The Pros And Cons Of Bush Tax Cuts

The Fair Tax Plan is a sales tax proposal to replace the current U.S. income tax structure. It would allow all taxpayers to pay the same amount of tax, whether they are wealthy or poor. The current tax code has over 60,000 pages, which wealthy people can afford to hire someone to find loop holes that will keep them from having to pay taxes; whereas someone poor wouldn’t be able to afford someone to help them find loop holes, causing them to have to pay taxes no matter what. The fair tax plan code is about 132 pages which allows for greater transparency and understanding for both the wealthy and poor, and it would allow everyone to pay the same tax rate on things they buy. Many view this as a negative aspect because sales tax will be increasingly

George W. Bush lowered the taxes during his term, signing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The idea was to lower taxes for Americans but only the richest people benefited from the taxes being lowered. The average middle-class family received one-eighth of the tax breaks a richer family would and therefore the middle class fell behind. The tax cuts also failed to make jobs for people, influences the current day deficit problem. George W. Bush tried to lower taxes during his term however only the rich gained and the negative affects are still seen today.

President Obama came into office in the aftermath of the disastrous foreign policy record of the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had served as a “switchman,” leading to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration exercised unilateral use of force and reluctance to engage the international community. As a result global elites and publics viewed the US unfavorably. The US economy was negatively affected by the costs of the wars coupled with the financial crisis of 2007. It was this environment that defined the contours of the election campaign of 2008. Obama campaigned on the idea of change, which represented a regeneration of America through domestic public policy reform and a return to multilateralism in foreign policy. Both domestic and international publics and elites were galvanized by Obama’s message.

As Reaganomics was effective in the past, it can still be today. The federal government should cut tax rates for not only the people, but also for businesses to promote people to spend their money, therefore it goes back into the system, helping the economy grow.

This economic expansion and boost would occur through citizens who would spend the extra tax money on products and services in their geographical region or who would invest money into businesses in their area. The only problem for the government using this theory would be the initial revenues that the government would lose from the tax cuts. In theory the economic growth would eventually increase taxable incomes, this increase in taxable incomes should cause the governmental revenues to grow in the long run. With the idea of Reaganomics in mind President Reagan persuaded Congress to pass the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which is the first major step in his plan. This Tax Act called for a 25 percent tax cut that was implemented over a three-year period (David Mervin, 1990, 133-7). The only problem with this tax cut is the fact that it mainly benefited the upper - income taxpayers and large corporations. The reason that these groups were targeted is because there is more of a chance that they will invest their money in business programs that will promote economic growth. After this tax cut took effect the American people in the lower - income tax brackets were not pleased with the results. They seemed to be faced with an increase in their tax rates even though most of them were in the income categories below the national average. On the other end of the spectrum the people that were in the upper tax brackets were experiencing significant tax cuts. The

More savings will thus reduce that rate and so presumably spur more entrepreneurship and so on” (Worstall). Worstall proves not only is non-taxed income possible but it can be done over time. Tami Luhby, senior writer for CNN Money, interviewed Gerald Friedman from the Economics Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Friedman mentions that Bernie Sanders helped him do an experiment which worked. Friedman, however, argues that “Sanders ' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money [$1 trillion on infrastructure] into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes… (Luhby). The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire. If there is more spending, people will have more to do, Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate” (Luhby). Mr. Sander’s plan is similar to our current President Barack Obama’s plan. He poured money into the economy but it was by artificially inflating the Stock Market and economy. We still have high unemployment and now an additional $10.6 trillion in national debt. (Sargent)

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

"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.

When a government’s spending exceeds its revenues causing or deepening a deficit it is called deficit spending. Deficit spending is only one of numerous tools used to help manage the economy. Deficit spending is presumed to stimulate consumer demand by helping the consumer to obtain more money to spend, in turn, the demand of product will rise. There are advantages and disadvantages to deficit spending that we will discuss further below.

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

The United States economy is racing ahead at dangerous speeds, and it may be too late to prevent the return of widespread inflation. Ideally the economy should move ahead gradually and grow at a steady manageable rate. Mae West once stated “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful” and it seems the U.S. Treasury Secretary agrees. The Secretary announced that due to our increasing surplus and booming economy, instead of having an outsized tax cut, we should use the surplus to further pay down the national debt. A tax cut, though most Americans would favor it initially, would prove counter productive. Cutting taxes would over stimulate an already raging economy, and enhance the possibilities of an

President Obama has introduced a variety of fiscal policy changes during his presidency; some of his ideas, however, did little to strengthen the economy as they were intended to do. For example, in 2001, as President Bush had just entered office, he ushered a reduction of income tax rates in addition to other tax cuts for the middle class, through Congress. While these policies were initially quite slow in boosting the economy, the economic benefits eventually began to surface around 2003 and the economy did begin to exhibit stronger growth. However, President Bush’s tax policy was set with an “expiration date”, set by Congress through a budget process called “reconciliation”

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

I agree that a solution to fix the issue of the national debt is to increase taxes by fifty-seven percent or cut all government spending by thirty-seven percent. Although I agree with it, I think there maybe a way to improve it without making things awkward. Increasing the tax percentage could fix our problem, I just wonder how the younger generations will handle this considering the financial situation they are dealing with now with high student debt and other economic factors. Cutting government spending is not necessarily a bad thing. However, if you cut spending on vital programs like Medicare, the quality of products from the programs may not help us the way they were meant to

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