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.
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.
III. I will first go over the principle problems with the flat tax, then talk about our current system’s failures, and finally finish off by offering some reforms to fix our tax code.
(TRANSITION: But before we get into all of that, the questions I asked you for my audience analysis revealed that not all of you are as riveted by tax policy as I am-shocking I know-, so I will clarify some of the jargon I will be using. First the progressive tax is a tax system where the tax rates increase with income earned. Let’s say the first tax bracket is set at 50,000 dollars, and the first tax rate is set at ten percent, and the rate above it is set at twenty percent. So, if you make 70,000 dollars, the first 50,000 will be taxed
…show more content…
Instituting a flat tax would have serious implications for our economy. A. First and foremost it would shift the burden of taxes from the rich to the middle-class
1. According to the study”Simulating a Flat Tax Model: What Are the Likely Outcomes?” conducted by accountant Brita Boudreau and professor Thomas M Dalton, any flat tax that could generate the same amount of revenue as our current system would inevitability force the middle-class to shoulder extra taxes(2013).
a. This is unacceptable in a time when the top one percent of income earners have seen an earning increase of 250% since 1979, while at the same time the middle class has stagnated, resulting in an
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.
The FairTax Act will replace these costly, oppressively complex and economically inefficient taxes with a progressive national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale ...
Hall, A. (2001, August). The Flat Income Tax and the Fair Tax Consumption Tax: A
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.
I know that one of the benefit of our current income tax system is those who make a lower income will have to pay a lower tax percentage from their earnings. However, the disadvantages with this method is quite obvious. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the charts show that it has six federal income tax brackets between 10 to 35 percent, which means that our progressive tax system affects hard working people with a higher tax rate (Freedomworks.org). For example, people who earned an income up to $8,400 would be under the 10% tax bracket, while people earning about $360,000 or more would fall under the 35% tax bracket (Rosen, Elizabeth). The taxpayers are broken down into groups based on their taxable income. The more a person earns, then the more taxes they will have to pay once they reach the different taxes bracket levels
It’s fall everyone and Halloween is coming.I would like to tell you that fall is the best season of all.
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
Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to strengthen their commitment to participate in National Women’s Law Center and American Association of University Women Organization.
One person may see that the increase taxation on the poor and the decrease taxes on the wealthy is not an issue because the wealthy pay a lot of taxes already. However, many people don’t realize the fact that, yes, the wealthy are paying a lot of taxes because they make more money, but they can afford to pay more. Recently, in a CNN article, more than forty millionaires want their taxes to increase, which proves the fact that the wealthy have plenty of money to give back to the community. In addition, their just going to keep getting wealthier and wealthier by the
While the the 1%, are secured, no one is addressing the rest of the people. As the economy flourishes, housing, higher education and health care, and child care increases with it to the point where 30 percent of a person’s income goes towards housing. People are finding it impossible to purchase a house with their middle class incomes. People begin to fall out of the once stable middle class because too much is needed to be sacrificed in order to live in a stable home. In the shrinking middle class, “40% or more of the residents live below the poverty
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.
Many argue that the issue of severely unequal taxation began with the Reagan administration in the 80s. Prior to Reagan’s shift to more conservative economic policies, the wealthiest percentage of Americans were taxed at an average rate of about 91% (Americans for Tax Fairness). As a result, the economy was able to maintain the economic boom following World War 2 up until the early 70s. However, after Reagan changed policies, the tax rate for the wealthy dropped from 74% to 38%. Unsurprisingly, following a surge in the markets, the economy suffered its most severe recession since the great depression under “Reaganomics” due to the severe cut in taxation in favor of the
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.
Alright folks, chances are you’re either thinking about buying a home, are in the purchase process, or already own a home. You know by now the importance of keeping up with regular home maintenance. Same thing goes for homeowners insurance, although, most people don’t show their insurance the same level of attention that they show their home. Regardless of how new you are to home ownership, it’s easy to forget or overlook your homeowners insurance policy details. Don’t fret, we’re here to help get Covered with confidence ™!
ll of us sitting in this building have contributed to what may possibly be humanity's end. Mostly all of us know that climate change may drive us humans to extinction do to our own fault. However, about a third of representatives and senators that have joined us today deny the legitimate evidence that supports climate change. Even after famous scientist like, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan and even Pope Francis from the Catholic Church have accepted the occurrence of climate change. I am not here today to restate and explain what climate change is, because all of you have heard it dozens of times.