Taxation Is An Issue That Has Plagued The United States Essay

If the United States are going to tax people, then they should tax everyone fairly. Corporate welfare can be as close to those, who shouldn't receive food stamps, or people like panhandlers, who pay no taxes for the money they receive. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, “American Fortune 500 corporations are avoiding up to $600 billion in U.S. federal income taxes by holding more than $2.1 trillion” of retained profits offshore, which they identify as “permanently reinvested” to stay away from a tax liability. Millionaires and Billionaires as well regularly pay less in taxes than a middle class American. Huffington Post states that millionaires and billionaires benefit from tax loopholes, deductions, deferrals and other types of accounts. This show’s corruptness and unfairness because the 1 percent continues to profit while the 99 percent pay most of all the taxes. The 99 percent of the people struggle to pay the bills while the 1 percent worries about what sports car they will buy next. In addition, when Wall Street fails, the taxpayers have to pay for their damages. For example, Millions of taxpayers lost their jobs due to the 2008-2009 Wall Street collapse, yet they are unwilling to pay additional taxes to pay for education and healthcare for the people who bailed them out. The United States should eliminate corporate welfare until they agree

When the Founding Fathers resisted these taxes on principle that Parliament did not have the authority to tax the colonists, Britain attacked and minimized colonial self-rule , declared colonists subject to any act of Parliament , reestablished internal taxes , closed colonial ports, dissolved

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.

Throughout the entire existence of any form of government, there has always been taxes. Most of the time (if not all), people hate taxes. With this being said, the United States has adopted a progressive tax since its very existence. We believe that if our nation is placed under a flat tax system, our economy will operate more effectively. If we incorporate a flat tax system we will be able to ensure fairness among all citizens, eliminate tax loopholes, and allow opportunities for business expansion. With this being said, we will be examining the strengths and weaknesses about the flat tax system and how it has been used into practice.

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.

One theory about the use of the progressive taxation is that people or businesses who earn the same or a similar amount of money should be taxed in the same or a similar way. A good example of that theory states that two individuals making $75,000 per year should be taxed the same amount, regardless of how they earned their income. While most countries have some form of progressive taxation, it is usually combined with other taxes, such as a sales tax, and few countries treat all income as exactly the same. This kind of taxation is still in effect today, bigger corporations are taxed more than the smaller mom and pop businesses.

Furthermore, Buffett provides his personal example that last year he paid the least percentages of taxes in his office. Buffett uses several precise data to show the difference. In the third paragraph, Buffett states, “But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income—and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people inner office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent” (275). The exact numbers like 17.4%, 36% provide strong demonstration. From these two number we could easily find that Buffett, as one of the richest person in the world actually paid half percentage of taxes compare with his co-workers, who are all in middle class. Additionally, Buffett states, “The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically

Taxes have always been a contentious issue of debate in the United States; furthermore it is exacerbated by the specific philosophy of individuals, states, and regions. Too be clearer, nobody enjoys paying taxes, however it is the cost we pay for having civilization. Nevertheless, selfishness creeps in to many individuals who feel no particular benefit. Taxes have a real way of polarizing many people from different socio-economic backgrounds, because a tax is inexorably linked to a person’s belief-system. For instance, in the context of social welfare policy liberals are inclined to feel that the tax-burden should be heaped on individuals who have benefited the most from “the system”. On the other hand, we have conservatives who feel they did not receive any support, and all that is necessary is hard work and perseverance to succeed. I am not suggesting either one is correct; it is only a simple illustration to show the relation between pocketbook and personal belief. I hope studying the tax structures of New Jersey and Alabama will give me insight they both reconcile their political beliefs with their individual tax structures.

Currently, the United States has a federal income tax that is very difficult to understand, to comply with,

"Lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need. Everyone who pays income taxes benefits - while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans. I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we've enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart." -President George W. Bush1

In a Progressive Tax system, a larger percentage of income is taken from those who are wealthy or have a large annual income, in taxes. Those who have low incomes do not have as high tax percentage to pay because progressive tax is based on

During his 2012 presidential campaign, Senator Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax forms under intense pressure and scrutiny from the Democratic Party and when he did, many major news stations announced in bold headlines that Romney donated 29.4% of his annual income to charities while Obama only donated 21.8%. This helped his campaign as republican ideology states that if tax rates are lower, people will donate more money to charities of their own choice. Republicans believe that this method is more efficient than taxes, as the government doesn’t dictate how much of whose money goes where, the people are the ones to decide how to donate their money to whichever charity they choose. However, democrats urged the populace to scrutinize the tax forms, as certain sections of the forms seemed dubious. Obama paid a rate of 26% federal income taxes that year while Romney only paid a rate of 14%. As experts delved deeper into the forms, they came to realize some facts that discredited Romney. Part of Romney’s “charitable donations” were set up as a Charitable Remainder UniTrust, a system for donations that was done away with in 1997 because it had

A progressive tax addresses economic inequalities in a society. When evaluating the impact of a tax system on inequality, both the distribution of taxes compensated and the distribution of tax revenue benefits should be considered. If the benefits of tax financed programs accrue mainly to lower income families, while higher income families pay the majority of taxes, then the tax system actually functions as growing the progressivity of the tax system or changing the distribution of benefits. A radical tax system is also a mechanism to address monetary inequalities in a society.

To raise revenue for the federal budget in hopes to improve and grow a country and its economy, the government uses methods of taxation. These methods are usually structured in such a way that they take the well being and best interest of the citizens into consideration. The revenue raised is used by the federal budget to fund the governmental programs implemented to keep the elderly, disabled, and the unemployed from falling below the poverty line. However, in regards to which tax system a country has, the government will always benefit in some way or the other. In the United States of America, there is a progressive taxation system where the rates are not fixed. Today, many taxpayers strive to familiarize themselves with the current tax system but many find it hard to do. Thus, the topic has been debated for many years now as to whether or not the United States government should change the current tax system and implement a flat tax system in its place to help reduce the strain on taxpayers by figuring out how tax rate should be distributed among the economic classes.

There are several different tax systems, only two used in the United States: regressive and progressive taxation. Regressive taxation is a tax system where the proportion of income paid in taxes decreases as one’s income increases. Progressive taxation is a tax system where individuals or families that have a higher percentage of income will pay more in taxes. Not only does the tax dollars increase, but the tax rates also increases. In conjunction with these tax systems, there is also a proportional tax, which means all individuals or families pay the same rate of income despite their income (Roach).