Unjust To Tax

James Madison once stated inequality of the rich and poor predicament to be “evil” and believed that the government should avoid an “immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” (Johnston, 2016). As one of the founding fathers of our nation, James Madison had a concern about the separation between the rich and the poor. He felt the government should do what it could to avoid the separation, which one can infer that he meant for the government to tax the rich by a greater percentage, thus reducing the financial burden on the poor. A rift has always been present between the rich and the poor throughout history. Depending upon the job, the working class may or may not make enough to support a family. At this point, the

Wealth is often harder to tax however it is often caused by income so the tax system previously described may be used to reduce wealth and thus stopping inequality. This system can also be found in wealth though, with inheritance tax being used progressively. For example any money above 325,000 is taxed at 40%. This then creates a source of revenue for the government but also stops people inheriting huge sums of money, stopping inequality. However this system has its flaws as the tax has to be paid first, it could also be argued as unfair as someone who works for their money is entitled to leave it to who they want, especially as it was already taxed when it was earned. This system has also caused many pensioners to move abroad where what they leave is taxed less. The money inherited is also often used by entrepreneurs to fund businesses so the system may also reduce the possibility for future in income tax. This systems also sonly raises

Although many Americans believe the top one percent should have higher tax rates there are also many people who believe that the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes.

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).

The rich should not be taxed more. Increasing tax rates for the upper class will not solve the present inequality problem. The wealthy americans should be expected the same amount of taxes as the poor for equality. Those who earn more shouldn't help the less fortunate because they worked harder for the money they earn.

People shouldn’t make the same amount of money as the rest of people because if you work harder than the other people you should make more. It’s not fair if you are a dentist and only making a hundred and twenty dollars and a potato peeler makes the same amount. If you work more harder than someone else you should pay more than someone who barleys does anything at all and still gets the same amount of money that you make a week. Its is wrong to be paid the same amount as the other people in your society because if you have worked hard for it than you should make more than the rest of the people in the society.

(What is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?). Redistribution of wealth policies in the United States take a greater share of income from those families belonging to the top 20th percentile than those families in the bottom percentiles (Prante and Hodge). Families in the top 20th percentile earn on average 50 percent of our nation’s income (Prante and Hodge). As a result the nation’s middle to upper class earners would appear to have stopped achieving as much success due to the redistribution of their money, this causing a tremendous drop in the nation’s income averaging around 39.6 percent. When comparing the top 20th percentile to the bottom 20th percentile, those within the lowest quintile of our population makeup only 3.1 percent of the nation’s income, according to statistics from 2012 (Prante and Hodge). By the process of redistribution, it increased those of the lower quintile incomes by almost $1.1

I personally believe national sales tax would be unfair to the current tax system. I believe that it wouldn't be fair because it would burden the poor. National sales tax is a tax based on consumption. People in poverty spend most of their income trying to buy all their necessitiees. Due to the fact that they spend most of thei income that means their taxes would be higher because of how much of thei money they're spending. This is truly a huge disadvantage for the poor. That is why i believe it is an unfair alternative to the current tax

Controversy will always follow humans where ever we go. Humans have argued over many issues for centuries, often times with no conclusion or “correct” answer ever in sight. One common issue that has been debated since the early 1900s is whether or not the more wealthy individuals in a society should be taxed more heavily than their poorer counterparts. Many have argued over the pros and cons of the taxation of richer people, but when one looks at it objectively, the pros far outweigh the cons. Not only do the pros outweigh the cons, but a question one must ask oneself is whether or not prosperous people really need that extra money? Richer people should be taxed higher because it is better for the economy, social classes will

One of the most prevalent topics in modern-day American politics is the rising wealth gap. This drives the question, at what point do inequalities of economic liberty and social justice become unjust? There are three main views that speak on the subject. In his book Theory of Justice, John Rawls follows a high liberal tradition of thought, asserting that a distributive pattern of justice is most correct. On the other hand, in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues for an emergent approach to justice, rooted in libertarian philosophy. Lastly, John Tomasi, in his book Free Market Fairness, offers the most compelling argument of the three. Tomasi purports that the market democratic approach to justice is the appropriate way to achieve much needed harmony between economic liberty and social justice. Market democracy, as Tomasi stated, is “a hybrid”. Market democracy is a philosophical attempt to bridge over the ideological divide between the two liberal traditions of libertarianism, as defended by Nozick, and high liberalism, as defended by Rawls. Tomasi’s market democratic hybrid is most compelling, because rather than state that either economic liberties or social justice are paramount, as the libertarians and high liberals do, respectively, market democracy states that social justice and economic rights are not mutually exclusive, and that they are integral to a just society.

Thomas Piketty proposes implementing “a progressive global tax on capital” rather than a progressive income in responding to current inequality issues, he feels that the government must assume a central role in the “economic and social life” of its citizens through the redistribution of wealth. (471 - 474). As defined by Piketty, “modern redistribution does not consist in transferring income from the rich to the poor, at least not in so explicit a way. It consists rather in financing public services and replacement incomes that are more or less equal for everyone especially in the areas of health, education, and pensions”

Unfortunately some people do not have the ability to earn a living in a market economy. Others benefit from inherited wealth, hard dedicating work, or owning their business. Governments in market economies inevitably engage in programs that redistribute income, and they often do so with the overt intention of making tax policies. On the other hand, advocates of extensive redistribution disagree and allege that role of government limits the concentration of wealth and maintains a wider diffusion of economic power among households, presently as antitrust laws are designed to maintain competition and a wider diffusion of power and resources among producers. Those who oppose major redistribution programs counter that additional taxes on high-income families decrease the incentives

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

Since the birth of our nation, there has been fierce debate between fiscal conservatives and liberals on how we should tax our people. Conservatives say that we should tax the rich less, where liberals say we should tax the rich more. Raising taxes on the rich is beneficial to the majority of the American populace. Taxing the rich more and the poor less would increase the velocity of money in the economy. The super-rich should pay more to maintain and improve the system they utilized to become rich. We need to retool the new generation of workers for the world and that required more capital. The richest 1% of people in the country own more than the bottom 90% so they should be completely fine with a higher tax rate.

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a