Tax Bill Pros And Cons

Paul Krugman, in a recent article has eloquently discussed the issue of unequally distributed income in the United States (Krugman, 2015). He alludes to a number of general economic principles in this article. He talks about how a major misconception about the effect of taxes on income inequality in the United States has been addressed through a recent research carried out by Branko Milanovic and Janet Gornick.

While most taxpayers agree that tax reform is necessary for our country the problem they encounter is the difficulty they experience when trying to understand all the political terms used when discussing tax reform. This paper is an attempt to help the taxpayers of our country to better understand the political terminology and gain knowledge about some of the proposals that have been explored.

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

Reagan inherited a misery index (the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates) of “19.99%, and when he left office it had dropped to 9.72%”. Under Reaganomics, 16 million new jobs were created. Not only did he cut tax rates, but the Tax Reform Act of 1986 simplified the income-tax code by eliminating many tax shelters, reducing the number of deductions and tax brackets. Reagan’s dream of tax returns fitting on a postcard has been nullified as Congress has regressed and continued to make the tax code more complex, necessitating a new push for reform.

Heated debates over tax cut have always been one of the central economic themes on the American political table. Since taxes relate directly to the quality of lives, it is by no means surprising to find people showing significant concern about policies regarding cutting or raising the amount they have to pay. The idea that lowering tax rate makes room for growth has remained generally popular among the majority, taking a possible decrease in individuals’ tax burden and increase in productivity into account. There is, however, extensive research conducted on the topic that produced controversial results. Despite its appeal to instant benefits for one’s saving account and investment, reducing tax rate has yet to show a definite positive effect

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

The American government has struggled with the issue of taxes and the budget for over a hundred years. Class conflict, adversarial political parties, and convoluted economic philosophies have resulted in a never-ending debate over taxation. The New York Times newspaper article, “Senate Panel Vote Backs Budget Plan”, from June 1993, discusses the current feelings of the time in regards to the budget and taxation. Moreover, the article mentions factors such as democrat-republican debate, trickle down economics, and high verse low taxes for the middle class. The issues discussed in this 1993 article differ only slightly from the taxation conversation of today. However, now in 2011, we face a budget crisis that threatens the American economy

The newly president elect, Donald Trump, has lead his campaign with a great emphasis on the campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again.” This phrase is used to represent a time much like what Putnam describes of his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio. In the 1950s, Putnam’s hometown was the “embodiment of the American Dream,” a place in which all classes of people were able to live and grow together. In order to alleviate financial pressure from the lower classes, Trump states "In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages." Trump’s tax plan will exempt single adults whose income is equivalent $25,000 a year, or married adults who jointly earn less than $50,000 a year from paying income taxes. This plan does show favor to the individuals who reside in this tax bracket,

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 debates on tax cuts are making their way to headlines of every radio station, newspaper, and television station in America. Today, tax cuts would only benefit the wealthy and wouldn’t really benefit the lower class. “The administration and it’s congressional alleys are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of the business income primarily benefiting

This bill removes exemption on university endowments that Democrats say benefits only Hillsdale college. Four Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to strip from the GOP tax bill a last-minute provision that would have shielded Hillsdale College, a prominent conservative school, from a new tax on university endowments. Along with all of the Democrats, our Michigan Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters both voted yes for the bill. Like the previous one, this particular bill

As with any ballot issue, the opposition to Issue 3 was far reaching. The Commercial Builders Union was one organization that came out against the amendment. The group feared workplace safety issues created by workers under the influence. Politicians also let their feelings be known, such as Ohio Attorney general Mike DeWine. In Colorado, lack of regulation has resulted in increased emergency room visits for children having accidentally ingested marijuana infused candies. DeWine, having visited Colorado recently, stressed that a lack of regulation, like what exists in Colorado, is one of the many faults Ohioans should see in Issue 3. Similar to DeWine, the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio voiced concerns about accidental consumption

First of all, the marginal tax cut was one of the most significant policy in the governing of President Reagan. Starting from 1981, government reduced individual tax (the top tax rate was reduced from 70% to 50 %) and Windfall profit tax. As the Tax reform act of 1986 published, the tax rate of wealthiest Americans was decline to 28 % and corporation tax was decreased to 34%.” In addition, as marginal tax rate for wealthy people decreasing, personal exemption amount increased from $1,080 to $2,000. That means,

Policy makers have introduced a solution to the staggering proportion of taxes that Americans spend. The flat tax, based on an idea developed by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of Stanford University to create a fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system (Mitchell 1, 11). There are four basic criteria that make up a flat tax. First is a single low rate on taxable income, the baseline for taxable income would be raised to a certain amount dictated by a personal exemption. Second is simplicity, all Americans would fill out the same postcard-sized form to pay their taxes. Third is the reduction or elimination of deductions, credits, and exemptions, depending

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.