Introduction: In the year 1862 during the civil war congress implemented the first income tax in America. It was 3% per year. However, it was not until 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, which granted the government the ability to impose a tax on individuals’ income. Since then it has been an issue to determine how much people should be taxed. Tax rates in America change drastically; for example, in 1963 a person in the highest tax bracket would give 90.8% of their income to the government. In contrast, that same person would only pay 28.0% in 1988. The tax rate for income tax is an issue because for every dime that someone pays in taxes is one dime that they are not able to spend themselves. Additionally, people …show more content…
The author is a editor and writer for a textbook publishing company. She argues that there are pros and cons of the system that is in place now, as well the new proposed flat tax system. With the flat tax system it would be easier for businesses and individuals because the tax would be simpler making taxes easier. There would be more drawbacks with the flat tax system such as: fewer jobs for accountants—no tax deductions. States would also be allowed to implement their own taxes. For those reasons they believe that the current tax system is the best system and people would not support a flat tax. The circumstances that cause the chapter to be written is that there could be a need for new textbook to be written. The purpose of the article is to educate students about the government, especially in America, this chapter was about taxation. The audience are students of either history or politics. He believes it will not be used in America: “The plans sound straightforward and have much to recommend them. But convincing voters and taxpayers to embrace them is a monumental task. People complain about their taxes, and the thought of taxation taking on a radically different form is a lot for people to …show more content…
The best sources used was the chapter on taxes in the textbook Battleground: Government and Politics. This gave the most comprehensive overview on flat tax. The second best would be the article from George Mason’s Walter Williams because he clearly understands that it is a good idea; however, it will not pass. Even though a majority of the articles stated there was a problem with the current tax system, there was no plausible ways to fix it. Flat tax would not be used because it would remove tax deductions for things like mortgages, donations, educational expenses, etc. Additionally it would remove jobs from accountants as well as IRS agents whose job it is to enforce the tax code. Neither people, nor politicians would be willing to give up their tax deductions and for that reason the flat tax would not work. The current tax code is not a perfect system, but it is the best that we
Sixteenth Amendment- Authorization of an Income Tax – Progressives thought this would slow down the rising wealth of the richest Americans by using a sliding or progressive scale where the wealthier would pay more into the system. In 1907, Roosevelt supported the tax but it took two years until his Successor, Taft endorsed the constitutional amendment for the tax. The Sixteenth Amendment was finally ratified by the states in 1913. The origin of the income tax came William J Bryan in 1894 to help redistribute wealth and then from Roosevelt and his dedication to reform of corporations. I agree with an income tax to pay for all of our government systems and departments, but I believe there was a misfire with “redistributing wealth.” The redistribution is seen in welfare systems whereby individuals receive money to live. This is meant to be a temporary assistance, but sadly, most that are in the system are stuck due to lack of assistance in learning how to escape poverty. There are a lot of government funded programs, but there is no general help system to help lift people up and stay up, so there continues a cycle of
Whether or not to keep or discard the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy, give tax breaks to the lowest tax bracket, and even throwing out the entire current tax code and replacing it with a simpler version, tax code and tax law has been a very controversial topic for the past few years. As it stands, the current tax code has over seventy two thousand pages, compared to the four hundred pages it had in 1913. There are many different stakeholders in this debate including taxpayers, corporations, businesses, etc. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is an organization that was “founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist at the request of President Reagan”(.N.p.). Their goal is to create and advocate for a simple flat tax,“...on the belief that they will provide a strong stimulus to investment, employment, and output” (Stokey 1). They promote their organization and represent taxpayers in all fifty states. Along with tax reform, ATR also advocates for individual health care, free trade, and spending transparency (.N.p.). Using very simple and easy to understand images, ATR is able to convey their goals and get information across to the general audience that visits their website.
However, I believe the Flat Rate would provide the best alternative, as it is the easiest to revert back to the original if necessary while eliminating a lot of the concerns that are raised about our current system such as equality, complexity, and cost efficiency. Works Cited Hall, A. (2001, August). The X-Men: The New York Times. The Flat Income Tax and the Fair Tax Consumption Tax: A Comparison of Federal Taxation Proposals. Retrieved from https://wilmu.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-4981484-dt-content-rid- 14738969_1/courses/POL.326.DIS.B2T01.FA2013/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf.
The tax policy in the United States is very confusing. When the tax policy was originally written in 1913 it was four hundred pages. Now, over the past ninety one years, that tax policy has evolved to over 72,000 pages. Since the tax code has become so lengthy and nearly impossible to understand, the topic of tax reform has been in the minds of many. Although, most barely think about tax reform until tax season. It is a controversial subject due to the impact a change in tax code would have on the American people. The two most popular and widely known stakeholders in this debate are the two major political parties in the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans. The two parties share absolutely no common ground on the subject of tax reform, other than thinking the other parties solution is wrong. The Democrats, in general, want to raise taxes on the wealthy, while Republicans, generally, want to cut taxes for everyone (Democratic Party) (GOP). Unfortunately, with the United States economy currently doing so poorly, the parties can no longer afford to remain at a standstill, some sort of compromise is going to have to be made. The implementation of a flat tax, and discarding the current tax system would be a compromise that both parties can agree on and will simplify the tax code, overall benefiting all Americans.
II. Implementing a flat tax without significantly increasing the deficit is impossible without shifting the burden from the rich to the middle-class, instead our current progressive tax policy needs to be changed so that it is simpler and does not allow corporations to abuse the tax loopholes.
Deficit spending happens when a government grows its debt, meaning that its spending is greater than its income. (Deficit Spending, 2008) Deficit spending is a fiscal policy, that when used appropriately can do some amazing things, like pull the United States up from its bootstraps effectively ending The Great Depression. President Hoover increased government spending by 50% and used the money to fund public works and infrastructure projects from 1928 to 1932. (Deficit Spending, 2008)
Texas is one of the seven states that have no state income tax. This means the state does not impose an additional state income taxes on someone’s earnings, but there is still a federal income tax. While many claim this is beneficial to all of Texas citizens and promotes population growth others find it disadvantaging. Their is many disadvantages and advantages to not having a state income tax.
“Woe to he who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day. Woe to she who buys large amounts of alcohol for her house. Woe to anyone who eats fatty foods or sugary drinks. Do not these miserable wretches realize how grotesquely unhealthy they are?” Presently, America’s government and citizens view these and other unhealthy behaviors as punishable sins. Whether this is due to a holier-than-thou complex, an overbearing concern for the well fare of every last one of America’s citizens, or a genuinely good-natured intent, it is impossible to say. However, the argument can be made that the taxes either already imposed or being deliberated onto these products are an absurd violation of our American freedoms.
The flat tax will make taxes fair for all people. No matter what race a person is, what social class a person is in, or who they’re friends with, they will end up paying the same rate. Every single taxpayer will have to sacrifice just as much of his or her life as the next person down the road. One of the three main reasons for taxes is to maintain fairness. This is most reasonable ways to maintain fairness. The wealthy will still be paying more money than the poor person, but they both have the same tax burden.
The debate that took place in class on Friday, May 29th, focused strictly on the possible implementation of a negative income tax that would supplement the income of low-wage earners with the taxes paid by higher-wage earners. If put into effect this system would, in a sense, replace the welfare programs that are currently in place. The six debaters, three arguing for negative a income tax system and three arguing against, did a very good job bringing up some important evidence that defended their sides. One of the key points brought up by the affirmative side of the debate included the facts that our current welfare system is already extremely disorganized, and can even be considered unsustainable in the long run. Another affirmative topic was that this system would provide true income inequality to all Americans, not just those who have the ability to pay for tax loopholes. The negative side, on the other hand, argued that this system would often cause those earning beneath the fixed income tax line to have little incentive find work and that it such a program wouldn’t provide the same amount of benefits that many low-income individuals have
Sin taxes are state-imposed excise taxes added to products that are considered sinful—like alcohol and cigarettes—to prevent civilians from indulging themselves in unhealthy activities. This house believes that sin tax should be abolished as this highly regressive and discriminating tax endorses rampant smuggling and thus leads to corruption.
Imagine if you could file your entire tax return on a postcard. This could be just one benefit of a flat tax system. A flat tax still requires wealthy individuals to pay more than middle or lower class individuals. A flat tax simplifies the tax codes, making the paperwork easy for anyone to fill out and makes the IRS more efficient to run. A flat tax promotes faster economic growth by allocating people to spend more money back into the economy. The federal income tax system should be reformed from the current system to a mere flat rate for everyone, no matter what level income is made.
Tax system reform can mean something different for everyone involved. Reform could mean a chance to change income inequality and control government spending as a whole. “According Carbaugh and Ghosh, supporters contend that a progressive tax reduces income inequality, which results in a number of societal benefits such as less violence and lower homicide rates. All three commissions would broaden the tax base subject to lower tax rates to ensure that sufficient revenue comes to the federal government” (Carbaugh and Ghosh 2011). In reading the journal on the U.S. Tax system, our system has the highest tax among all the countries in the world. The goal is to decrease the amount of loopholes in the tax system and expand the tax system. Doing this would be great for taxpayers because of the inequities in taxes and its
If that all happens the rich will try to get equal with the people that do not have to pay taxes and it can lead to serious stuff like injuries. The community might not be the same again rich will be with rich and not wanna talk to other people. That would not be fair to the rich because maybe with the extra taxing they would not to be able to do what they wish to do and get their hard earned money taken away. People might say it will help the poor, but what about the wealthy people who help them right now maybe they'll stop and say that they had to pay the tax money. You can not just think about how it would help but you have to think how many people it will affect in a negative
Another issue with this alternate tax system is that it creates imbalance. As people would keep 90% of their income, it means that the wealthy who have a substantially high income will just keep on becoming wealthier and wealthier as there is no higher tax rate for them, like how people with an income of over $70,000 are taxed by 33% to equalise them to people who pay 10.5% tax due to their lower income of $0-$14,000.