The American Tax Code : How Our Government 's The Wealthy

One brother has 4 cookies. Another brother has 2 cookies. The brother with 4 cookies did 2x the work to get these cookies. Big brother come along and takes 3 of the first brother’s cookies but only 1 of the second because it’s only fair they have the same amount. How does the first brother feel? This analogy shows the current progressive system of tax and one reason it is flawed and unfair. If America had a flat tax it would leave the first brother with 3 cookies and the second with 1 and 1/2. Sound more fair? This is why America should have a modified flat tax system because it is more fair to the people, it will promote economic growth, and it will make paying taxes easier.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

As we move closer to the 2016 national elections in the United States, claims of a growing wealth gap between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” becomes more pronounced. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even went so far as to caution us that we are advancing towards a repeat of the “Gilded Age of the robber barons”. The insinuation in this claim creates a perception that there are a growing number of individuals within American society using questionable methods to increase their wealth, all at the expense of the not so fortunate. So-called culprits of these activities are often referred to as the “top 1 percent”; a term gaining a strong foothold in our current vernacular. Although the existence of an income inequality gap is evident, subjectively misinterpreted data is the primary culprit driving the perception that the income inequality gap is expanding.

I agree with the second article. The article is called “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” and is written by Richard A. Epstein. “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” is about reducing income inequality through tax policies. In order to do so, Richard Epstein discussed giving wealth to the lower class citizens. Richard Epstein says that taking from the wealthy would help and be more beneficial to those who do not have as much. This would make the income line more equal. The money would come through the taxes. (260).

Edin and Skinner begin their article by explaining to their readers that income inequality is a prevalent and complex problem in America today. The authors also point out that although President Obama and several other Democrats have proposed legislative approaches, such as raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich, to combat this problem, it will take a long time for these proposals to become law due to the Republican-dominated Congress. Because the authors believe these laws will take too long to be put into

In the article “Job One: Tax Code Rewrite,” William O’Keefe, an author who cares about tax reform, argues that the Obama Administration should rewrite the tax code in order to reduce the unemployment rate. He supports this claim with a formal tone by using opinions and anecdotes as evidence. According to William, we need “systematic reforms to our tax code and regulatory policy.” The author targets a tax reform audience that cares about the economy. William’s purpose is to persuade readers that Obama’s stimulus tax bill will not help the economy or business in the long run. This work is significant because it challenges the Obama Administration to rethink their priorities.

The gap between the rich and poor in the United States is constantly growing, due to the fact that minimum wage is low for the poor but not for the rich. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is no gray area in this situation. According to A Project of The Institute for Policy Studies, “The top 0.1 percent is taking in over 184 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.” There

Wealth inequality is already shaping American politics and society, and has the dangerous potential to be the defining problem of the upcoming generation. A sizable cause for wealth inequality in America is a dire lack of

The most beneficial of these tax policies is the capital gains preferential tax rate. When comparing the ordinary income marginal tax rates to the capital gains tax rate, the highest ordinary income tax bracket has a 39.6% rate, while the long-term capital gains tax rate only goes up to 20%. Even with the attachment of the social security surtax imposed by the Affordable Care Act of 3.8%, the highest long-term capital gain rate will be 23.8%, which remains lower than the ordinary income tax rate. Even with the long-term capital gains tax rate applies to investment dividends and capital gains, which are activities mainly practiced by those with the monetary means to do so. A large percentage of the very wealthy generate income from investments rather than wages, and thus their income is taxed at a lower rate. The top 1% holds approximately 50% of American investment in stock and mutual funds, and the bottom 90% holds approximately 9% of the national wealth in stocks and mutual funds. “…the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimates that the

Amity Shlaes talks about how presidents such as Nixon, and Bush removed millions of Americans from the tax bracket completely and that those same exact people don’t want a proportional tax rate and want to tax the rich because “they can afford it”. That just seems unfair and unjust. The first video was very opinionated saying that the rich now make more money than before, of course they have the money now due to war times & depressions being over however, the less money they have the less likely they’re to make more investments into other things such as creating more offices, and hiring more people to work for their company

The United States of Inequality is an article that delves into the harsh realities we face in our country today, with regards to income inequality. Income inequality in the United States is at a rise. And the sobering factor is that so little is being done to address this issue. According to a new study by researchers at the Economic Policy Institute, forces of rising inequality are operating at an all-time high throughout the United States. The study, “which measures income inequality by state, metro area and county, shows that inequality has risen in every state since the 1970s.” It also shows that rising inequality is deep-rooted.  “Recessions in recent decades have temporarily slowed income growth among the top 1 percent, but they have not altered the basic pattern in which the rich have gotten much richer while nearly everyone else has seen income stagnate or decline (Tritch, "The United States of Inequality", 2016).” In all, the top 1 percent in the United States captured 85.1 percent of total income growth from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, the 1.6 million families in the top 1 percent made 25.3 times as much on average as the 161 million families in the bottom 99 percent.

There is an income gap among American workers that prevents the economy from growing and divides the country based on how much money they make. In 2012, a person or household earning over $392,000 a year was considered to be in the nation’s top 1 percent of earners (Stewart). Equal opportunity motivates people to work hard to earn a lot of money. As a result, a gap between the rich and the average worker formed. This gap has continued to grow over the past three decades. Right now the income gap is the largest it has been in the past 100 years. The country’s richest 400 people, determined by Forbes Magazine, have a larger combined income than the bottom 60 percent of America (Kertscher). The income gap only allows those with a high income

In the United States, income inequality is obvious and widespread. Presidential candidates realize income inequality will be a major point of any presidential campaign. The major civil rights issue of today is income inequality. Such a large misdistribution of wealth has likened modern economics to slavery. Lower-income workers are forced to work longer hours at a stagnant wage to maintain consumption. On the other hand, to say that the super-rich are beyond fairly compensated is an understatement. The top 10 percent of wage earners received 48.2 percent of total earnings in 2012. The super-rich make the rules of the game (laws) favor the rich. Those with large wealth control the decisions that affect employment, wages, and benefits through

With rapidly rising income inequality in the United States, would the redistribution of taxes benefit the US economy? It is one of the greatest political questions that deserves to be debated since the US economy suffers with a huge deficit that topped $20 trillion this year and is expected to grow by another 10 trillion over the next decade. In Julie Borowski’s blog post,”Why Shouldn’t the Rich Pay More in Taxes,” she reveals the value of equal opportunity as she proves her argument of why the rich should not bare a larger burden on the national debt crisis through her use of ethos, logos, cynical diction and rhetorical questions. Before we analyze her views, it is important to note that our federal income taxes pay for social security

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.