Conservative View On Tax System Essay

With the presidential elections coming up, different tax policies are being debated between the candidates. Whether it is proposed by a Democratic or a Republican presidential candidate, there have been many possible solutions presented on how to reform the current tax code. Focusing specifically on four candidates, two from the Democratic Party, and two from the Republican Party, I will compare and contrast their respective tax proposals. While the Democratic candidates generally agree with President Obama’s current tax code, all four candidates are looking to reform it in some way in order to, in their own eyes, better the current tax code affecting today’s citizens.

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

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.

The national sales tax would replace our current income tax system by taxing goods and services. Under this system of taxation, people would pay taxes on every item purchased and not on income. This would help the economy through sales. "There would no longer be an inheritance tax or a capital gains tax. The government would impose a 17.65 percent tax on the value of all final sales to consumers. To protect lower-income citizens, the government would send all households periodic rebate checks, the net effect of which would be to offset the tax burden on purchase up to the poverty level" (Mitchell 2). This national sales tax is a popular

It also will cut income tax rate, make the standard deduction double, and take away personal exemptions. Since there is less taxes being collected, there will be less money the government can spend. The less the government can spend the less, they can help citizens of America. The tax relief policy affect America as a whole negatively. Furthermore, the tax makes it, so the government collect less revenue, which is bad for programs that are put to help people.

The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.

“I love paying my income tax! This tax system is so easy to understand!” said no United States citizen, ever. No one has ever said this because it is highly unlikely that no one actually enjoys struggling with the complexity of the current income tax system in the United States. The concept of contributing to the good of the community, county, state, and nation through taxation is not new, nor is it generally opposed by American citizens. Most tax paying citizens do not take issue with paying for police and fire protection, roads, and national security with tax dollars. However, what they do take issue with is the fact that the current tax code is a complicated nightmare. It is a bureaucratic mess of rules, regulations, and perhaps even infringements upon personal rights. Because of the complexity of the current tax code, the United States should implement a flat tax system for personal and corporate income tax to ensure consistent and fair taxation and to render the tax code as more user-friendly.

Flat tax is a system that would impose a single tax rate on all income subject to tax. Income would be taxed once and only once. Individuals and businesses would pay the same rate. The plan eliminates all deductions and credits. The only income not subject to tax would be a generous personal exemption that every American would receive. And no loopholes. Just a simple tax system that treats every American the same.

The supporters of the Flat Tax system are quick to point out this system's attributes but not as quickly as the criticisms by those who oppose it. The filing of taxes each year would be much easier because there would be one set rate to pay. This type of system also discourages, and makes it almost impossible, to find and use any existing schemes that are present to avoid paying taxes. However, because there is a set rate at which everyone needs to pay, this system is quite unfair. Those who earn and have a lot of money should not pay the same amount as someone who has only a fraction of their wealth. The wealthier you are, the more you should pay because you can afford it. If there is a set tax rate it would be too high to some people and pocket change to others. A system like this also takes away many, if not all tax deductions. An event like this would cause irreparable injury to the middle class, who often times rely heavily on money they will get back from tax deductions.

It’s not hard for any American to see that our tax system is a bit biased. "One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country… There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Hillary at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2012. Hillary Clinton suspects that American’s need an economy that function’s for everybody, rather than just those at the top believing the wealthy are not paying their fair share. Clinton demanded for a deadline to the tax reductions on the wealthiest Americans

This may sound like a tax plan that will relieve the financial burden on lower-income taxpayers, directly benefiting the poor, but in actuality, cutting taxes for all in a regressive manner gives substantially more money to the wealthiest taxpayers and a very small amount to lower income taxpayers. According to his plan, a typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1, 600 more of

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

The current federal income tax system in the United States (U.S.) is progressive based on the vertical equity principle. However, the tax code is getting increasingly complex and the wealthy are able to avoid paying taxes through loopholes. Hence, more people are yearning for fairness in taxation. With the looming 2016 presidential election, Senator Rand Paul’s proposal of ‘Fair and Flat Tax’ appears to have the most significant change to the current tax policy and I will now analyze if this proposal will improve the efficiency and equity of the U.S. tax code.

The Fair Tax is not a tax break. It ensures revenue neutrality meaning that the FairTax will give the government the same amount of revenue as the income tax system while spurring economic growth. The critics of the FairTax say that the rate should be at least 10% higher in order for the government to have revenue neutrality. With the substantially higher sales tax rate people may evade this tax and just buy the necessities. A vast majority of poor people are all in debt because they spend even when they don’t have money, when people have more money they save anyway. This fact leads critics to believe that since the poor and middle class spend the most they will be bear the burden of the substantially higher sales tax. FairTax answers this criticism by saying that the government will fully reimburse taxes for those whose income is below poverty level. The “prebate” discussed earlier and the elimination of FICA taxes

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