Introduction
For decades the controversy on raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans has been an on-going debate. During every election and congressional session- whether state or national- the politicians all hold strong views about the taxation of the wealthy. Since the last term of President Eisenhower the taxation of the wealthy has been declining and for the past ten years leveling out with the ‘upper middle class’. The latest stance is to tax the wealthy, a very controversial idea that leads to endless debate among our nations leaders. There are two view points on the matter, either raise the tax on the wealthy or keep tax rates where they are and decrease government spending. As Americans we must ask ourselves is it better to try achieve equality by tearing people down or by catering to the wealthy.
History of Taxing Wealthy
You could follow taxation issues back to before this nation was even founded. “Taxation without representation” was what led this country into a war and won us the independence that has brought us to be one of the world leaders. But Americans have gained the representation that we spent many years fighting for and now are on a new battlefield, how to go about taxing in a fair and just way.
The arguments throughout the history of our country have been the same, either taxing the rich in an economic crisis is either positive or negative. Many economic scholars believe that the taxation of the rich is a necessity during our current economic instability using the high taxations during the 40’s- that supported the war efforts- to back up their arguments. While the more right wing conservative’s believe that taxing the rich more means less buying which could lead to prices being raised on everything an...
... middle of paper ...
...on is living their life, what they have and that you do not. But it is also important to remember that as Americans we have the freedom to succeed on our own terms. We deserve every freedom including to be able succeed without the fear of being taxed beyond the equality that we preach.
My Opinion
I come from a family that was thoroughly middle class family. My father leaves for work in the morning, my mother drops kids off at school and returns to be a homemaker. I am from a nice sized home, in a gated community, outside of Las Vegas. My family has never gone without and I am truly blessed for that. But while I know that I am lucky I know that many Americans struggle to just make ends meat. Although I feel very sorry for these people I don’t believe people like my father, who worked very hard to achieve all that he has, should be punished because life isn’t fair.
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
In "Class in America", Gregory Mantsios says that "when politicians and social commentators draw attention to the plight of the poor, they do so in a manner that obscures the class structure and denies any sense of exploitation." Based off our readings, class discussion and films, income inequality is known to be erased or ignore. Our society frowns upon the expression of income in our daily conversations, as it could be seen braggy or a complaint depending on your status of income. Because it's frowned upon to talk about, the topic of income inequality becomes erased or ignored. In addition, income inequality in America's class structure can affect people's ability to reach their American Dream.
Concerning the debate on our economy, republicans generally believe strongly in the power of a free market system, reduced income tax rate, more spending from the people, and less spending from the government. The Republican Party wants the tax rate to not be affected regardless of how much wealth a person has, and wants the tax rate to be reduced in order to create more private spending. According to the Republican National Convention web site, republicans “believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions,” such as keeping citizens safe from criminals and maintaining basic infrastructure and national security (Barton). With this being said, taxes should not be increased, but instead decreased, to lead to more spending on the free market and less spending from the federal government. The money the government uses to spend comes from the taxpayers, and republicans believe that those taxpayers have the right to use their money in other ways, such as spending on the free market, or saving it for the future. In turn, the republican idea is that when the taxes on things are lower, the people will spend more, which creates a steady, stable economy. The Republican Party would like to see a de-regulated economy with less taxing and more spending.
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
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 great deal of money complying with the tax code. Resources that are currently wasted on record keeping, filing forms, learning the tax code, litigation, and tax avoidance. The cost of complying with the current tax code totals about $200 billion annually, or $700 for every man, woman, and child in America (Armey 1). The overwhelming consensus that the current tax system is inadequate has ignited the search for tax reform. There are numerous proposals for tax reform; one particular proposal brought forth by various conservatives is the idea of national flat rate income tax. The idea is to replace the current income tax with a single rate that everyone pays.
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
Everyone has his or her own ideas of how wealth should be distributed properly. Some people believe wealth should be left to family, left for public services, or become the property of others. Others believe that people should not have excess wealth, resulting in non-existent class distinctions. An alternative view is that wealth is not distributed; instead, the wealthy continue to grow wealthier while those in poverty can not escape it and fall further into a life of poverty. The beliefs discussed above come from three different writers. Those writers include Andrew Carnegie, Karl Marx, and Robert B. Reich. These writers all have different opinions on how wealth should be distributed properly.
Inequality exist and is high in America because the amount of income and wealth that is distributed through power. In America the income distribution is very inequality and the value of a person wealth is based on their income with their debts subtracted. “As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff, 2011). In contrary the poor do not get ahead and the rich get more. Americans are judged and placed in class categories through their home ownership which translates to wealth. Americans social class is often associated with their assets and wealth. “People seek to own property, to have high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs, to enjoy the finest in travel and leisure, and to live long and healthy lives” (Domhoff, 2011). Power indicates how these “values” are not distributed equally in American society. Huge gains for the rich include cuts in capital gains and dividends and when tax rates decrease for the tiny percent of Americans income is redistributed. Taxes directly affect the wealth and income of Americans every year.
Income inequality has affected American citizens ever since the American Dream came to existence. The American Dream is centered around the concept of working hard and earning enough money to support a family, own a home, send children to college, and invest for retirement. Economic gains in income are one of the only possible ways to achieve enough wealth to fulfill the dream. Unfortunately, many people cannot achieve this dream due to low income. Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income and wealth between the social classes of American citizens. The United States has often experienced a rise in inequality as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, increasing the unstable gap between the two classes. The income gap in America has been increasing steadily since the late 1970’s, and has now reached historic highs not seen since the 1920’s (Desilver). UC Berkeley economics professor, Emmanuel Saez conducted extensive research on past and present income inequality statistics and published them in his report “Striking it Richer.” Saez claims that changes in technology, tax policies, labor unions, corporate benefits, and social norms have caused income inequality. He stands to advocate a change in American economic policies that will help close this inequality gap and considers institutional and tax reforms that should be developed to counter it. Although Saez’s provides legitimate causes of income inequality, I highly disagree with the thought of making changes to end income inequality. In any diverse economic environment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. I believe income inequality e...
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.
Initially, the concern over taxation was the starting off what is known as the American Revolution. The concept was simple. American colonists were angered by the taxes the King had imposed upon them. They believed they should not have to pay the king taxes of which they had no say over. However, the reason behind the taxes was to repay the debt caused by the French and Indian War, which had fought for the colonists’ protection; therefore, the king believed the colonists should help repay the debt which had been gained for their benefit. Colonists; however, did not agree and rebelled against the imposed taxes and acts the king began to impose on them, voicing their famous line in retaliation: “No taxation without representation.”
The richest people of America continuously receive the largest tax breaks. Due to this unfortunate process, the rich stay wealthy while the poor pick up the extra taxes, staying in deep poverty. “Americans find themselves mired in the same place as their parents” (Class and the American Dream). It is more difficult now to rise up on the class ladder than it was in Gatsby’s era. Gatsby came from nothing, he rose from poverty by chance. Meeting Dan Cody was his opening into the world of the rich. If Gatsby had not learned the basics of how to act and how to be proper, it would have impaired his ability to get rich and climb the ladder. The gap that currently has to be jumped from the poor to the wealthy is now triple the amount it had been in the last 28 years, making the top incomes 74.6 times higher than the bottom incomes (Sherman & Stone)....
Many of my thoughts throughout ethics have been towards the utilitarian side. This is where I would differ from that view. If I were to go by the utilitarian view it would be to tax the rich more than anyone. This money would then go to the poor where the money could be used up instead of sitting in a bank account. The utilitarian believes you do whatever it takes to make the most possible people happy. If you took the top five percent in America and taxed them more, then gave it to the bottom thirty percent, you have now helped more people then you did not help.
Taxation on income has been a very controversial. Ever since congress passed the 16th amendment Americans have had to pay income taxes. Large taxes on the rich first started in America during FDR’s administration. During this time such high taxes were necessary because of the need for money to fund World War Ⅱ. During this time taxation on the rich reached an all time high at 94% on the income of the wealthy. Once president Reagan took office he dramatically lowered taxes (below 70%). Some people argue that the top earners in America are taxed too much, where others argue that they are not taxed enough. According to Dan Pfeiffer “The income share of the top 10 percent has grown to 42 percent of our nation’s earnings.” This results in a small
Tax cuts are only benefiting the richest people, and will widen the inequality gap between the rich and the poor. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service states, “as the top tax rates a...