The Tax Reform : The National Sales Tax

While most taxpayers agree that tax reform is necessary for our country the problem they encounter is the difficulty they experience when trying to understand all the political terms used when discussing tax reform. This paper is an attempt to help the taxpayers of our country to better understand the political terminology and gain knowledge about some of the proposals that have been explored.

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.

People do not enjoy talking about taxes because they are too political, confusing, and depressing. It is no secret that the American tax code is a mess and something many economists describe as too broken to fix. Despite this, politicians have never stopped from trying to “fix” the code, yet they have had very little success. The U.S. Government’s tax code currently comprises “more than 67,000 pages of complexities” (Boortz, Linder, & Woodall 14). The Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) was founded in 1995 with one goal: create the simplest and best tax reform plan that would work in the modern market and economy. The AFFT’s best solution was a bill which they promptly called the FairTax.

The current tax code for the United States is almost 74,000 pages long. Or to put that into a different light: About 116 copies of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It is small wonder that a few of the announced candidates for President of the United States, have again begun to kick the tires on the topic of a Flat Tax. But is a flat tax actually a solution to our country’s growing tax complexity? What are the potential economic effects of a flat tax (both positive and negative)? Finally, is a flat tax even a viable solution? In short, will it work? As a concept, a flat tax is spectacular. Simplicity at its finest. As a fiscal policy, I believe that same simplicity must be examined and inspected closely.

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

Many Americans agree today that there should be higher taxes on the wealthy. Many surveys have been conducted to reveal the opinion of whether or not the rich should be taxed more. Many of the surveys equaled out with opinions and others, like one conducted in 2010, showed that 67 percent of Americans believe that the wealthy should pay more in social security tax. From another survey conducted a year later in 2011, Americans were asked whether the wealthy should be taxed more and the wealth redistributed, and results were split with 47 percent choosing redistribution and 49 percent disagreeing with the idea (Introduction to Should the Rich Pay Higher Taxes?,2). But “more than six and ten Americans think the United States benefits from having a class of rich people, which is an unchanging idea from 22 years ago” (Introduction to Should the Rich Pay Higher Taxes?, 2).

The governments in any country use various taxation systems to raise funds to fund its national projects. The most common tax system is the income tax whereby the government raises funds from individual’s earnings. However, in the past few years, there has been heated debate about the adverse effects of progressive income tax on productivity and a proposal to replace it with national sales tax (Hodge, 2017). The national sales tax also known as the fair tax is intended to replace the current income tax and the idea is to enable the government to generate income from consumptions as opposed to earnings. This document examines the positives and negatives of the proposed national sales tax on the U.S. economy. The suggestion to impose a tax on consumption rather than consumption aims at encouraging savings and investments to improve productivity and promote economic growth. It is expected to promote fairness in the taxation because individuals will pay according to what they consume and not what they earn.

Now I know no one like to pay taxes, but it’s a necessary component of our government to provide for the people. Without taxes who would pay for your roads, pay those defending your freedom, or even pay public educators. I am not here today to ask the middle class to pay more, but hear to inform the one percent they should contribute more. The wealthy who can afford it, should pay a little more. With my election, comes a proposal which will delicately raise tax on the one percent. This money will not be wasted in vain, but be used to implement several other plans being developed by my party.

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.

"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.

The congressional proposed tax changes will adversely affect the U.S. middle class. According to Pew Research, which claims to obtain its data through non-partisan demographic research and public opinion polling, the American middle class, defined as those making two-thirds to double the median income, makes up about half the population. Further information in this paper is obtained from reliable sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which are typically regarded as center to left, As well as right-leaning sources such as Forbes magazine, whose chief editor, Steve Forbes, is a major Republican. The Congressional Budget Office and the US Census Bureau also supply reliable, researched data, and both Time Inc, Money, and

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

The Nordic Model is a unique welfare system that focuses on prosperity, equality, social security, and trust. The Nordic Countries value education, government support, and an open market. All citizens of the Nordic Countries are supported equally through this system. Appealing to both the wealthy and poor lets the wealthy people be more supportive. Using this system could solve some quandaries in the United States, but would also start some new ones. One of the down sides of the Nordic Model is the higher taxation. Large amounts of government support calls for the taxation in these countries to be significantly higher than the United States. In the United States, there are already many complaints about the taxation being too high for a certain

Policy makers have introduced a solution to the staggering proportion of taxes that Americans spend. The flat tax, based on an idea developed by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of Stanford University to create a fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system (Mitchell 1, 11). There are four basic criteria that make up a flat tax. First is a single low rate on taxable income, the baseline for taxable income would be raised to a certain amount dictated by a personal exemption. Second is simplicity, all Americans would fill out the same postcard-sized form to pay their taxes. Third is the reduction or elimination of deductions, credits, and exemptions, depending