Tax Reform: Two Sides of the Same Coin

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

The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.

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.

Obama believes that the government plays a central role in helping everyone to deal with critical challenges. This is because its effects are far reaching and having an adverse impact on middle class Americans. Moreover, there is less opportunity for young adults who go to college and earn degrees. Yet, they are finding a job market that is unwilling to hire them. To deal with the issues, the President believes that Washington should have a stimulus program that is focused on: improving job growth, reducing taxes on the middle class, encouraging small businesses to innovate, supporting state / local governments and discourages outsourcing. (Killough, 2012)

Both coauthors explain “the myth of corporate taxes” with two statements: “When it comes down to it, no corporation or business really pays taxes,” and therefore, “the burden of it all falls on us [the taxpayers]” (32). They continue their explanation with another claim: “The economic education of Americans is so woefully inadequate that many of us actually think we pay less as individuals when the taxes are transferred to businesses and corporations” (31). To illustrate their point, the authors created a fictional corporation with simple guidelines. Although not their actual example, the following is similar: Qwerty Inc., a manufacturer of computer keyboards, has 200 employees and 100 shareholders. At the end of the year, Qwerty Inc. sold 1000 keyboards at $100 dollars each; therefore, the yearly income was $100,000. After labor, cost, taxes, and other charges, Qwerty’s profit is $2000 for the year. If the government adds a 10% corporate tax increase, Qwerty now owes an additional $200 in taxes. According to Boortz and Linder’s logic, Qwerty has several possibilities to balance the budget from the tax increase: the shareholders could see their dividends decrease, the price on the keyboards could be raised, some employees could be fired to save on cost, or employee benefits could decrease to cover the cost of the tax increase. This simple example demonstrates the current tax code’s consequences on the taxpayers (citizens and consumers) and introduces “the embedded

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 tax policy in the United States is very confusing. When the tax policy was originally written in 1913 it was four hundred pages. Now, over the past ninety one years, that tax policy has evolved to over 72,000 pages. Since the tax code has become so lengthy and nearly impossible to understand, the topic of tax reform has been in the minds of many. Although, most barely think about tax reform until tax season. It is a controversial subject due to the impact a change in tax code would have on the American people. The two most popular and widely known stakeholders in this debate are the two major political parties in the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans. The two parties share absolutely no common ground on the subject of

Our current income tax system today is very complex, unfair, inhibits saving, investment and job creation, imposes a heavy burden on families, and weakens the integrity of the democratic process. It can't be fixed and must be replaced. The U.S. income tax code is a long and complex system. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. The administrative costs of the tax system far exceed those borne directly by the IRS. Each year Americans devote 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van produced in the U.S.

Did you know that an astonishing 43.4 percent of the people in America do not pay any income taxes" (McCullagh 1)? This is roughly 65.6 million people that aren't paying taxes and this is putting our economy and country at its breaking point. Our current tax system penalizes those that work and save money. People that pay no taxes still get to enjoy the benefits. The United States needs to look at which tax is fairer to the people and easier to administer by the government. Although some may disagree, the Flat Tax should replace the income tax to simplify and bring fairness to the system, increase income, and create jobs.

Throughout history, taxation on United States citizens has proven to be a necessary component of a growing economy as means of generating revenue for the federal budget. The federal budget funds the many government programs implemented to keep the disabled, elderly, and unemployed from falling bellow the poverty level. Unfortunately, this fund is not always available when catastrophic evens, such as an economic recession, deplete the revenue coming in and create a budget deficit. In order to regenerate money coming in and replace the deficit, the government calls on money gained from taxes. What happens when tax money is already appropriated to other programs? A tax reform. A tax increase has many times been the

We have all heard the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin who stated, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” (“Benjamin Franklin Quotes”) We find this to be true as we begin working and feel the pain of money being taken from our paychecks. Then we face the chore of having to file income taxes yearly. Although there are many taxes we are subject to, most people are referring to federal income tax when they complain about taxes. There has been debate for decades about the current system but there has been no agreement on how to fix it. The United States currently has a progressive tax code which means people pay taxes according to their earnings. This has been in place since the time of Abraham Lincoln. An alternative

The United States tax system is in complete disarray. Republicans and Democrats agree that the current tax code is complex, unfair, and costly. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms (Armey 1). The main reason the tax system is so complex is because of the special preferences such as deductions and tax credits. Complexity in the current tax system forces Americans to spend 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to manufacture every car, truck and van produced in the United States (Armey 1). Time is not the only thing that is lost with the current tax system; Americans also lose

The United States is in a recession; it has been facing some of the worse economic times since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. One option to fix the economy is to change the corporate tax rate. To lower it or to raise it, that is the question economists have been speculating. America's high corporate tax rate and worldwide system of taxation discourages U.S. companies from sending their foreign-source revenue home, which makes U.S. companies defenseless to foreign acquisition from the international opponents (Camp). Corporations and United States citizens have been fighting for a tax reform, which would hopefully help the American economy; either by lowering the corporate tax, or by raising the tax.

Within this past month, you have vehemently advocated for the new tax plan, which intends to “drastically cut taxes, while broadening the base”. You promised to eliminate unwanted loopholes, tax breaks, and special favors. You assured voters that there would be a new tax system, where less time and energy would be wasted on gaming the system to reduce taxes, and for a tax system that would become fairer. However, this plan is not fulfilling your promises, because it will cut too many taxes without raising enough revenue to support the government. This will result in hurting the middle class, while creating a devastating deficit. Thirty-seven out of thirty-eight economists agreed that your bill will create a deficit that substantially increases the national debt in a short period of time. Do you even know what’s in the projected 5.9 trillion