Income Tax by Justin Absher

Background

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-14 16:03:28 UTC

Who: US Federal Government

What: Instituted taxation on the income of US citizens. The US institutes a graduated income tax. This involves an increase in the tax rate as taxable income increases. "The concept of taxing income is a modern innovation and presupposes several things: a money economy, reasonably accurate accounts, a common understanding of receipts, expenses and profits, and an orderly society with reliable records."(quote taken from the link below)

When: Income related taxation has been around since the early days of the Roman republic. Income tax has been in America since 1862.

Why: Income tax is the greatest source of revenue for the federal government to support its functions, programs, and other expenditures.

Where: This blog will focus on Income taxation in the USA.

Positive 1

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-14 18:51:03 UTC

Tax revenue for the government benefits the taxpayer in many ways. A few examples include the construction and maintenance of public roads and highways which are essential for a car travel, probably the most widely used form of transportation in America.

Public schools account for the vast majority of education opportunities available to Americans. Almost every expense related to the establishment and maintenance of a public school comes from tax dollars.

Tax dollars also pay for public safety services such as police, fire, and EMT services.

Positive 2

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-14 18:51:21 UTC

Progressive taxes (same thing as graduated income tax) help to decrease income distribution inequality by subjecting peoples with higher incomes to greater tax rates than those with lower incomes. This benefits lower income households and small businesses by increasing the proportion of income that can be used on living expenses or expanding the business. In general, progressive tax systems also tend to increase the government's overall tax revenue. This benefits society by allowing more funding for programs such as welfare, public services, education, and medical assistance/health care. Theoretically, the benefits listed above to small business and economically struggling households translates to higher revenues for other organizations and larger businesses.

Gary Kang April 16th

GaryKang — 2015-04-16 18:50:54 UTC

Taxes are usually used for the public. When I had a trip, I needed to go to restroom. Public restroom is useful and it is for free. But it is maintained by taxes. This is good article for the evidence of how the government uses taxes.

Thursday/ http://corporatetax.procon.org/

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-16 19:06:15 UTC

Morgan MacKenzie | April 16th

MorganMackenzie — 2015-04-16 19:46:57 UTC

About progressive taxes, it does sound good but what about the people who work hard to earn that amount of money (say the people who earn more than the norm)? Is it fare to them that they work harder to earn that money and have to pay even more because of that?o

Negative 1

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-22 01:33:10 UTC

There are only two sure things in life: "death and taxes".

Progressive taxes have a nasty habit of discouraging achievement. When people know that any increases to their income are going to be taxed more heavily, it discourages some people from trying hard to advance.

The higher the taxes, the more agile people become. Then, tax dodgeball insues. The higher the taxes and the more there is to gain from tax evasion, the more peole are gonna do it. Plain and simple.

Progressive taxes are also a lot more complicated than flat taxes. More number crunching, more questions, more ambiguity. This also negatively benefits the government as they need to use more time, money, and resources to enforce more complex taxes and ensure compliance.

Negative 2

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-22 01:40:15 UTC

This article highlights some of the big discrepencies between the theoretical progressive tax and the actual state of the US tax system. With all of the tax deductions and different rates on different types of income, some people benefit and others are SOL. According to the article, the Obama's have an adjusted gross income of $700,000+ and pay a cumulative tax rate of about 20%. Meanwhile, Obama's secretary who makes less than 1/7 of that ends up paying a higher percent of their income. Mitt Romney is subject to about 15% tax rate and he makes upwards of $21 million in a year. These are just examples that demonstrate the ways in which the progressive tax system can and will end up being unfair and different from what it intends. This because in some cases, certain incomes are subjected to different rates. For instance, in the case of Mitt Romney, he makes most of his money off stocks and stock income is subject to a 15% flat tax. There are holes in the system, and this writer suggests either making the progressive rates universal are moving to a completely flat tax system.

Picture

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-23 02:58:58 UTC

I choose this picture because it was the most interesting picture I found on the topic of income tax. It appears that this person is being overburdened under the weight of the tax. This is an interesting visual metaphor for the pressures that taxes put on many people.

Quote

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-23 03:02:14 UTC

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." - Albert Einstein

This quote is kind of funny, especially coming from Einstein. It is true that many would say income tax is one of the most complicated things they have to deal with. The way taxes are, especially progressive taxes, there are so many loopholes and deductions and the lack thereof that filing one's taxes can be a nightmare. I think that this statement is pretty significant coming from one of the greatest mathematical minds of all time.

Ben Smoots / Quote Comment

BenSmoots — 2015-04-23 23:24:52 UTC

Income tax to me should be based on a percentage of a persons earnings, and everyone should contribute the same percentage of there income towards taxes. If all men (and women) are created equal as the constitution says, why should the government be allowed to take more money from the rich rather than they do from the poor? There are so many opportunities in this country for all people to make money, some just want it more than others. Rich people work just as hard as poor people, and taking away a much larger portion of their income gives them less incentive to work.

Gary Kang/Art comment

GaryKang — 2015-04-24 18:36:11 UTC

Recently I noticed that we have to pay taxes a lot. I didn't know how many laws require us to pay taxes. I just thought that taxes are only on products I buy or money I earn. But there are more other taxes than I thought. So when I saw the picture at the first time, it reminded me of other taxes.

REFLECT 1

JustinAbsher — 2015-04-24 18:38:59 UTC

I saw several good points made on the R1 comments about the possibility of a new revolution in America. Many of the examples used that may start a revolution revolved around gun control and I agree that that is a very heated debate that has very strong opinions on both sides. Some people spoke of a fight/ war that could potentially break out between the American people and the government. Personally I think any physical confrontation with the government would end poorly for civilians. However, I saw some good ideas for peaceful protests against an issue that is firmly rooted in the potential for violence. I think that it would look very good for anti-gun control supporters to lead peaceful protests as that would set a better example for the pro gun control side. If anti gun control supporters decide to act violently, then they would simply be proving the pro gun control side right.

Question | Income Tax

JustinAbsher — 2015-05-05 18:32:38 UTC

Most would agree that taxes are necessary for the government to function. What kinds of things should be taxed? Is it right to tax someone on their income? Why? Should tax rates increase as income increases, or should there be one flat rate

Question | Police protesting

JustinAbsher — 2015-05-05 18:36:48 UTC

As american citizens, we have the right to free assembly and speech and are free to protest. Does this mean that we can protest however we want to? Where is the line drawn between an innocent protest and a crime? Is it right to respond to violence with violence? What are some alternatives?

Matt Regan

swimmatt — 2015-05-06 17:25:49 UTC

Matt Regan/ answer

swimmatt — 2015-05-06 17:25:50 UTC

I think the perfect answer to your question can be demenstrated through the protests in Baltimore. Of course we have the right to protest, garenteed by the first amendment, but when the protests become unlawful, that's where we draw the line. Several small businesses saw their dreams crumble because of the riots in Baltimore. Shops where ripped apart, broken into, robbed! And not a dam thing is being done about it! Protesters are braking the law, and they should not be allowed to protest any longer because of their actions.

Andrew Vogel/ answer

avogel — 2015-05-06 19:04:03 UTC

There is a line between protest and crime. Lately it seems that all protests somehow involve the looting of local businesses. This is not protesting. By stealing from the local shop owners, the looters are hurting the community rather than trying to make it stronger. Protesting is joining together to defeat an injustice. Looting simply adds to the problem. It only weakens the community.

May 5

JustinAbsher — 2015-05-07 00:16:09 UTC

I learned that Cinco de Mayo is not actually a celebration of Mexico's independence but rather a celebration of a Mexican victory over the French army in 1862.

Cinco de Mayo is not even celebrated in Mexico as heavily as in America. Americans have commercialized the holiday and used it as a way to market to Latino customers and provide an excuse to eat American Mexican food and drink tequila.

Cinco de Mayo was originally brought to America by Mexican laborers as a way to show their national pride.