To Tax or Not to Tax? Essay

There is nothing worse than working hard all year, having taxes withheld from your paycheck, and then finding out you still owe Uncle Sam come April. Taxes seem to be one of the most politically charged issues, with candidates from both parties making the topic an integral part of their campaign. Whether any real movement takes place is something that remains to be seen, as the Nation gears up for the next Presidential election.

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

The 1301 1031 tax exchange refers to the exchange of real property that is “like-kind” (Reg.§1.1031(a)-1(b).

The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute

It’s not hard for any American to see that our tax system is a bit biased. "One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country… There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Hillary at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2012. Hillary Clinton suspects that American’s need an economy that function’s for everybody, rather than just those at the top believing the wealthy are not paying their fair share. Clinton demanded for a deadline to the tax reductions on the wealthiest Americans

Many years ago you wouldn't have ever thought we’d be here deciding whether the internet should be paid for depending on the different sites you went to. But as we know technology has grown bigger and bigger over time. So some people think that we should have to pay. Also speaking there are some people who think differently.

Being a Registered Dietitian, the first thing I say to all of my clients is to drop the pop. I’m not the only one who is urging Canadians to put down these sugary beverages. This year the Heart and Stroke Foundation is pushing the government to introduce an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (1). This idea has been floating around for several years but gained traction this summer when the Finance Minister requested a pre-budget analysis for SSB taxation (1). The proposed policy would put the burden on manufacturers by adding a tax of 5 cent per 100 millilitres on SSBs such as pop, iced-tea and certain juices (1).

As we approach election day, both front runners; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have proposed their policies if they were to take office. Hillary Clinton is advocating to increase tax on the top one percent, while Donald Trump wishes to cut tax (especially for the wealthy and middle class). Trumps policy mirrors the trickle down system; where we cut tax on the rich, leaving them with more money in which we assume they will invest. Yet, we have seen this to be a failure since the rich do not invest their money, rather, they save it. Trump's proposal is more of a tax relief when compared to Secretary Clinton's plan, however, Trump's proposal could cause more problems to rise.

"Growing up, the internet wasn't much of an influence on me as it is now. Homework was done all in paper, every video assignment was done in class, and to call or play with friends, well that was done during recess face to face. Today the internet is the safe haven for millions as a way to find new people, spend free time, complete assignments, or just shop. But thanks to the vote done by the FCC chairman Ajit Pai, everybody will be expected to pay for what were already used to do.

REPUBLICANS AIM to unveil Wednesday a long-awaited tax plan, premised on the fanciful idea that slashing taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years will somehow leave the federal budget better off. And it is not just the GOP’s most blinkered ideologues who have bought into this wishful thinking.

Controversy will always follow humans where ever we go. Humans have argued over many issues for centuries, often times with no conclusion or “correct” answer ever in sight. One common issue that has been debated since the early 1900s is whether or not the more wealthy individuals in a society should be taxed more heavily than their poorer counterparts. Many have argued over the pros and cons of the taxation of richer people, but when one looks at it objectively, the pros far outweigh the cons. Not only do the pros outweigh the cons, but a question one must ask oneself is whether or not prosperous people really need that extra money? Richer people should be taxed higher because it is better for the economy, social classes will

Distribution of content through video and text via social networks have made creating intuitive advertising campaigns far cheaper and more effective than radio, television, or newspaper advertisements. Everett Ehrlich, undersecretary of Commerce during the first Clinton administration writes on why net neutrality hurts small businesses that don't have the means to create a fast and optimized Web site by stating, "what makes business work: competition. A company that does not provide consumers with the Internet experience they want is going to lose lots of money." This is a very sound argument that any business owner can relate to; however, what Ehrlich doesn't consider, is how the lack of net neutrality, rather an unbalanced delivery of business opportunity, could hurt small businesses rather than help them. Without net neutrality, and Internet service provider (ISP) could accept money to make a big-box on-line store faster and more accessible than any other on-line store on the Net, that would likely be to the disadvantage of smaller

Note: I was going to say: “man up” but decided to omit this cliché because: 1) many people are confused as to what message the cliché is transmitting; 2) the sheer redundancy of a cliché often renders empty meanings; 3) Single words and cut-off phrases uttered with-out any regard to the audience, and then the rest of the unthinking population repeating willy nelly again and again these empty word/phrases; well, they soon become inappropriate, ill-informed, unwanted and useless jargon. Therefore: I’m going to start over and proceed with ameliorate words to convey this message:

Though the laws that Congress are proposing to regulate the Internet are well intentioned, I strongly believe that the Internet should not be censored because any law encroaching on the people’s right to free speech is a obvious breach of First Amendment rights and because laws limiting Internet speech are too broad and unenforceable on this global medium.

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.