Tax Cuts Argumentative Analysis

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

Tax decreases can stimulate economic growth because if people are paying less in taxes, they have more money to spend. It has been proven over the years that tax decreases generate economic growth and federal revenue will always rise. From a personal standpoint I always spend more during tax season because I usually get a good return; since I am a single parent and full-time student, therefore, I qualify for various tax breaks. These obviously affect my household because I am more disposable income. Tax decreases can help a business if their taxes are decreased the organization will payout less and have more income.

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

President Obama has introduced a variety of fiscal policy changes during his presidency; some of his ideas, however, did little to strengthen the economy as they were intended to do. For example, in 2001, as President Bush had just entered office, he ushered a reduction of income tax rates in addition to other tax cuts for the middle class, through Congress. While these policies were initially quite slow in boosting the economy, the economic benefits eventually began to surface around 2003 and the economy did begin to exhibit stronger growth. However, President Bush’s tax policy was set with an “expiration date”, set by Congress through a budget process called “reconciliation”

However, raising taxes on the rich and corporations is not as helpful to our economy as most people think. Although raising taxes on the top percent of people and companies appears to create more income for the government, the result will make it harder for middle class and lower class citizens to grow. Some argue that by combining several key changes, including the simplification of the tax code to avoid loopholes and the decrease of taxes on the rich and corporations, there will be an improvement in the national economy. Although this may seem a bit counterintuitive, it makes more sense when looked at closely. By lower taxes and remove all loopholes, smaller businesses are given further opportunities to grow instead of facing financial roadblocks and government

The government relies on collecting taxes in order to create revenue and function successfully. A decrease in taxes affects business and the government differently. A decrease in taxes is good for business and bad for the government. Many entitites rely on government funds in order to operate and function

"They discounted a lot of positive growth effects of tax reform package," Huffman said of the recent analysis. "That's one government analysis, granted what some folks would call 'mainstream.' History proves that tax reform — tax cuts specifically — they grow the federal revenue. Why? Businesses make more money and people have larger paychecks and they are putting more into the economy."

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

The author asserts that elected officials tend to mislead loyal voters. The investigation provide proof of this by displaying information stating that Mitt Romney won most if the votes from people that receives public assistance. What those voters failed to realize is that he favored a government budget cut from social assistance. If this is done, poverty will rise to an even greater number. This is validity of how the general poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. To give a reality connection, taxes affect individual’s personal paycheck, leaving them with very little to pay bills let alone feed themselves.

The dean of Columbia Business School, and former top economic advisors to Mitt Romney and George Bush reviewed Jeb Bush’s tax plan and compared what they found to others who also reviewed his tax plan. I did not include this in my paper because I had a detailed outline of Jeb Bush’s tax plan by Jeb Bush himself and decided to use Bush’s hometown paper, The Miami Herald, to reveal more about his plan.

At the beginning of the 1960s, President Kennedy soon realized that he could help the economy even more by using a tax cut. A tax cut is reduction of the amount of taxes workers have to pay. When a tax cut is used, it decreases the real income of the government and it increases the real income of the tax payers. Kennedy also gave a seven percent

As with any government program, the type of tax imposed on the taxpayers depends on the political group currently controlling the government. With a republican president in office, we are seeing the effects of the conservative philosophy: cut taxes and limit government involvement, thereby decreasing poverty by stimulating economic growth. Earlier in his term, President George W. Bush passed a major tax cut with this rational guiding his tax policy:

The encouragement of economic disparity because of these tax cuts is bad for America. The US should be aiming for more social and economic equality for everybody. Tax cuts can slow down the economy by putting more money into the wealthy peoples’ hands and giving less to the people who need it.

This article discussing how the new tax cut plan that has been put in place under Donald Trump’s presidency will help the middle class. While this sounds like great news, it does not mean it will benefit everyone equally. The tax plan will most likely benefit the upper class with more tax cuts than the middle class and lower corporate taxes will benefit investors more than workers. Nonetheless, the middle class will benefit from these tax cuts because it will result in higher pay for many Americans, leading them to increase their spending. This means that a “typical” family will also find that they won’t have to pay as much in taxes this year. These tax cuts could also result in higher before-tax incomes for families. This might come from competition

Unfortunately some people do not have the ability to earn a living in a market economy. Others benefit from inherited wealth, hard dedicating work, or owning their business. Governments in market economies inevitably engage in programs that redistribute income, and they often do so with the overt intention of making tax policies. On the other hand, advocates of extensive redistribution disagree and allege that role of government limits the concentration of wealth and maintains a wider diffusion of economic power among households, presently as antitrust laws are designed to maintain competition and a wider diffusion of power and resources among producers. Those who oppose major redistribution programs counter that additional taxes on high-income families decrease the incentives