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
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
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
It may seem fair to have equal tax for everyone, but it is important to note that paying tax adds up to be very expensive for the lower- and middle- classes. The top 1 percent of America’s people owns a majority of America’s wealth. If that part of the population were to be targeted more by tax, Krugman states that the 1 percent would change to 4.5 percent. Now obviously 4.5 percent of Americans owning a majority of its wealth is still rather incredible, but it is still a major difference and step forward towards the solution to inequality. Krugman believes that if we take this step, “middle- and lower- income Americans would be assured of health care - one of the key aspects of truly being middle- class” (568 Krugman). If this is the case, the raise in tax for that 1 percent, will definitely allow the government to supply more benefits for the people who need them, while at the same time, supporting inequality and acknowledging the
This week the reading by Frank in the Inequality Reader caught my attention. It talked about how the current tax system in the US is not conducive to helping society. It also mentions how an increase in taxes for the top earners would help not only the poor but also the rich. He also includes how the wealthy “have been made worse off, on balance, by recent tax cuts” (Frank 732). This reading made me think of the current GOP tax plan being signed and debated in congress.
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
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
(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).
Americans today live in a distinctly unequal society. Inequality is now wider than it used to be in the last century, and the division in income, wages, and wealth are broader than they are in other developed economies of the world. Wealth inequality is the imbalance of wealth or income within a society, and it is one of the most vital economic challenge the US is facing today because the distribution of wealth is more dispersed, making the inequality in wealth distribution at its highest. While the matter has been discussed for many years, the actual income disparity in the U.S. has heightened and is now verging on an extreme gap that portends to impede long-term economic growth. The huge gap between the wealthy and poor is squeezing the U.S. economy, the wealth gap threatens economic growth by diminishing social mobility and producing a less-educated workforce who are not able to compete in the global economy. unrestrained level of income inequality causes political pressures, it discourages trade, investment, and hiring. The present level of income inequality in the U.S. is shrinking GDP growth, and the world's largest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
Therefore, in order to make the American Dream achievable to everyone, income wages must increase for those in the lower class and government welfare should be provided to all Americans in order to increase the opportunity of social mobility. Though income inequality may seem as an inevitable issue that just happens to plague many Americans who choose to work in blue collar jobs, current economic inequality is more realistically the result of unfair economic policies that threaten to worsen if they are not immediately addressed. The poor conditions of the workers who work for long hours with little pay demonstrate that America is at a crucial point, and that without immediate action, the country will continue to plunge further downward into
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
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.
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.
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