Why I Am Against Taxing The Rich More Money
Would you want to get your hard earned money taken away ? A lot of people want to tax the rich people more than everyone else. I believe that this is a wrong thing to do. In my essay I will support my opinion by stating how it will affect the country and the citizens.
If taxes are raised strong businesses will leave the country and find a place where the taxes are less. They would not find it fair that they have to pay more because of their hard work. Then if they do not pay it there will be issues with the government and things can get out of hand. Other places would get credit for their smart inventions and those places would make more money. There is no point to raise taxes and have smart people or big business leave to be successful somewhere else.
…show more content…
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
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
Our current system of taxation is a varied rate percentage based on different income brackets. Many say that it violates our constitutional rights through unequal taxation. Multiple deductions, loopholes, special rates, and a complex system of regulations all characterize our Federal Income Tax System, prompting many to question why it is still being used (Peters, 2013). The current system although bringing in over $3 trillion, taxes income multiple times, and includes the taxing of estate, labor, savings, and investments (National Priorities Project, 2013). The system itself is complex with over 20,000 pages of regulations, requiring a massive filing system, which is set up and maintained by an even larger IRS, requiring over $225 billion in compliance costs (Hall, 2001). One can be hard pressed to find an advantage in the current system, other than the fact that it provides the government with an enormous amount of funds, and it has...
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the United States, there are many different types of taxes. Some of them are goods and services, income, and property taxes (debt.org). The two most common taxes are the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax. Basically, Flax Tax is one income tax rate that everyone has to pay. Fair Tax is a proposal amendment to tax laws that removes the federal and state income taxes and replace it with a federal retail sale tax (Investorwords.com). Our current tax income system that we use is called Progressive Tax which is the tax system that takes a larger percentage from those who earn a higher income than those who earn a lower income (Investopedia.com). Out of all those taxes, the best one that I believe that can replace our current tax system is the Flat Tax because research has shown that it can be very beneficial for our economy today.
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
I believe that I pay too much tax. Before I took an economics' course I did not know where my money went every month. I realized that all the money I paid to the government was benefiting others and not me. The government spends too much money on social security programs. The social security program does not be...
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.
... rich, this would somehow be the great equalizer and bridge the ever increasing income gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate. However, this concept could not be further from the truth. In essence, this would not solve anything. The unequal distribution of wealth is an erroneous and irrefutable perception America will always be left to face. Whether intentional or not, the unequal distribution within American society is seen as a flaw in our nation’s history.
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.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
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.