Tax Reform : A Quintessential Recalibration

The growing national deficit is a looming problem in the United States now more than ever. The national debt is constantly increasing and government spending is out of control. If these issues are not solved then they could spell disaster for the nation’s economy when the infamous debt ceiling is finally reached. Currently the national policy on the debt is to continue raising the debt limit until a solution is found that is agreeable between both parties in Congress. The two main issues of over spending and the constant raising of the debts ceiling by Congress can both be resolved by government spending reform, balancing the federal budget and initiating pro-growth policies in order to increase the government’s tax revenue.

In the article “Job One: Tax Code Rewrite,” William O’Keefe, an author who cares about tax reform, argues that the Obama Administration should rewrite the tax code in order to reduce the unemployment rate. He supports this claim with a formal tone by using opinions and anecdotes as evidence. According to William, we need “systematic reforms to our tax code and regulatory policy.” The author targets a tax reform audience that cares about the economy. William’s purpose is to persuade readers that Obama’s stimulus tax bill will not help the economy or business in the long run. This work is significant because it challenges the Obama Administration to rethink their priorities.

We have a long story of debt, but it seems no one has been able to make it better. If the debt is increasing over time, the government has a budget deficit. Charles C. Turner, et al, defines the deficit as spending that exceed a revenue (482). In history, basic deficit or debt was usually from over spending from a war and economic issues like a recession or depression. Then the government had a budget deficit almost every year “between 1970 and 1997,” but the tax cut and more spending on defense by President Reagan in 1981 added more growth to the deficit. Also, another cause is from reducing of productivity seem in the GDP and lower tax rate (tax cut) (483). Even when the government had some budget surplus, still, it could not cover the debt. In 2012, the debt grew “over $ 16 trillion,” (482-483) and has increased more in recent year plus “2.9 percent” of the budget deficit in 2016 (The 2016 Long Term Budget Outlook, 2). To manage the economic depression, sometime policymakers cut the taxes and increase spending again by putting more money into the private sectors (Turner, 483); therefore, government goes further with the budget unbalancing. There are several reasons that lower the tax rate will not reduce the budget deficit closer to a balance.

Imaging yourself accepting you’re first credit card and immediately you begin to frivolously spend all the money your bank offers you. However, come to find out, you didn’t realize there was a consequence to your spending and now you are eagerly trying to pay back the money you owe with interest. Now take that scenario and apply it to our government spending in the United States. The author of “Going for Broke,” Michael Tanner, explains in his book the current financial crisis America is subjecting themselves to in the long run. Governmental officials of various political parties are turning blind eyes to the ever-increasing concern of stability in the United States. More of our taxing paying dollars are being used to chip away at an increasing debt that our government has no intent on fixing. The goal of this paper is to address Tanner’s issues with the growing economic deficit of the American people and its complacent government. Some questions Tanner emphasis on are: what can of debt does America have, where is the taxpayers' dollar being spent on, and what will happen to our economy if nothing is fixed?

Fixing the national debt is a coservercal issue within our government. Since the two parties have opposing views on how to fix it, it creates gridlock on the process of creating a plan to reduce it. (Perdue, 2015) Our federal government debt has extensively tripled since the year 2000 (see appendix A) (Historical Debt Outstanding Annual 2000-2015,2015), today our debt is a tad bit over nineteen billion. (U.S.NationalDebtClock.org , 2016) We have arrived at his point through the imbalance between revenues and spending, fueled by ever-high interest rates. Which will approximately result with us reaching ninety percent of GDP. (Greife, 2010) The government has no revenue. Therefore, the money it receives comes from the people and the

The recent clash between the president and congress about raising the debt ceiling made the front page on every newspaper throughout the country and generated controversy of unimaginable proportion among the citizens of the United States of America (College for Financial Planning). No macroeconomics issue is more controversial today than the impact of large public debt on the economy and on future generations, but, however, there appears to be a huge disconnect between professional, political leaders, and the ordinary public about the national debt and its impact on the current and future

Many United States' citizens are unaware of the country's current financial state. Many assume that one of the world's wealthiest countries could never be in debt. This is untrue however, and, in fact, the country with the greatest income per capita is in major debt. This study will examine possible solutions to reducing the United States' national budget deficit.

As we discussed and read about this week in our class, the topic of the US Budget and how, why and what should we do about it has become a topic with many views and opinions. The United States of America currently holds over 16 Trillion dollars in debt based on our governments spending practices for the last ten years. Two wars, numerous fiscal collapses and cliffs, a bubble popped housing market, looming medical care costs from a socialized healthcare law and a recession have caused the government to acquire enormous amounts of debt. This debt with caused by what seems to be from irresponsible spending on both the Legislative and the Executive Branches have done nothing to lessen this deficit. One idea that has been discussed not only in

There is an ominous shadow hanging over the American people threatening to consume our freedoms, wealth, and the very sanity that holds our nation together. America is a nation born from revolution against unjust taxation from a government that does not hear the voice of those who pay the taxes. Today this nation is threatened by the same oppression that incited a revolution and gave birth to one of the greatest democracies in history of the world. The accumulated debt of America and its people is without rival in the modern world, and threatens to tear this nation apart. The only way to deal with the rising debt of a nation is to tax its people, like the Federal Income Tax. Many question the Federal income tax, asking if this is a

Since the nation’s very beginning, it has carried a debt from the American Revolution. Only once in the entire U.S. history has been the debt zero, during President Andrew Jackson’s administration in the 1830’s. President Jackson set a budget like the other future and past presidents, but actually stayed within its parameters. However, the debt kept growing after his presidency and reached $18 trillion dollars today. The world has changed a lot since the 1830’s, the methods used during that period can no longer be the solution in 2015 because there are just too many factors that must be considered. The size and the population of the country have changed dramatically, foreign relationships are far more complicated and broader, and people’s expectations of the government are different.

The 2003 Bush Tax Reform was on the verge of expiring and congress recognized letting the Bush tax reform expire would represent a big mistake (Dye), for it could cause a huge damper in the United States economic, cause interest groups and the American people to chime in on a government official incapable of getting legislation passed to avoid suffrage of the American people. Congress debated back and forth over the issues of raising the top income tax rate marginal from 35 percent to 39.5 percent, unemployment compensation extension and real estate taxes.

This approach has been used in the past, it was used by Ronald Reagan, back then it was called “Reaganomics”, or supply-side economics. Reagan, once in office cut income taxes from 70% to 50%; by cutting taxes and putting more money right into the hands job creates you take the government out of the equation. A good example of this is comes from the National Tax Journal article “Changes in the Organization of Business Activity and Implications for Tax Reform” written by George A. Plesko and Eric J. Toder, in the article they talk about The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), which helped begin to put things in motion to change in the corporate world, TRA 86 allowed corporations to change what type of tax bracket they wanted to be in with the only real changes was to how much they would end up paying in taxes.

Recently, the public and the government of the United States have been at odds with each other over many enforced fiscal policies. Whether one believes that the answer to the nation’s economical crisis is an increase taxation of the wealthy one percent, or the leveling of the tax rate, every concerned citizen is searching for a solution. Typically, in American politics, the liberal side of the political scale believes that the wealthy should contribute more to the nation’s tax income. This idea centers on the notion that a lower tax rate on the poor will ease their burden and allow them to purchase more products; meanwhile, the rich will support the tax deficit from the lower classes with their own vast amounts of wealth. Opposite liberals, there is the conservatives. They will typically advocate for a tax break for business owners (wealthy or otherwise) or a more even tax rate across the socioeconomic classes. This outlook is supported by the idea that if the upper one percent of the U.S.A. is flourishing, it will produce more jobs and opportunity for the middle and lower class. Regardless of who is consulted, many people in today’s more liberal society will agree with higher taxation of the rich. However, there is a growing number of people in the United States that believe that the answer to solving the economic crisis is to abolish the current income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. By installing a national

We have a long story of debt, but it seems no one has been able to make it better. If the debt is increasing over time, the government has a budget deficit. Charles C. Turner, et al, define deficit as spending that exceed revenue (482). In history, basic deficit or debt was usually from over spending from a war and economic issues like a recession or depression. Then the government had a budget deficit almost every year “between 1970 and 1997,” but tax cut and more spending on defense by President Reagan in 1981 added more growth to the deficit. Also, another cause is from reducing of productivity seem in the GDP and lower tax rate (tax cut) (483). Even when the government had some budget surplus, still, it could not cover the debt. In 2012, the debt grew “over $ 16 trillion,” (482-483) and has increased more in recent year plus 2.9 percent of budget deficit in 2016 (The 2016 Long Term Budget Outlook, 2). To manage the economic depression, sometime policymakers cut the taxes and increase spending again by putting more money into private sectors (Turner, 483); therefore, government goes further with the budget unbalancing. There are several reasons that lower tax rate will not reduce the budget deficit closer to a balance.

Throughout most of the country’s history, the United States’ federal government maintained a reasonable level of national debt. For example, the total national debt in 1981 was $998 billion. Since then, however, the government has generated significant budget deficits, and the level of debt has risen to $16.7 trillion in 2013 (Calleo, 39). Budget deficits are caused