How about making great increases on taxes for the rich? Wouldn’t that reduce the income from their industries and businesses as well as making it hard for them to maintain all their employees? It’s interesting how the big earners are portrayed as being extravagant, spending on luxurious goods while the middle class who have foreclosures and bankruptcy are only portrayed as caring about their children to go to good schools. Oh! How
Most banks have policies that allow exceptions for customers with good loan histories and reputations. An exception might be appropriate in this case if the loan applicant can explain how and how quickly the new equipment will increase income. The new equipment will increase depreciation expense, so at the same level of revenue the company must reduce costs by at least $184,615 (3.51%) plus the net increase in depreciation. This required expense reduction is shown below with some more-or-less reasonable assumptions. This estimate also is conservative because the cost of new equipment was not included in total assets.
When an individual passes away and before his or her heirs receive any money all debts must be paid, unlike the government (Colander, 2010). Another difference between government and individual debt is that the government can create money to pay off debts if needed whereas an individual cannot. This week’s objectives gave us, a better understanding of how deficits and surpluses work also how deficits are not always bad. It also taught us how difficult it can be for the government to pay off debts and to come up with a budget that will lead us out of a
Well, it's simple. We are still paying off the deficit that FDR created for us. In reality, his presidency is a perfect example of how a certain political party can look back on history and see something different from what actually occurred. In other words, "reality is not a problem". A simple example of this is the concept of that evil, deceptive tax cut.
This cost however is a one-time cost, and could be paid off in the first few decades of the system. The funds could pay interest because they would be very similar to government bonds. This form of collecting gross pay from workers could collect interest to be shared by the government and the workers to help cover the cost of privatizing Social Security. This cumulative interest gained by the government could be put towards paying off the initial debt of Social Security privatizing costs and eventually start to chip away and the national debt. This interest paying account would most likely provide a better interest rate than most standard bank savings accounts making Social Security an investment tool and asset to the American work
Social Security Social Security was designed to lessen the deficit, take care of the elderly and especially the Baby Boom generation after they retire. Dean Baker clears up the myth about how Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction. He explains that the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds when there is a surplus in the amount of Social Security tax. If the Social Security Trust Fund did not build a surplus and lend out this money to the government, we would still have a deficit. A goal of Social Security is to take care of the elderly.
This would allow individuals to set up their own personal Social Security accounts in which the taxes taken out of their earnings would be set aside in a private account especially set up for when they retire or stop working for whatever reason. Also with these funds, individuals would have the option to invest these funds in the stock market and potentially have a much higher return then what the current system of what the government provides for these individuals. There are many individuals who find this to be the best way to reform social security, claiming that the current way is extremely detrimental to the average American’s hope that the taxes they are paying for their future will provide for them when they are no longer able to work. Some have even described the current system similar to that of a government sponsored ponzi/pyramid scheme where as stated earlier, the funds coming in from current payroll taxes are made to look like surpluses. With the privatization of Social Security, this will give workers the contractual right to their retirement benefits, instead of the current system where the government has no liability to provide individuals with Social Security.
President Barack Obama Tax Cut Proposal President Obama proposed a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle income taxpayers. He called his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest American generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages. President Obama’s proposal is causing the opposition from Republicans, who have opposed raising taxes on the affluent Americans because they said, it would discourage investment. According to IRS reports, there were about 237,000 millionaires, or about 0.1 percent of all filers, that filed income tax returns in 2009. There were about 8,000 filers who reported gross incomes of more than $10 million.
I believe that while paying taxes may seem burdensome, it is actually beneficial in the long run. Taxes provide citizens with services that they are unable to obtain on their own. When we pay monthly taxes, the government provides security and protection for our futures. For example, the United States’ system of social security and other social welfare programs offers citizens a sense of security and government assistance in the event of old age, retirement, unemployment, and in extreme cases of poverty. Without taxes, individual citizens are required to provide for themselves in a time of unforeseeable hardship.
These ideals are also known as supply side economics or “Reaganomics.” This is a “policy espoused by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. He popularized the controversial idea that greater tax cuts for investors and entrepreneurs provide incentives to save and invest and produce economic benefits that trickle down into the overall economy.” (American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America, 2012). With this way of thinking, the rich keep getting richer and the poor are struggling to survive. The OWS movement strives to make sure the 99%, which would be the middle to lower class Americans, also have a say in the government and a fair distribution of the finances in America. Many people believe that the trickle-down theory is just an excuse to justify favoring the rich financially and the benefits keep going to those richer people.