Tax Relief Policy Is Bad For America Essay

The Fair Tax is not a tax break. It ensures revenue neutrality meaning that the FairTax will give the government the same amount of revenue as the income tax system while spurring economic growth. The critics of the FairTax say that the rate should be at least 10% higher in order for the government to have revenue neutrality. With the substantially higher sales tax rate people may evade this tax and just buy the necessities. A vast majority of poor people are all in debt because they spend even when they don’t have money, when people have more money they save anyway. This fact leads critics to believe that since the poor and middle class spend the most they will be bear the burden of the substantially higher sales tax. FairTax answers this criticism by saying that the government will fully reimburse taxes for those whose income is below poverty level. The “prebate” discussed earlier and the elimination of FICA taxes

Donald Trump wants to lower taxes which is great, but there are many setbacks to this. If he does lower taxes it will be harder for the government to have

The first and obvious effect would be a deficit in national budget. Without enough money to operate and satisfy community’s needs, the government could be in serious trouble. For taxes cover numerous aspects that directly influence people’s lives, once it displayed signs of insufficiency, standard of living would subsequently go down. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most of the federal government’s funding goes into defense, social security, and major health problems, with a total of 55 percent for three categories and only 8 percent for benefits for federal retirees and veterans, as well as 3 percent for all other purposes. Allowing tax cuts thus means letting community services weaken in quality and putting the national security at risk. Additionally, budget deficit can also lead to reduction in investment, net exports, and international asset flows, as analyzed by Laurence Ball and N. Gregory Mankiw, research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research, in their “What Do Budget Deficit Do?” article. What results from these abatements evidently affects the economy heavily, both by devaluing the nation’s currency and decreasing the overall GDP. Considering such possible consequences, hence, it is no longer valid to state that lowering taxes equals growing the economic

(Black, 565-483) This means that every working family still pays taxes, however their taxes would be cut, meaning they would be paying less taxes than before. As for the “ millionaires” and higher class of society they will still pay the same taxes as they did before. This policy is more likely to be considered as equal because it is not rated fair when people from different social classes with a big difference in their incomes pay the same taxes. Especially because the taxes will eventually be lowered for the lower classes because they would be unable to afford paying the regular and high taxes. This will also lead in the cut of taxes for the high social class, which then makes the whole concept unequal. Not just for the people but also for the national economy (Witcover, 791-545).

Tax decreases can stimulate economic growth because if people are paying less in taxes, they have more money to spend. It has been proven over the years that tax decreases generate economic growth and federal revenue will always rise. From a personal standpoint I always spend more during tax season because I usually get a good return; since I am a single parent and full-time student, therefore, I qualify for various tax breaks. These obviously affect my household because I am more disposable income. Tax decreases can help a business if their taxes are decreased the organization will payout less and have more income.

The government needs to take more caution creating the federal budget. Edwards stated that “Consider Canada's experience. In the mid-1990s, the federal government faced a debt crisis caused by overspending, which is similar to America's current situation. But the Canadian government reversed course and slashed spending from 23 percent of GDP in 1993, to 17 percent by 2000, to just 15 percent today. The Canadian economy did not sink into a recession from the cuts as Keynesians would have expected but instead grew strongly during the 1990s and 2000s."

NY Times: In the beginning of the article, it discusses how the GOP is removing the individual mandate within the Affordable Care Act along with the attempt at tax cuts. According to the Republicans, every individual’s tax cut will expire in the end of 2025 in order to speed up the passage of the bill. They also say that by repealing this mandate, Republicans would save the U.S. billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Basically, the mandate repeal would save over $300 billion over those 10 years, but would result in 13 million less citizens with health insurance by the end of that decade. On the other hand, by repealing the individual mandate, the Republicans run the risk of reigniting the debate over health care which they have been

Government expenses for social programs aimed at the poor would potentially be reduced. This might result in slightly lower taxes for other

The JCT reported an earlier version of the Senate tax bill would increase deficits by $1 trillion between 2018 and 2027, noting the number accounts for around $408 billion in economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office reports the total addition to the deficit could trigger a $25 billion cut to Medicare.

As said on npr.org by Danielle Kurtzleben “Donald Trump’s tax plan is indeed a large tax cut, but those cuts would largely benefit the highest earners. According to a recent analysis from the right-leaning Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent could see their after-tax incomes increase by up to 16 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom four quintiles would see their incomes grow by 1.9 percent or less.” Donald Trump is focused on making the rich richer and the middle class less fortunate than they already

In addition, the federal budget expects to have net reduction of $321 billion in the deficit over that period (2018-2026), savings coming mainly from reductions in Medicare and increases in deficit coming for example from the repealing of the annual fees imposed to insurers (“H.R. 1628, Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017”, 2017, Effects on Federal Budget).

This article by Mathew Yglesias is about the up and coming tax reform the Republican party is trying to promote and pass before the years end. It explains how this affects businesses, upper, middle, and lower classes of individuals to. It defines tax reform and gives examples of how it could affect everyone. It talks about what good can come from the proposed reform and describes the Senate ‘Byrd Rule” in somewhat generic terms for understanding. Throughout the article both sides are represented in what they want in the new reform bill and gives a brief list of what Republicans are trying to push through the Senate. It supplies a table of how much the government receives now and how the cuts effect certain programs. It gives a brief history

I believe that his tax reform will not work since it has a significant amount of downsides. One of the downsides would be the tax reduction to the rich. His reform would imply that the top 10%, which are individuals who earn more than $300,000, their tax bracket will drop to 25%, saving them thousands of dollars. Just like the top 10%, the top 1% will also see an immense deduction from their income taxes. This means that those making an average or more than $1,000,000, will have more than $100,000 deducted from their income tax. His reform would also add $11.2 trillion to the national debt because it will cause immense revenue

This may sound like a tax plan that will relieve the financial burden on lower-income taxpayers, directly benefiting the poor, but in actuality, cutting taxes for all in a regressive manner gives substantially more money to the wealthiest taxpayers and a very small amount to lower income taxpayers. According to his plan, a typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1, 600 more of

The encouragement of economic disparity because of these tax cuts is bad for America. The US should be aiming for more social and economic equality for everybody. Tax cuts can slow down the economy by putting more money into the wealthy peoples’ hands and giving less to the people who need it.