Tax Structure : A Progressive Income Tax System

In this section of the paper flat tax will be compared with our current tax system in order to distinguish if differences it will make in the United States after its implementation. Along with that, the similarities between a flat tax and progressive tax will be noted too. As it is understandable that the ultimately targeted population for the flat tax is the upper class however when it comes to flat tax vs. progressive tax in the United States progressive tax system has been more welcoming than another method. However, as stated by Piketty and Saez (2007), in the United States the federal tax system has undergone three historical extreme changes which have pushed the federal tax system towards a less progressive side. Such in progressive tax system has provided the leverage of lower tax rates which benefits the one percent of Americans but not the majority of the American population. So although it is well circulated that the progressive tax methods have specific tax rates that ensure the higher

Last but not least, a decrease in government spending could mean worse income distribution compared with increasing progressive tax. This is because transfer payment forms almost a third of the governments budgets and so by cutting expenditure it is very likely that it will also be cut making the poor poorer and widening the gap. On the other hand, taxes could be increased progressively by for example increasing marginal income taxes so that the people with high income pay more than the poor narrowing the gap between.

Discuss whether the most effective way to have income and wealth equality is to tax income more progressively.

First off, there are many people who do not even know what a flat tax is. By definition, a flat tax is described as, “a very precisely defined and coherent tax structure: a combination of a cash-flow tax on business income and a tax on workers’ income, both levied at the same, single rate” (Keen 4). Now, this just means that every person and every business, no matter the income, would be taxed at the same rate. Realistically speaking, when people talk about taxes, it is a matter of who wins and who loses. If we decided to adopt a flat tax system, people of lower income families would be suffering, “Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370” (Gale 155). With this being said, the families of higher income would actually be thriving of a system

Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of populations. To put it simply, wealthy households of the top 1% are holding a greater share of the nation’s income than everyone else. “The United States in particular has much higher rates of income inequality than other developed countries” (Brooks, 2014). In recent years, economists have debated whether it has become a hindrance, has had no effect, or has helped sustain the American economy. That is to say has an increased concentration in the top 1% increased or decreased the economic well being of the country. There has been debate over the role of progressive taxes, which is taxes that are directly proportional to income earned, in the combatting income inequality. Finally, a question that often is central to the debate on income inequality is whether labor markets naturally create imbalance in wages.

Taxes have always been a contentious issue of debate in the United States; furthermore it is exacerbated by the specific philosophy of individuals, states, and regions. Too be clearer, nobody enjoys paying taxes, however it is the cost we pay for having civilization. Nevertheless, selfishness creeps in to many individuals who feel no particular benefit. Taxes have a real way of polarizing many people from different socio-economic backgrounds, because a tax is inexorably linked to a person’s belief-system. For instance, in the context of social welfare policy liberals are inclined to feel that the tax-burden should be heaped on individuals who have benefited the most from “the system”. On the other hand, we have conservatives who feel they did not receive any support, and all that is necessary is hard work and perseverance to succeed. I am not suggesting either one is correct; it is only a simple illustration to show the relation between pocketbook and personal belief. I hope studying the tax structures of New Jersey and Alabama will give me insight they both reconcile their political beliefs with their individual tax structures.

Did you know that an astonishing 43.4 percent of the people in America do not pay any income taxes" (McCullagh 1)? This is roughly 65.6 million people that aren't paying taxes and this is putting our economy and country at its breaking point. Our current tax system penalizes those that work and save money. People that pay no taxes still get to enjoy the benefits. The United States needs to look at which tax is fairer to the people and easier to administer by the government. Although some may disagree, the Flat Tax should replace the income tax to simplify and bring fairness to the system, increase income, and create jobs.

In a Progressive Tax system, a larger percentage of income is taken from those who are wealthy or have a large annual income, in taxes. Those who have low incomes do not have as high tax percentage to pay because progressive tax is based on

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

Unfortunately some people do not have the ability to earn a living in a market economy. Others benefit from inherited wealth, hard dedicating work, or owning their business. Governments in market economies inevitably engage in programs that redistribute income, and they often do so with the overt intention of making tax policies. On the other hand, advocates of extensive redistribution disagree and allege that role of government limits the concentration of wealth and maintains a wider diffusion of economic power among households, presently as antitrust laws are designed to maintain competition and a wider diffusion of power and resources among producers. Those who oppose major redistribution programs counter that additional taxes on high-income families decrease the incentives

This paper examines the generally accepted desirable characteristic of a system of taxation. I describe in this paper that even where every one agrees that the tax system should be simple as dictated by the first maxim of Adam Smith, no country is yet to meet this standard. Questions on policy, complexity, equity, administrative efficiency, cost of compliance all increasing the cry for a tax change. Many Eastern Europeans have adopted the flax tax system and presently has an increase economic growth. However, are they fully operating the flax tax system?

In addition to economic issues, taxation is also a political issue. Political leaders formulate tax policies to bring reforms in the taxation system in order to promote their agendas. The major tax reforms include: increasing or decreasing the tax rate, imposing new taxes on certain products and changing the definition of taxable income. It is evident from the research studies that no one deliberately wants to pay taxes. U.S’ tax policy reflects expression of influence - i.e., those who have power are successful in paying low taxes and their burden is shifted to people who have no power. Therefore retired individuals, small business owners and farmers find ways efforts to reduce their tax burden. Since its existence, tax policy has been enormously used for promoting political and economic agendas.

Revenue that comes from state income tax is said to be progressive, that is because state taxes fall differently on different taxpayers depending on the taxpayer’s income level. Typically, the percentage of income tax paid rises as the taxpayer’s income does, thus the reason they are progressive. The opposite is true for sales tax revenue. These taxes are regressive because regardless the taxpayer’s income, tax rates remain constant. This is sometimes a disadvantage for poorer taxpayers because they have to spend more of their income on what they need (Sims, 2004). The allocation of these funds for elementary and

Taxation systems are usually modeled in such a way that they take into consideration the social welfare of the citizens. The government and other policy makers have the responsibility of ensuring that the system takes into account the needs of the citizens. The bottom line is that taxation should foster equal distribution of resources. The rate of taxation is usually arrived at after several considerations have been made. The rates are not fixed as they depend on the various economic changes. The issue of how taxation should be distributed among the different economic classes is yet to be addressed.

There are two general standards to determine tax equity: benefits received principle (BR) and ability to pay principle (ATP). The BR principle would describe an equitable tax system as taxpayers contribute according to the benefits they receive from the public service (p. 350). Simply put, you benefit, you pay. This approach is unfeasible in the general tax system and is likely to make income distribution worse; therefore, this standard is less commonly used. The ATP principle would describe an equitable tax system as taxpayers contribute according to their ability to pay (p. 351-352). In other words, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. This is