Repeal of the Estate Tax
On June 9, 2000, 279 members of the House of Representatives wholeheartedly supported the repeal of the federal estate taxes. 136 members voted against the repeal, most of them being Democrats who where in support of reform, not abolition. Estate taxes yield roughly $30 billion dollars a year for the United States Government, also Federal estate taxes affect only about 2 percent of estates, which represents at most the top 5th percentile of families in this country (NYT-Krugman-6/14/00). Therefore, why would anyone in Congress want to do away with something that brings in so much revenue? One would think that it is the power that these families wield. Although they represent a small portion of a Representative's constituency, this small group by far has the biggest voice. So then why would Congress want to throw away $30 billion dollars a year? Because, it is in their best interests and their biggest supporters best interests.
Estate taxes are not imposed on inheritances under $675,000, but anything over and above that amount the federal government takes 39% of the total value of the estate. What this translates into is that a wealthy individual can only pass 61% of his total assets to his children or family. The wealthy pay almost all of these taxes. As I stated above, this consists of only the top 5th percent of families in this country so why should it be changed? Because, although they represent only a small minority, this minority has the biggest voice. Elected officials need to raise money for campaigns. Where does this money come from, aside from PAC's and corporation's this money comes from private individuals. How much money is needed? Clawson, Neustadtl, and Weller in their book Dollars and Votes give us a rough idea of what it takes. They write, "How much money would the average candidate need to raise each and every week in the years prior to an election…they will need to raise $7,000 per week for the House; $15,000 per week for the senate"(Clawson-3). Imagine contributing that much from your family, it does not buy a vote, but it does provide you with access and influence. In 1996 individuals contributed over $71.6 million dollars in soft money to political parties (Clawson-127). This represents a lot of power and influence. Why wouldn't Congress repeal the estate tax? If I were rich, I would argue that they repeal it as a thank you gesture for all the money I've contributed over the years.
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
Many debates have been waged over the decades on what will be taxed, on who shall be taxed and how taxes are collected. Since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the debate has intensified, centering on how high to make the income tax rate. Most Americans were not concerned since the Amendment was sold to them as something that would only affect corporations and the rich. With ever increasing fervor these corporations created lobbyists to convince Congress to exempt them from some or all of the income tax. The big breakthrough in this was taxing the worker directly with payroll taxes during World War II. This method of collecting income tax was sold to Americans as temporary, but Congress has extended it indefinitely and the public has become used to it. The next few decades saw the debate revolve around creating tax breaks for individuals in an attempt to modify behavior or spending. This has resulted in over 67,000 pages of tax code and an entire industry devoted to tax compliance and evasion, with the unintended behavioral change of corporations and the rich parking their money outside of the United States in small island nations to avoid taxation. These offshore accounts are estimated to hold $10 trillion dollars, a number approximate to the national debt. The FairTax Act should be enacted because it eliminates all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations, eliminates all federal payroll withholding taxes, abolishes estate and capital gains taxes and repeals the 16th Amendment; thus eliminating the need for offshore accounts.
...o charities and health centers. The government should look to possibly allow for taxpayers to decide what happens with their money. Again, if the country truly wants to cut the budget deficit, it starts with removing some of the middle class benefits for which the wealthy are already struggling to pay. To raise taxes on the rich will only stunt economic growth and cut jobs, which are two key components to having a prosperous country. Success and development within a nation strictly comes from the power and wealth of the economy and the integrity of earning and deserving what one puts in through hard work. The United States lives by the American Dream, and as long as this drives the majority of individuals, there is no logical reason to take more than what is necessary, especially from the ones who have taken advantage of the opportunity the best.
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
Tax Policies are very important in the United States Of America like to the people. People living in the United States have to do their taxes and they’re based on the Income they earn throughout the year. They make their taxes based on the policies of the President of the United States. Many different presidents have different taxes policies throughout their Presidency. John F Kennedy served as the 35th president of the Unites States and he had his own Tax policy. Also George W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States who had his own tax Policy.
The current tax system that the United States uses contains several flaws. First of all, it is very complex. It is comprised of many various variables that can create loopholes. These loopholes can cause two equal income families to be paying very different tax rates. In fact, there are 480 different types of tax forms (Website). The current tax system is also very unfair for the wealthy. Because it is a progressive tax, it is higher for people who have higher incomes. People should not be punished for being successful. If a flat tax policy were instituted, then it would simplify the complicated tax system, create fairness within the economy, and promote a desire to thrive financially.
Why in America, we are so afraid of higher taxes? Due to that in America we have been conditioned to believe that paying higher taxes is simply horrendous, that poor people will not be able to pay it and rich people, “the job creators” will not be able to generate jobs any longer; chaos will empower our society and the great monster of socialism will destroy us. Higher taxes can lead to the end of the world. Sure it can be the end of a world as we know it and the born of a world more like the Denmark world. As the Denmark ambassador mentioned, while it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark no one is allowed to be poor, and that's where the problem lies; no ones who are billionaire in Unites States wants to “share” their fortune by paying higher taxes, particularly because making money is not going to be as easy for them like it’s now, in addition the billionaires do not suffer the consequences of social issues as a result, they
the United States has the largest capital gains tax rate in the world. In a
In the United States, accumulation of material goods as well as wealth is very valued and individuals are highly aware of exactly how much money they earn. The system is transparent and democratic. However, there is an extreme difference between how much money someone earns in wages and other gains and how much they actually go home with. The difference between gross and net income originates in the system of taxation based on income earned. Since the income tax has existed, the income tax code has become increasingly more complex and difficult to understand. Businesses and individuals have suffered at the difficulties and costs of complying with the income tax. There are many other ways a government can collect taxes, the income based tax system does not stand alone as the only option for collecting tax revenue necessary to fund the federal government. Instead of taxing the money that a business or individual earns the government could tax money that they spend.
These are not the same as, and over and above, probate costs and last income taxes that are owed on the earnings you obtain in the year of your death. Federal estate taxes are costly (traditionally 45-55%) and they have to be paid out in cash, typically within 9 months following your death. Since only a handful of estates possesses the funds, it is usually required to close out resources and properties to
"Whose life is it, anyway?" A Plea stated by the late Sue Rodrigues. Rogrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of British Columbia, Canada, suffered from a terminally ill disease (Robinson, 2001). She was helped to commit suicide by a physician in violation of Canadian law. Many people, like Rodrigues, want to be in control of their final days. Terminally ill patients have a terminal disease and do not want to diminish their assets by incurring large medical costs as their death approaches (Robinson, 2001). As an act of generosity, they would rather die sooner, and pass on their assets to their beneficiaries. A serious disorder or disease has adversely affected their quality of life to the point where they no longer wish to continue living (Johansen, 2000). Myself, along with many other United States citizens believe that euthanasia should be legalized within the United States for reasons concerning medical advances, the severity of pain a person is in once diagnosed with a terminal illness, and the basic fact that a person’s life is their own life and no one else’s.
Euthanasia had become a big debate in our society and the world. Many people ask, what is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending and individual’s life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering” (Sanders & Chaloner, 2007, p. 41). Thus the meaning of euthanasia is having the right to die if you are terminally ill, suffering and/or suffering a great amount of pain. Many people do not agree with the use of euthanasia, but if humans can put down animals why cannot we use euthanasia on humans? Back in ancient Greek and Roman times, the word euthanasia meant “good death”. Also it was allowed because many people did not live to long ages. When the times began to change so did people’s views on euthanasia, due to the new religion of Judeo-Christian Belief. Because life and death were giving to us by God, euthanasia goes against his wishes. If they practice in the act of euthanasia because of their beliefs they would be committing a sin and end up going to hell. (Yip,2009,p.1)
Euthanasia is very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent.
There are some arguments, having a faint measure of plausibility, that have served politicians, charlatans and assorted do-gooders for well for over a century in their quest for control. One of those arguments is: capitalism primarily benefits the rich and not the common man. That vision prompts declarations such as: Congressman Richard Gephart's assertion that high income earners are "winners" in "the lottery of life." Then there's, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, who says high income earners the "fortunate fifth." These nonsensical visions lead to calls for those who've been "blessed" to "give back" either voluntarily or coercively through the tax code.
Taxation has evolved throughout history as a method of funding government functions. The US government began taxing its people by imposing tariffs on certain items such as liquor, tobacco, sugar, and legal documents. Currently, there are taxes on almost every function. The IRS regulates income tax laws, central appraisal districts control property tax values, and there is a state sales tax on most purchases across the country. Taxes are difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.