Progressive Income Tax

For instance, the fair tax is “regressive” implying that substantial tax burdens are placed on the shoulders of the poor people. This concept is true because the fair tax applies only when someone is spending on consumption (Hodge, 2017). The poor people spend almost everything they earn on their subsistence consumption. On the other hand, sale tax will encourage the rich people to avoid paying tax by minimizing consumption and embracing savings and investment.so they are the most affected group which means the federal government will have challenges in addressing the issue of poverty and

Everyday, American citizens are under obligation to pay their taxes in order to be classified as an upstanding citizen; however, the efficiency and fairness of America’s taxation system is a controversial topic which, in truth, places many hard-working Americans at a disadvantage. More often than not, tax reform is volleyed and utilized as a tool in elections rather than being addressed as the problem it is. In addition, the current system places many young people, namely college bound students, in a difficult situation in regard to financial assistance. While efforts toward taxation reform have been made, further progress and transformation are necessary in order to assist in the relief of inequity.

Wouldn't it be a perfect world if everyone paid their fair share of taxes? Shouldn’t everyone have skin in the game? For example, if the tax rate was 10%, then the person earning $10,000 per year would pay $1,000 in taxes, and the person earning $100,000 per year would pay $10,000 in taxes. Does this sound too good to be true? Many complain that our current tax system is broken and there has to be a better tax system. During this last presidential campaign, the idea of a flat tax system was once again discussed as an option by one of the candidates. Over the years, many bills have been introduced to congress to change our tax system. Right now, Congress is debating on a new tax system. Our President is pushing for change as he realizes the current system is not going to get the deficit down. We may not see significant change this term, but it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. This paper will discuss what is wrong with our current system, the possible solution of adopting a flat tax system, the counter evidence of why a flat tax system is probably not the solution to our tax problem and why this evidence is right. Our current system is very complex, not efficient, biased, and basically not effective. Did you know the current tax code has over 9 million words? (books.google.com) (241 words) It’s no wonder people want change. I think most would agree our current tax system needs revised. We hear on the news how big corporations pay little in

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 U.S. individual income tax system has improved tremendously during the last 60 years, and it is now much more intrusive and complex. Prior the year of 1948, there was no income splitting and income averaging for families. In the early 1948, there was a tragedy due to the high progressive rate in the income tax system. Ross Lockridge Jr., who was an excellent student, a loving husband and father. He dedicated many years to write a novel, Raintree County, which made a huge success in both literature and his financial status. According to the income tax law at that time, Lockridge had to pay an outrageously high tax rate. The high pressure of the tax payments ultimately resulted in the unfortunate suicide of Lockridge.

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 arguments regarding federal progressive income tax has been represented to us through the United States Supreme Court, on the floors of congress, and in media. The revenue from taxes reached the objective of financing wars from the Civil War through World War II. At the same time deteriorating the economy with fewer dollars that could be used on imports, exports, and services (Henchman). Today, the United States deficit is $18,800,241,350,538.12 this is a grand total of 58,405.32 owed by every man, woman, and child (Brown). The legal illusion is presenting the question, is income tax legal? There are Americans today who believe income tax is not legal and stand by their beliefs in a movement that has cost many individuals considerably. I am interviewing such a person, his name is Bobby Ray and the history he presented to me was interesting, and has left me with more questions than answers.

Taxes have always been a contentious issue of debate in the United States; furthermore it is exacerbated by the specific philosophy of individuals, states, and regions. Too be clearer, nobody enjoys paying taxes, however it is the cost we pay for having civilization. Nevertheless, selfishness creeps in to many individuals who feel no particular benefit. Taxes have a real way of polarizing many people from different socio-economic backgrounds, because a tax is inexorably linked to a person’s belief-system. For instance, in the context of social welfare policy liberals are inclined to feel that the tax-burden should be heaped on individuals who have benefited the most from “the system”. On the other hand, we have conservatives who feel they did not receive any support, and all that is necessary is hard work and perseverance to succeed. I am not suggesting either one is correct; it is only a simple illustration to show the relation between pocketbook and personal belief. I hope studying the tax structures of New Jersey and Alabama will give me insight they both reconcile their political beliefs with their individual tax structures.

The United States economy, as known by all, is not in its best shape. One way in which the government gains money is by imposing taxes on people. There are many taxes that are placed on different things that everyone needs or already has. The United States uses a taxation system which is criticized by many. The system used in Progressive Tax; however, many people believe the system of Flat Tax, or Proportional Tax, should be the system that is used for taxing.

Clearly regressive and proportional taxes present a growing problem in regard to rising poverty rates in the United States.

The United States tax system is in complete disarray. Republicans and Democrats agree that the current tax code is complex, unfair, and costly. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms (Armey 1). The main reason the tax system is so complex is because of the special preferences such as deductions and tax credits. Complexity in the current tax system forces Americans to spend 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to manufacture every car, truck and van produced in the United States (Armey 1). Time is not the only thing that is lost with the current tax system; Americans also lose

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.

We have all heard the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin who stated, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” (“Benjamin Franklin Quotes”) We find this to be true as we begin working and feel the pain of money being taken from our paychecks. Then we face the chore of having to file income taxes yearly. Although there are many taxes we are subject to, most people are referring to federal income tax when they complain about taxes. There has been debate for decades about the current system but there has been no agreement on how to fix it. The United States currently has a progressive tax code which means people pay taxes according to their earnings. This has been in place since the time of Abraham Lincoln. An alternative

In addition to economic issues, taxation is also a political issue. Political leaders formulate tax policies to bring reforms in the taxation system in order to promote their agendas. The major tax reforms include: increasing or decreasing the tax rate, imposing new taxes on certain products and changing the definition of taxable income. It is evident from the research studies that no one deliberately wants to pay taxes. U.S’ tax policy reflects expression of influence - i.e., those who have power are successful in paying low taxes and their burden is shifted to people who have no power. Therefore retired individuals, small business owners and farmers find ways efforts to reduce their tax burden. Since its existence, tax policy has been enormously used for promoting political and economic agendas.

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.