Tax Reform Essay

There is nothing worse than working hard all year, having taxes withheld from your paycheck, and then finding out you still owe Uncle Sam come April. Taxes seem to be one of the most politically charged issues, with candidates from both parties making the topic an integral part of their campaign. Whether any real movement takes place is something that remains to be seen, as the Nation gears up for the next Presidential election.

This idea of reducing taxes to increase investment within the economy sounds like a good idea but hasn’t lived up to its expectations historically. The idea of supply side economics wasn’t a new idea for the American tax code. During the early 1920s, income tax rates were cut multiple times which averaged to a total of most rates being cut by a little less than half. The Mellon Tax Cuts named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. He believed that changes in income tax rates causes individuals to change their behavior and practices. As taxes rise, tax payers attempt to reduce taxable income by either working less, retiring earlier, reducing business expansions, restructure companies or spending more money on accountants to find tax loopholes. If executed properly tax cuts can actually benefit economic growth, data from the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) showed that the across-the-board tax cuts in the early 1920s resulted in greater tax payments and larger tax share paid by those in the higher incomes. As the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners were cut from 60 percent or more to just 25 percent, the amount that this tax group payed soared from around 300 million to 700 million per year. (See Figure 2) This sudden massive increase in revenue allowed the U.S. economy to rapidly expand during the mid and late 20s. Between 1920 to 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and

Another idea would be to avoid increasing the tax rates as this will help “minimize economic distortions that shrink the level of production” (Baker III, 2009, p. 1). To promote economic growth, our team recommends that we take the approach of increasing the corporate tax base and decreasing the corporate tax rates. Other suggestion is to reduce the deductibility of state and local taxes. Other reforms that could be looked

The current tax code for the United States is almost 74,000 pages long. Or to put that into a different light: About 116 copies of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It is small wonder that a few of the announced candidates for President of the United States, have again begun to kick the tires on the topic of a Flat Tax. But is a flat tax actually a solution to our country’s growing tax complexity? What are the potential economic effects of a flat tax (both positive and negative)? Finally, is a flat tax even a viable solution? In short, will it work? As a concept, a flat tax is spectacular. Simplicity at its finest. As a fiscal policy, I believe that same simplicity must be examined and inspected closely.

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

More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar. Consumers who drink excess sugary beverages impose a negative internality on their health; as well as imposing a negative externality on the American

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

Introduced in July 2012, H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, sponsored by Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, was approved by the House of Representatives in August 2012 and forwarded to the Senate for consideration. Opponents of H.R. 8 maintain that the plan does not provide tax cuts for all American taxpayers while supporters on both sides of the aisle argue that these changes to the Internal Revenue Code are needed to sustain the nation's economic recovery and prevent another recession. To determine the facts in the debate over H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, this paper provides a review of relevant governmental and media sources, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

With the advancements in the globalization of the economy, corporations are finding more ways to avoid the extraordinary tax rates set in place of The United States Of America. With the loss of revenue from large companies dodging taxes the government must make up for the loss by either raising taxes or changing the tax code. A recent company to avoid american taxes is Johnson Controls, a company that “…would not exist as it is today but for American taxpayers, who paid $80 billion in 2008…”(The Editorial Board). This use of American resources to get through tough times, and run to another county during an economic incline is an act that calls for reform in the American tax system. However congress has not passed any legislation to fix the

"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.

WASHINGTON — Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled its tax overhaul plan Thursday, which includes decreasing the number of personal income tax brackets, cutting the corporate tax rate and the eventual elimination of the estate tax.

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

Controversy will always follow humans where ever we go. Humans have argued over many issues for centuries, often times with no conclusion or “correct” answer ever in sight. One common issue that has been debated since the early 1900s is whether or not the more wealthy individuals in a society should be taxed more heavily than their poorer counterparts. Many have argued over the pros and cons of the taxation of richer people, but when one looks at it objectively, the pros far outweigh the cons. Not only do the pros outweigh the cons, but a question one must ask oneself is whether or not prosperous people really need that extra money? Richer people should be taxed higher because it is better for the economy, social classes will

The US economy is showing some impressive stats this quarter. Despite the hurricanes GDP growth is still hovering at 3% and the unemployment rate is right in the middle of the range of the natural rate of employment at 4.2% (Egan, 2017). However, Trump still believes the economy needs a large tax-cut, in fact he wants to enact “the BIGGEST tax cut” according to his Twitter (Egan, 2017). Not surprisingly, many economist disagree with Trump’s plan. The current idea Trump has is to cut the corporate tax rate by 15%, taking it from 35% to 20%. According to the Tax Policy Center estimates this plant would cut “federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over 10 years and by $3.2 trillion over the second

Since the recent passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, on October 21, 1998, making the Internet tax free, there has been an intense debate on whether to tax or not to tax Internet purchases. The conservative side, also known as the Republicans, is opposed to Internet taxation saying that it is too costly to collect taxes on Internet purchases. They also believe that since Internet retailers do not have a physical presence in every state, why should the state receive sales tax on a nonexistent store in that state? This would be taxation without representation (par. 18 Lukas). On the other hand, the liberals, also known as democrats, believe that taxation of the Internet should be lawful because