One claim used by the opposition is that it will balloon the deficit. A budget deficit is defined as an excess of expenditure over revenue. Or in simpler terms, it is when the government spends more than it receives in taxes. In the article titled “The GOP tax plan got a triple whammy of brutal reviews” by Bob Bryan addresses this claim. One report being used by opponents to the current tax reform bill as stated in the article is by the University of Pennsylvania which sates “The Penn model found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $1.327 trillion over the first 10 years after it becomes law” (Bryan 13). Another study being used is one from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center which says “The nonpartisan …show more content…
In the article “Five Ideas for Simplifying the Individual Tax Code” Scott Greenberg says “When households file their individual income tax returns, they are allowed to claim a standard deduction of $6,350 for singles and $12,700 for married joint filers” (Greenberg 3). The doubling of the standard deduction will allow many Americans to take that deduction consequently saving them the time-consuming task of figuring what exemptions they qualify for cutting tax preparation time. “The process of deciding whether to itemize deductions is relatively complex. Households must track and record their relevant expenses throughout the year, consult IRS rules to determine which expenses can be deducted, and determine whether their potential itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction amount” (Greenberg 4). This does assume more people will take the standard deduction which I would concede that many people will do as it is the simpler option of the two. A claim that is also used by the opponents of tax reform is that tax reform will benefit only the wealthy. From their point of view the tax cuts being proposed currently benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. While it is true that wealthy individuals will benefit from tax reform like everyone else will they won’t be the only …show more content…
In his article entitled Indiana State Senator: Tax reform will create jobs. Indiana's experience proves it” Indiana state Senator Brandt Hershman he argues this claim. “Over the long term, lowering tax rates would not only reduce the incentive for large corporations to engage in offshore tax shelters, but would also reduce the tax burden on smaller domestic businesses, giving them additional capital to invest in operations and workers” (Hershman 9). It will also attract companies to the US wanting to take advantage of our new lower tax rates in the article an example from Indiana is used but it could be applied the same to the country “While Indiana lowered business taxes by nearly 50 percent, our neighbors in Illinois increased them. The predictable result – as of 2017 more than 50 companies have relocated operations from Illinois to Indiana, bringing jobs and enhancing our state tax revenue so that we can invest in improving our roads, schools and other priorities” (Hershman
Contributor to Forbes, Tony Nitti identifies which classes and types of people will benefit from the recently passed tax bill. At the time the article was written, the bill had not yet been signed into effect by the president. According to Nitti, “Tonight's victory belonged solely to the Republicans. The Senate passed the bill without a single "yes" vote from one of its 48 Democrats, but then, this was the plan all along.” He also pegs the winners as corporations, the richest one percent, and the middle class- “for now.”
(1) I can see how you would say “several presidents that fit into this category but I read about two in particular.” if you are talking about raising the National Debt. Reagan more than doubled the National Debt, from$997,853 million in 1981 to $2,602,337 million in 1988 and GW Bush also more than almost doubled the National Debt going from $5,807,463 million in 2001 to $ 10,024,724 in 2007. When it comes to a discussion about National Debt, would please explain (I know you most likely will not reply) how President Reagan’s approval rating has anything to do with the topic?
Second, also the tax of Affordable Care Act has disadvantages. According to the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) “Those increases were more than offset by a reduction of $97 billion in the projected costs for the tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending, a reduction of $20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and a reduction of $107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and penalty payments and from other small changes in estimated spending.” (Congressional Budget Office, March 2012). The Affordable Care Act levied the new taxations include the health insurers, investment income, tanning salons,
Under the Harper government, hundreds of federal research facilities and programs, have faced cuts to their budgets or been shut down, facing outrage from scientists, politicians and Canadians alike. In six years the Harper government dismissed more than 20000 scientists and aided in the closing of hundreds of programs, ranging from climate change to ocean toxicity to public health. Despite these cuts, the office of the Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated “Our government has made record investments in science… We are working to strengthen partnerships to get more ideas from the lab to the marketplace and increase our wealth of knowledge” (CBC 1). Many of the scientific community cite these cuts to a refocusing of government,
history but it provokes an angry reaction from the American Left. The bill reduced personal income tax rates by 25 percent in three annual increments, cut capital gains and estate taxes, and reduced business taxes.” The illogical point was cutting taxes as the same rate for everyone. While several industries and high income earners received numerous benefits, low income earners still suffered financial burden because of “trickle-down economics.” In fact, federal income tax rates cut significantly for the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers.
Many citizens were simply unaware of the crucial elements of the tax policy: corporate dividends, program length or longer term beneficiaries of the policies, and those who did relied on partisans. (Bartels 177). He cites the same survey to offer an explanation for the support of a policy that conflicts with relevant policy preferences; specifically, he states voters had an “unenlightened self-interest” and some had formed a “simple-minded” opinion on the policy (175). Those who felt they paid too much in taxes generally supported the policy, this perspective was more pertinent than even political ideology and partisanship (179). Overall, Bartel’s argument was that policy ignorance and misinformation, combined with “misguided” views about personal taxation led to the public “support” of the 2001 Bush Tax cuts.
These papers are saying that being taxed by a strong federal government is a good thing because it allows the government to do things that benefit the American
As a result, politically Obamacare is a really talked about topic among the political parties which results in major controversies. In one political party, the republican in this case, wants to repeal the Affordable care act, aka Obamacare due to the fact that Obamacare imposes too many cost on businesses and also makes other health business go under. Not only does Obamacare take money from businesses, Obamacare also takes many jobs away from business and also Obamacare tries to interfere with other private business and other healthcare business. On the other hand, Obamacare has been more beneficial than ever as it covers the people in the United States who lack health insurance and make health insurance affordable to all Americans. However, Obamacare also makes people buy health insurance without their will which invades the person's constitutional rights.
1. The Republican effort to write a once-in-a-generation bill to cut taxes appears to be the last, best hope for the fractured party to find some common ground. But it’s also “bit like having a baby to save a failing marriage,” our reporters have concluded. Tensions abound, including over sharp reductions in how much Americans may save in 401(k) accounts.
This would not only lead to more people being covered, but also an increase in the pool of money insurance requires. One other reform that should be included is a safety net for Obamacare. For example, if one can no longer afford their premium, they should automatically be covered under Medicaid until they are able to pay for initial premium again. This would protect citizens who were recently fired or faced economic hardship. It is necessary to provide these people with health insurance, especially if the lack of healthcare tax is increased.
He started the whole uproar. And what about low income cities and country’s? They cannot afford the extra taxes. This could also impact companies by not meeting their profit standards because many people will not want to buy their products if it costs more.
Left think that Wall Street does more to help the economy. Views of government aid to the poor are much more polarized along partisan lines
Some people with be mad about getting taxed more and some people wouldn’t mind getting taxed more as long as it is doing something like helping someone that needs help or saving their lives. “About 800 000 people commit suicide every year… Mental disorders and harmful use of alcohol contribute to many suicides around the world. ”(www.who.int) The people I think that won’t like getting taxed the most are people like Lennie and George who are struggling with money as is
A budget surplus occurs when tax revenue is greater than government spending. Therefore, the government can use the surplus revenue to pay off the national debt. Budget surpluses are quite rare in modern economies because of the temptation for politicians to spend more money and cut taxes.
Many people are strongly debating whether or not the rich should pay higher taxes. I believe it should be that the rich do pay higher taxes. When times in the economy are rough, the government needs to look consider at how they could bring in more money. Charging the wealthy higher taxes could be a strategy the government could use., and the wealthy people are the ones who could afford it.