costs for filling out the forms in order to pay the taxes is over $350 billion dollars a year. This is quickly becoming a

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.

So as more people want jobs, they find those jobs are out of reach or they find other problems that are more important to them, leading to less and less jobs are filled every day. And the result leads to more unemployment. the unemployment rate is currently heading down slowly but the hire rate of people under the age of 50 to find jobs has stayed roughly the same over the years. So if the 41% of people cannot contribute to the cycle, leaving 59% of Americans to pick up the pace for everyone. But According to David Akadjian in the past 50 years, Americans have to work up to three times as much for the exact amount of pay, in 2013 the median wage was $27,851 and in 2017 it has only moved up 3 percent higher. so if you had a family of 5 or more you would be under the poverty line. But to look back to the median wage, it is a livable pay for a majority, and there a certain ways to deal with this without getting into poverty. but the problem is if fewer people keep getting jobs and the people with jobs on average, they are getting paid less and less for work. America will begin to topple on top of itself.

Currently, there is widening inequality in the United States due to the savage income gap between those at the top of the income distribution and those at the bottom. According to the Congressional Budget office 2012 report, from 1979 to 2012 the top five percent of U.S. households had a real income increase of 74.9%, where over the same period the bottom 20 percent had a real income decrease of 12.1%.1 Conversely, according to the Economics Policy Institute 2014 “Rising America’s Pay” report by Josh Bivens et al, over the same time span the productivity of a typical American worker had doubled.2 In other words, despite the increase in productivity the bottom working class continues to live under income reduction. The situation is even more devastating for worker who have exceeded the stingy federal poverty limit and deemed ineligible for social assistance or only partially subsidized from income tax credit. My proposal is to raise the income of the working poor through tax credit subsidy. The end goal of my proposal is to enhance the

This may sound like a tax plan that will relieve the financial burden on lower-income taxpayers, directly benefiting the poor, but in actuality, cutting taxes for all in a regressive manner gives substantially more money to the wealthiest taxpayers and a very small amount to lower income taxpayers. According to his plan, a typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1, 600 more of

So my First reason is that the poor people can’t afford a lot of things with taxes because the taxes would make the items more expensive. Poor people don’t even have enough money, but still, the government puts taxes on them too. The government should have fewer taxes on the poor because the poor have so little money and tax make it more expensive. If the government stops taking taxes from poor, the poor people's lives would be easier, because they could get

Every American dreams of finding a job that pays well enough so that they may comfortably take care of their loved ones and themselves for years to come. Most Americans hope to find some way to make a living that they enjoy, something that they view as productive. Unfortunately, many do not have this luxury. In our society, a good portion of the population is forced to hold the base of our country in place while hardly being redeemed for their time and effort, and thus the problem of income inequality. Numbers of these people live from paycheck to paycheck, barely getting by, not because they manage their money poorly, but because the value of their time at work is negligible.

The era of volatility has created a shift from America being the middle-class society to simply rich or poor (Sachs, 2011). A gap this large has not been experienced since the 1920’s (Sachs). “The top 1% of households takes almost a quarter of all household income” but an economy this top heavy will not be able to succeed (Sachs, 2011, p. 30). The working classes are struggling with housing, wage, and employment issues. Rich individuals are ignoring these troubles, shipping their business operations out of the country, thus furthering the downward spiral of the economy (Sachs). To make matters worse, this has become in a large part a political issue, because the rich can influence candidates with funding, where the poor and working

The Fair Tax is not a tax break. It ensures revenue neutrality meaning that the FairTax will give the government the same amount of revenue as the income tax system while spurring economic growth. The critics of the FairTax say that the rate should be at least 10% higher in order for the government to have revenue neutrality. With the substantially higher sales tax rate people may evade this tax and just buy the necessities. A vast majority of poor people are all in debt because they spend even when they don’t have money, when people have more money they save anyway. This fact leads critics to believe that since the poor and middle class spend the most they will be bear the burden of the substantially higher sales tax. FairTax answers this criticism by saying that the government will fully reimburse taxes for those whose income is below poverty level. The “prebate” discussed earlier and the elimination of FICA taxes