Argumentative Essay On Flat Tax
Since the moment the government was installed, Americans have debated the way their country should be run extensively. Whether in regard to who is the executive, or how they fulfill their duty, a multitude of citizens do not have a strong faith in their leadership. People flock to whichever side they feel will better help the American people and that will represent their views. One of the main factors, which play into whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, is the way which taxation is carried out. Most Republicans favor lower taxes in order for business to flourish, while most Democrats desire higher taxation on big business to aid lower class individuals. Due to this perception, many Democrats are in support of the current progressive
…show more content…
tax system because of the higher income individuals have to pay higher taxes, in theory. The article written by Holley Ulbrich depicts key points, which oppose the flat tax. Although she defends her view adequately, Ms. Ulbrich fails to grasp the concept that the implementation of a flat tax would give the economy and Americans a better opportunity to thrive because of its simplicity, the surplus of American jobs that can be created, and its fair representation of all individuals. One of the initial proposals Ulbrich claims is that the additional revenue created through the flat tax would be manipulated by the wealthy for personal gain. This is a false statement because the government for the implementation of programs, which can aid the lower and middle classes, will control this additional money. The money does not flow through businesses to decide what sources get funded. The state and federal governments make these decisions. Currently, there is a double tax system, where people must pay twice on their income. This creates complications in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could mess up calculations, which can result in Americans overpaying (Mitchell, 2). With this accounted for, the simplicity of the flat tax would call for taxpayers to not have to prepare as many tax returns which could, theoretically, quell the need for the IRS (Phillips, 2). Also, many proposals made advocating for the flat tax consist of import taxes rising and export taxes decreasing, like in the proposals made by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. These plans would also add around 12% to the Gross Domestic Product within a decade, which amounts to about $2.5 trillion (Moore, 1). This would have an adverse reaction to what Ms. Ulbrich stated because it will increase the amount of American jobs. Wealthy business leaders, like Donald Trump, would invest more money into his companies and thus create more jobs for Americans, and because of this our economy would grow substantially. In today's system, we increase taxation on exports rather than imports, which may be a component of why our economy has taken a dip over the years. Another thoughtless argument Ms. Ulbrich defends is that people will lose the investments, which they have invested money into retirement plans, like 401k's. The government will not simply take this money from the American people and not return it. The government will pay the money, which the individuals have put towards these retirement plans and others in increments. Because of its new implementation, people will have to receive it over a longer period of time because everyone who paid these would be expecting a reimbursement. For senior citizens who have retired, they will continue receiving payments that they would get in a normal retirement plan until either they receive all of the money, which they have saved, or they pass on and the inheritors will receive the money as they normally would. After this early on stage is completed, Americans will not have to deal with as many hidden fees that occur with income taxation, and they will know more clearly in what ways they can spend and save their money to fit a budget that will work for them. The last clear argument that Ms.
Ulbrich testifies is that a flat tax will redistribute the tax burden for the lower and middle classes. Today, a main source of the government's money gained through taxation is by payroll tax instead of income tax. This source of money, in fact, directly impacts the middle class because it targets workers exclusively. “Today more than 60% of Americans say that they pay more in payroll tax than they do in federal income tax. This causes both Americans and their employers to lose money. Although they earn two-thirds of the gross national income they pay almost four-fifths of all federal taxes.”(Mueller, 4) In addition, the flat tax would set a standard for all taxpayers, no matter their class. In the current tax system has numerous exemptions, which some wealthy upper class Americans have taken advantage of and capitalized on these loopholes by paying less money than they originally would have. With a flat tax, every individual would be treated equally and pay the same percentage of their income. This protects lower-class people if they are unable to pay a high amount, and does not discourage people from working hard to earn money. Today the percentage at which Americans pay continues to fluctuate, becoming lower if a person has minimal income, and vice versa for those with high incomes. A flat tax will allow the economy to still receive a lump sum of money, while treating all workers
fairly. In brief, the flat tax is a crucial system, which America should implement in the near future. Although change is intimidating, Americans will come to realize the numerous benefits of the flat tax. People would be able to pay taxes easy and efficiently without losing money to the IRS through double payments, and all people will be treated fairly by having their taxes at a set rate and their percentage would not fluctuate. Also, with this increase in income for the Federal government, we will be able to fund more programs for Americans and palliate the growing national debt, which has built up over the past few decades. Ms. Ulbrich’s progressive ideals consisted of minor arguments, all of which have been rebuked in this paper. Even though the progressive system is what we have had consistently, it is time for America to take a new leap forward with the flat tax.
tax system because of the higher income individuals have to pay higher taxes, in theory. The article written by Holley Ulbrich depicts key points, which oppose the flat tax. Although she defends her view adequately, Ms. Ulbrich fails to grasp the concept that the implementation of a flat tax would give the economy and Americans a better opportunity to thrive because of its simplicity, the surplus of American jobs that can be created, and its fair representation of all individuals. One of the initial proposals Ulbrich claims is that the additional revenue created through the flat tax would be manipulated by the wealthy for personal gain. This is a false statement because the government for the implementation of programs, which can aid the lower and middle classes, will control this additional money. The money does not flow through businesses to decide what sources get funded. The state and federal governments make these decisions. Currently, there is a double tax system, where people must pay twice on their income. This creates complications in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could mess up calculations, which can result in Americans overpaying (Mitchell, 2). With this accounted for, the simplicity of the flat tax would call for taxpayers to not have to prepare as many tax returns which could, theoretically, quell the need for the IRS (Phillips, 2). Also, many proposals made advocating for the flat tax consist of import taxes rising and export taxes decreasing, like in the proposals made by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. These plans would also add around 12% to the Gross Domestic Product within a decade, which amounts to about $2.5 trillion (Moore, 1). This would have an adverse reaction to what Ms. Ulbrich stated because it will increase the amount of American jobs. Wealthy business leaders, like Donald Trump, would invest more money into his companies and thus create more jobs for Americans, and because of this our economy would grow substantially. In today's system, we increase taxation on exports rather than imports, which may be a component of why our economy has taken a dip over the years. Another thoughtless argument Ms. Ulbrich defends is that people will lose the investments, which they have invested money into retirement plans, like 401k's. The government will not simply take this money from the American people and not return it. The government will pay the money, which the individuals have put towards these retirement plans and others in increments. Because of its new implementation, people will have to receive it over a longer period of time because everyone who paid these would be expecting a reimbursement. For senior citizens who have retired, they will continue receiving payments that they would get in a normal retirement plan until either they receive all of the money, which they have saved, or they pass on and the inheritors will receive the money as they normally would. After this early on stage is completed, Americans will not have to deal with as many hidden fees that occur with income taxation, and they will know more clearly in what ways they can spend and save their money to fit a budget that will work for them. The last clear argument that Ms.
Ulbrich testifies is that a flat tax will redistribute the tax burden for the lower and middle classes. Today, a main source of the government's money gained through taxation is by payroll tax instead of income tax. This source of money, in fact, directly impacts the middle class because it targets workers exclusively. “Today more than 60% of Americans say that they pay more in payroll tax than they do in federal income tax. This causes both Americans and their employers to lose money. Although they earn two-thirds of the gross national income they pay almost four-fifths of all federal taxes.”(Mueller, 4) In addition, the flat tax would set a standard for all taxpayers, no matter their class. In the current tax system has numerous exemptions, which some wealthy upper class Americans have taken advantage of and capitalized on these loopholes by paying less money than they originally would have. With a flat tax, every individual would be treated equally and pay the same percentage of their income. This protects lower-class people if they are unable to pay a high amount, and does not discourage people from working hard to earn money. Today the percentage at which Americans pay continues to fluctuate, becoming lower if a person has minimal income, and vice versa for those with high incomes. A flat tax will allow the economy to still receive a lump sum of money, while treating all workers
fairly. In brief, the flat tax is a crucial system, which America should implement in the near future. Although change is intimidating, Americans will come to realize the numerous benefits of the flat tax. People would be able to pay taxes easy and efficiently without losing money to the IRS through double payments, and all people will be treated fairly by having their taxes at a set rate and their percentage would not fluctuate. Also, with this increase in income for the Federal government, we will be able to fund more programs for Americans and palliate the growing national debt, which has built up over the past few decades. Ms. Ulbrich’s progressive ideals consisted of minor arguments, all of which have been rebuked in this paper. Even though the progressive system is what we have had consistently, it is time for America to take a new leap forward with the flat tax.