A Comparison Of The United StatesTax Function Plan?

While most taxpayers agree that tax reform is necessary for our country the problem they encounter is the difficulty they experience when trying to understand all the political terms used when discussing tax reform. This paper is an attempt to help the taxpayers of our country to better understand the political terminology and gain knowledge about some of the proposals that have been explored.

During the past couple of decades, the decline in the middle class has been associated to the political agenda of the Republican Party. By ending governmental subsidies and other programs created to build the middle class, has ultimately ceased the growth. However, realizing the importance of the middle class to our fragile economic platform, the Democratic and Independent political parties are desperately trying to create and revamp the middle class

The federal tax code has a level of complexity so great, that reforming it should be the one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Instead, proposal after proposal calling for reform die in Congress. And there have been a lot of proposals. Arlen Specter (D-PA) put some form of a flat tax/tax reform proposal into Congress’s hands every year from 1995-2010. This is because, for the most part, the fight for reform always comes down to a two sided debate. One side wants to keep the current complex structure and the other sees no other alternative than blowing this current structure up and moving to a flat rate system. All of this brings me to the arguments for/against the flat rate tax system.

(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).

The committee unveiled its draft title at hearing on Tuesday. Testimony from supporters of the tax increase and from critics is here.

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

Democrats are pushing for this because in the 90’s when taxes were set up like this, the economy was very strong, but, “in the seven years since, Republicans have produced $3.8 trillion in new debt and made China our national banker,” (Skiba). Pushing to reduce the national debt, democrats want to create equality in the economy with taxes. Along with progressive taxation, democrats are more favorable towards government spending, especially for things such as social security and entitlement programs that help the masses. The Democratic Party would like a more regulated economy where the federal government steps in to create balance and equality.

Like the house plan, the Senate Democrats actually introduced the American Family Economic Protection Act, which would have replaced the SQ with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases.

Our live top marginal tax rate is 39.6% which would be kept there in the House bill, but the Senate bill seeks to reduce it down to 38.5%, which is favored by supply-side economic theorists who state that this reduction will let the economy grow.

Until, December 17, 2010, the House and Senate who were referred to as lame ducks passed the 2010 Tax Act (Dye) and President Barack Obama signed the act into law with the extension of the Bush 2003 tax act.

The Armey-Shelby flat tax proposal will scraps the entire income tax code and replaces it with a flat-rate income tax that treats all Americans the same. This plan would simplify the tax code, promote economic opportunity, and restore fairness and integrity to the tax system. The flat rate would be phased-in over a three-year period, with a 19 percent rate for the first two years and a 17 percent rate for subsequent years.

For example Buffett states, “And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.” Bringing to the attention of the audience that we are in a current financial crisis, and to make matters worse we have a high unemployment rate. Signaling that this is a problem that needs to be resolved by some response from the audience being the government. Another problem Buffett bring to the audience mind is how we the people are losing our faith on our government to handle our fiscal problems as he states the following; “Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness.” Again reminding our government that they need to take action not only quickly but also considerable to the public before its too late and the people become hopeless on our government.

This website offers honest feedback on the details of tax cuts and job act. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a tax plan, which would spur an additional $1 trillion in federal revenues from economic growth. These new revenues would reduce the cost of the plan. The tax plan limits several other deductions and, in some cases, eliminate. It also expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, while increasing the phaseout from $110,000 in current law to $400,000 for married couples. The first $1,400 would be refundable. Several sections for this website address the process and give good insight

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

Rubio’s tax plan is to lower them and even remove some categories (Ollenstein). Marco Rubio’s business tax plan will provide a “25 percent non-refundable tax credit to any business offering between four and twelve weeks of paid family leave” (Lichtenberg). Rubio’s tax plan provides a tax relief for all businesses by “slashing corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent”(Ollenstein). For family and household taxes Marco Rubio would cut taxes, letting taxpayers keep more of their own money instead of sending it to Washington. Replace the standard deduction with personal tax credit. Eliminate the Marriage Penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (Lichtenberg). It provides tax relief to the middle-class parents and families by adding a “partially refundable Child Tax Credit of up to $2,500 per child” (Lichtenberg). His healthcare plan replaces all of the Obamacare with consumer-centered reforms. The plan repeals all 21 Obamacare taxes (Lichtenberg). For college students, Rubio wants rich individuals or hedge funds to pay a student 's tuition and collect their investments back post graduation. “It may result in a profit for the investor or it may not - but unlike with loans, none of the risk lies with the student,” Rubio said (Ollenstein).