In this essay, the issues for taxation of national tax sovereignty for income tax, corporation tax, value added tax and excise duties are discussed as well as an opinion as to whether sovereign nations should compete or co-operate on matters of tax policy. Sovereign nations have different tax rates and they tend to change with each tax year. The issues of direct and indirect taxes are numerous and this essay will discuss two major aspects of each using the recent issue of Scotland’s independence for major explanations. These are direct taxes such as Income tax and Corporation tax; indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) and Excise tax.
Income tax as defined by Melville, 2014 (page 15) is: “tax assessed for a tax year (or “year of assessment”) and is based on the taxpayer 's total income for the year from all sources, ignoring any income which is exempt from income tax” . Sovereign nations set their own taxes individually and as such taxpayers respond differently depending on the changes in tax rate in the respective tax system. The changes in income tax rate from one tax year to another affects both high and low income earners. However, in an analysis for four decades of the US tax system, it was concluded that high-income earners tend to respond to a greater extent to tax changes than low-income tax payers . Likewise, Micro economists suggest that this is majorly due to the fact that educational achievements are a major contributor to the differences in income between
In this section of the paper flat tax will be compared with our current tax system in order to distinguish if differences it will make in the United States after its implementation. Along with that, the similarities between a flat tax and progressive tax will be noted too. As it is understandable that the ultimately targeted population for the flat tax is the upper class however when it comes to flat tax vs. progressive tax in the United States progressive tax system has been more welcoming than another method. However, as stated by Piketty and Saez (2007), in the United States the federal tax system has undergone three historical extreme changes which have pushed the federal tax system towards a less progressive side. Such in progressive tax system has provided the leverage of lower tax rates which benefits the one percent of Americans but not the majority of the American population. So although it is well circulated that the progressive tax methods have specific tax rates that ensure the higher
The tax rate schedules are set up to tax lower levels of income at higher tax rates than higher levels of income.
The issues of taxation
The tax system in the United States has changed throughout the years, with many attempts to make it "fair" or "equal" while at the same time generating enough income for the United States government to thrive. It is a complex issue, and a controversial one at that. While it may not be possible for our tax system to ever be fair, it is important to make sure it doesn 't put more financial stress and pressure on one group than on another.
There are three different types of tax systems presented in this article: Progressive income tax, Flat tax, and the Fair Tax. The progressive tax system is what we have in the US and is common in countries across the world. It bases the percentage of income tax you should pay by the amount of income you receive. Basically, if you have a large income then the rate of tax you will pay is larger and, furthermore, if you have a low income you will have a lower rate to pay. Many conservatives dislike this system because it forces the top percentage of taxpayers to pay a majority of the tax revenue. “According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of taxpayers have consistently paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90% since 2003…” It treats people differently and it allows for
Meaning that taxpayers pay more in taxes if they earn more in income. For example, taxpayers may pay 25% of their income in taxes up to a certain amount, and 35% of everything earned over that amount.
Generally, the income earners pay less income tax and more payroll taxes while the high-end income earners pay more income tax and less payroll taxes. The low income earners however get credit benefits as the government pays for their payroll taxes. Therefore, the high income racket still suffers the burden of individual taxes. In 2014, the bottom 20% had an effective tax rate of -4.5% while the top 1% faced an average of 24.6% a margin of 29% creates a very huge economical gap between the rich and the poor. This only ends up hurting the economy more. As a result, I believe the highest effective tax that should be applied to the top 1% should not be more than 20%. If it goes beyond 20%, they shall start demanding for tax cuts and further design ways to evade the tax payments.
"The most perennially political issues in the United States is the question of how much Americans should be taxed. Indeed, discounted over taxes was one of the major motivating factors in the revolution that established the United States as an independent nation"("Extending Tax Cuts", 1). Since taxes are one of the biggest topics in politics, there is always going to be two sides of the subject, and Taxes will always strike controversy in our country. The topic of having the rich pay more in tax has a deep history to consider, and there will always be both supporters and critics who continue to debate this topic.
The main topic of this research paper is taxation. Seeing that this topic is pretty open, I’ve chosen to write about the proposed idea of Fair Tax. Along with a little bit of insight on Fair Tax and a couple highlights of history, I’ll try and explain some pros and cons as well as give my opinion on the topic.
The United States Federal Government currently functions on a “progressive tax system”. A progressive tax system is based on ability to pay and therefor requires members of higher socioeconomic standing to pay higher federal income tax rates. The idea is that wealthy people, whether they are wealthy as a product of their own intelligence and labor or wealthy by inheritance, can afford to pay higher tax rates and still maintain a quality of life well beyond what is considered livable or even standard. This procedure understandably creates a lot of upset in the upper-class community. According to the IRS, in 2007, more that 44% of income tax revenues came from the top 5% of earners and more than 50% came from the top 10%. In the same year, the 400 wealthiest Americans, bringing in an average adjusted gross income of $345 million paid an average federal income tax rate of 17%, whereas the average tax payer during the same time period paid only 9.3% of their gross income to the federal taxes. In 2010, about 45% of all
The middle class ($50,000-$99,999) paid 14.9 percent of individual taxes, while the poor class paid 0.1% of individual taxes. The 1%, rich class, paid more than the middle class and poor class combined, yet they aren’t paying their share in the eyes of so many. In 2011 the 1 percent, people who were making $100,000 and higher paid 23.8 % of the total tax liability and 9.1% in 2000. According to the National Tax Payer’s Union, in the tax year of 2014 the top 1% ($465,626 AGI) paid 39.48% of taxes, while the top 50 % -25% ($38,173-$77,713 AGI) paid 10.47%, and the bottom 50%(<$36,841 AGI) still paid the least with paying only 2.78% of
Virtually all citizens and politicians alike, agree that the current tax code is entirely too complex, yet nearly every year the system gets more complicated, not less. The reason is that simplicity almost always clashes with the other goals within the tax policy. Most people believe income taxes should be enforceable, fair, and beneficial to economic wealth, all while maintaining simplicity. But even those who agree on the necessity of these goals often disagree about the hierarchical importance of each. As a result, the tax policies usually represent a portion of each competing goal, leaving no room for simplicity. For example, most countries tailor tax liabilities to the characteristics of the individual taxpayer. That can make taxes more fair, but also more complex. Income must first be traced from a business to the
By and large, every research study’s purpose assists the persons undertaking it appraise its significance in the light of individual values. Ideally, the statement spelling out the purpose should include not only the study's eventual purpose but also its immediate purpose. As noted earlier, there are various widespread contestations arising from differing appreciations of the basics of standard deductions. As a general rule, each of the deductions is seen as rising each succeeding year. Even then, in some cases, the deductions reduce in succeeding years. Consequently, the present study’s purpose is to use credible, actual data in determining whether for a fact, federal income tax-related standard deductions rise every twelve months
Tax system is a legal system of imposing and collecting taxes from the citizens of the country. As it has been stated by Albert Einstein, the hardest task in the world is to understand the tax system of a country. The United States’ tax system is so complicated that its tax code contains almost 3 million words and 6,000 pages. Moreover, the taxes implied by city and state governments add more complexity to the federal taxation system. In this case, we do not need to understand the complexity of tax code system in order to get acquainted with the significant role of taxes in American society.
Taxation systems are usually modeled in such a way that they take into consideration the social welfare of the citizens. The government and other policy makers have the responsibility of ensuring that the system takes into account the needs of the citizens. The bottom line is that taxation should foster equal distribution of resources. The rate of taxation is usually arrived at after several considerations have been made. The rates are not fixed as they depend on the various economic changes. The issue of how taxation should be distributed among the different economic classes is yet to be addressed.