Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
importance of taxation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: importance of taxation
1. Negatives of the proposed tax system
The income tax system ensures a stable source of income for the government. Even at 10% unemployment rate, the government will still make money out of the remaining 90% of the workforce. So long as the workers make money, so does the government. Therefore, the government does not have to worry about where to get money even in an economic depression. However, this is a luxury that the government will not enjoy with a single federal taxation system. Gasoline prices and usage is affected by market trends and economic performance. At one give time, consumption will be low and its fluctuating price will keep affecting how much the government makes from a single gallon. Therefore, unlike the case with income tax, the government will not have a steady source of income. This will affect the economy and the wellbeing of the society (Nishiyama & Smetters, 2005).
The proposed taxation technique is also uncertain. With income tax, the government is able to calculate the amount of money it expects because it has employment records and all employees are registered with the revenue service. However, with gasoline, forecasting consumption is difficult because you do not know when the price will change, when the consumers will resort to use a substitute product or when the supply will go down. This presents the government with financial planning challenges which can be easily eradicated with a more certain taxation system such as the income tax. Government planning is very crucial when it comes to economic and social development. Inadequate planning can have serious economic effects on the society. Therefore, with the new system in place we not only face a taxation challenge but also an uncertain economic ...
... middle of paper ...
... of wealth, the current tax system is fair. O the other hand, most populations use and favor the income tax system since it does not dig deep into one person’s pocket and leave others out. Everyone gets to do his part (Conesa & Krueger, 2009).
References
Avi-Yonah, R. & Slemrod, J. (2002). "Why Tax the Rich? Efficiency, Equity, and Progressive Taxation". The Yale Law Journal 111 (6): 1391–1416
Conesa, J. & Krueger, D. (2009) Taxing Capital? Not a Bad Idea after All. American Economic Review, 99(1): 25.48.
Correia, I. (2010).Consumption Taxes and Redistribution. American Economic Review, 100: 1673.1694.
Jehle, G. & Reny, P. (2000). Advanced Microeconomic Theory. Addison Wesley Paperback, 2nd Edition:
Nishiyama, S. & Smetters, K. (2005).Consumption Taxes and Economic Efficiency with Idiosyncratic Wage Shocks. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5): 1088.1115.
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
“No taxation without representation!” A fair tax system was what the American colonists were looking for and one that many say we are still trying to achieve. Today, while we are all represented in government and are all required to pay taxes, some still perceive the system of taxation as unfair, allowing for specialized interests, loopholes, as well as more/less taxation based on income. Should the American tax system remain the same, where individuals’ income is taxed based on how much one makes with loopholes and deductions? Should we consider a system that would eliminate progressive income taxes, taxing everyone at an equal rate through the Flat Rate Tax or should taxes be collected through national consumption of retail goods and the Fair Tax System?
...e, Maxime, and Giuseppe C. Ruggeri. "Flat Taxes And Distributional Justice." Review Of Social Economy 56.3 (1998): 277-294. Business Source Premier. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
I. You might have heard politicians in the news, talk about overhauling our tax system with a new fix-all idea, the flat-tax. This would simplify our overly complicated tax system and might seem appealing at first glance, however there are serious problems with it.
Many ponder the idea of federal taxes and whether the wealthy deserve to pay a higher percentage rate of their overall income. That is, they argue that because our society needs more equality and a lower national budget deficit, taxes on the rich must be raised. This specific topic has been discussed for decades, and due to the severely different perspectives, it is unclear whether the two sides will ever come to an agreement. President Barack Obama and much of the Democratic Party strongly lean towards raising taxes on the rich, while the conservatives and the Republican Party heavily lean towards a more balanced flat tax. However, after extensive research and focus on what would be best for the equality of individuals, the nation and its economy, this paper will firmly prove that the top one percent should not be taxed any more than they are today.
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.
Taxation has always been a major controversy. Just like any major corporation, the government is constantly looking to raise revenue. The easiest and fairest way to do this is by taxing the people. However, how the people will be taxed is always an issue.
But when truly considering it, if taxes were raised on the rich it would minimize the large inequality gap without changing or impacting job growth or economic recovery (Fieldhouse). Also, history proves that the rich are hardly affected by tax raises because in the 1960’s, the top income rate was 90% where the economy was largely successful and the top 1% were not hurt by this either (Blodget). Furthermore, modern day tax rates are extremely low compared to the past rates, including times of an economic boom (Blodget). Those who wish to keep taxes at their current rates are the ones who benefit from it as they wish to keep all the money for themselves instead of using their taxes to help out the poor and help them gain the incentive and skills in order to have a sufficient
The government use of taxes plays a crucial role in today’s economy as well as personal finances, it has and will continue to leave its mark on the world we live in.
Thousands of years ago, in ancient Athens, the city was relatively a paradise, they had civilization, they had theater, they had the arts; they also had an absolute flat tax, everyone paid the exact same tax. If a citizen did not pay the tax, he or she would be sent outside the city which was likely a death sentence. For the vast majority of people, this tax was their greatest burden and caused terrible social problems. For centuries, ancient Athenians explored this issue and discovered a moral insight; there is no economic gain without civilization. Wealth, whether in the form of property or a business, cannot exist in a state of anarchy because others can just steal it from the owner. The moral theory was since an individual could only become wealthy in a civilized state, the greater the economic gain one has achieved from living in a civilized society, the greater the duty to maintain the society through taxation. When they invented taxation based on ability to pay, the ancient Athenians invented democracy. Societies which are totalitarian, dictatorial, and feudal tend to have flat taxation on their citizens. Similarly to the plight of the ancient Athenians, Americans are faced with the choice of an flat and progressive taxation. Americans must choose whether to abandon the crucial ability to pay tax principal or recognize the greater obligation of those who benefit the most from society to contribute the most, and should realize the Athenian principle of taxation. Progressive taxation is more effective than flat taxation.
The tension lies where Land tax is decreasing and Excise tax increasing. Thomas Paine stated that taxes would increase through the consumption of beer. The Aristocrats/Wealthy were not affected by the increase as they ‘brewed their own beer free of this duty’ (Paine.T, 1792). This affected those who were unable to brew their own beer and had to purchase it.
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.
For a long while now there has been much debate on which political philosophy, utilitarianism, liberalism, or libertarianism, has the best approach to income inequality. Before I make a decision about which I believe has the correct approach, we must first define each philosophy and what it stands for. According to Mankiw’s Principles of Microeconomics, Utilitarianism is “the political philosophy according to which the government should choose policies to maximize the total utility of everyone in society.” This philosophy explains that the tradeoff between the rich and the poor will have an overall good effect on the total utility of everyone. It basically means that the poor can benefit from taxing the rich. As Mankiw explains, if you give
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 become more even, and the wealthy owe it to the society that helped raise them to become successful.
The famous literature on principles of taxation was embodied in Adams Smith “Canons of taxation”. Since then, economies have adopted (and adapted where necessary) these basic principles for what is regarded as the most important tool of fiscal policy.