To Tax Or Not To Tax
William Pittman
10/14/14
Writing COMP – Han
To Tax or not To Tax
Two authors by the names of Paul Krugman and Fred E. Foldvary have varying opinions on the topic of taxing the rich. The debate they’re writing about is whether or not the US should increase the tax burden on the rich. Foldvary states in his “The Evil of Taxing the Rich” article that there are a lot of negative affects that would come along with taxing the rich. Mainly, he says the rich are paying a much larger percentage of federal taxes already, so their taxes shouldn’t be any higher. Also, he makes point that increasing the tax burden on the rich is an evil lie because the taxes the rich pay are returned to them through land-value subsidies. Paul Krugman believes that the middle class’ tax burden is unfair and harsh when compared to the tax burden on the rich people in America. His main point in his argument is that the income growth for the upper class since World War far outweighs that of the middle class. Since World war two, the income of the richest Americans has grown by 480 percent.
Why should the rich not receive higher tax rates? In Foldvary’s article, he says, “Higher taxes on goods or labor raise their costs, and therefore reduce their quantities. This reduction in output, income, and investment is called the deadweight loss or excess burden of taxation, and has been estimated to be over $1.5 trillion per year “. This basically means that increasing the tax on the rich would cause the middle class to spend more money for the things they buy because the companies they buy from are all ran by rich tax payers. This could be devastating to our economy, and would still cause a burden on the middle class even when paired with lower tax rates. Also, Foldvary provides information showing how the rich are already paying a much larger percentage of federal taxes already. So, while increasing them would benefit the middle class, it would put an unfair burden on the rich. He then makes a point
10/14/14
Writing COMP – Han
To Tax or not To Tax
Two authors by the names of Paul Krugman and Fred E. Foldvary have varying opinions on the topic of taxing the rich. The debate they’re writing about is whether or not the US should increase the tax burden on the rich. Foldvary states in his “The Evil of Taxing the Rich” article that there are a lot of negative affects that would come along with taxing the rich. Mainly, he says the rich are paying a much larger percentage of federal taxes already, so their taxes shouldn’t be any higher. Also, he makes point that increasing the tax burden on the rich is an evil lie because the taxes the rich pay are returned to them through land-value subsidies. Paul Krugman believes that the middle class’ tax burden is unfair and harsh when compared to the tax burden on the rich people in America. His main point in his argument is that the income growth for the upper class since World War far outweighs that of the middle class. Since World war two, the income of the richest Americans has grown by 480 percent.
Why should the rich not receive higher tax rates? In Foldvary’s article, he says, “Higher taxes on goods or labor raise their costs, and therefore reduce their quantities. This reduction in output, income, and investment is called the deadweight loss or excess burden of taxation, and has been estimated to be over $1.5 trillion per year “. This basically means that increasing the tax on the rich would cause the middle class to spend more money for the things they buy because the companies they buy from are all ran by rich tax payers. This could be devastating to our economy, and would still cause a burden on the middle class even when paired with lower tax rates. Also, Foldvary provides information showing how the rich are already paying a much larger percentage of federal taxes already. So, while increasing them would benefit the middle class, it would put an unfair burden on the rich. He then makes a point