It had the potential to raise taxes to outrageous rates, and despite the dismissal of the Cliff, the issue had just been pushed onto the back burner of the economy and will be readdressed later this year. On one hand, by keeping low taxes the state is unable to create a sufficient amount of money to pay off its debt. Instead, many people argue that by raising taxes the increased prices of items will actually harm the nation’s economic recovery (Russell).
Taxes should be increased because facing the national debt is inevitable and the country is will be unable to recover from the mounting debt until it’s citizens help bring it back from its economic grave. Taxes are directly connected to the economy of a nation, and due to this many people argue that the government needs to cut spending on government programs that are causing the debt to increase. Yet, it was revealed that automatic budget cuts were part of the Fiscal Cliff, and would have saved $109 billion in federal spending on defense and non-defense programs alike. “President To Make Argument For Fiscal Cliff Plans”).
Ironically, people argued that the government needs to cut, but as it was revealed that is exactly what the cliff was aiming to do. The Fiscal Cliff could have cut unnecessary costs causing the debt to lessen, and in turn reduced swollen deficits (Dixon).
... no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for people, but a government of Wall Street ... circulation by retiring Civil War greenbacks. On debt-ridden farmers plagued by overproduction, the effect ... country's wealth" (96). A graduated income tax, therefore, would help achieve a more equitable ... Finally, the enactment of a graduated income tax would allow for a more just means of ...
This reduction can decrease the debt but even with the removal of these programs the large debt the nation has would be unable to be quickly and efficiently taken care of at current tax rates.
This proves that cutting costs can not solely help the economic situation. Despite this, the resulting chain reaction caused by cutting certain budgets benefits the United States overall because it organizes the spending of the nation and can prevent unnecessary costs. By going over the Cliff, one possibility is that the nation could fall into a recession. Yet, the government discussed the possibility of raising taxes on the rich to make up for taxes that could be placed on the middle class.
Economists, who have analyzed the possible effects of going over this “cliff,” argue that this would result in preventing the economy from completely going over (Cohen).
Although, taxes will have to be raised on everybody anyways due to newly enacted health care programs. This tax raise is justifiable because these new programs are meant to help citizens but it is unlikely for things to come without a price, “though the people support the government; the government should not support the people,” (Cleveland).
This plan to raise taxes by 39% is actually an advantage for tax payers because it will be made permanent meaning that after families adjust to the new income amount they will receive, after taxes have been removed from the overall amount, they will not have to worry about being faced with another scramble to extend tax policies in the future (Ohlemacher).
The certainty this can provide families with a regular tax plan they can adjust to without major changes in the future. The economic world can be both a clam sea and a brewing storm, although with a consistent tax plan tax payers will be able to comfortably sail this reliable ocean.
... If the Federal Government raises the tax on gas to $3 to $4 per gallon the economy would suffer. Peoples personal ... gas increase would be effective for is to increase government revenues, but it would be at the expense ... will continue to affect every part of our economy. The demand for gas usually increases during the ... rely on mobility needs heavily. If the gas tax was increase to $3 or $4 per gallon ...
Often, before acting, one looks to the examples of others for guidance; for the mistakes of others will not be theirs. Britain has remained the main nation America looks at when discussing politics and this was proven no different when discussing economics. Conceders have argued that raising taxes would not fix anything, as proven by the British example. In 2010 Cameron took office, axing the government’s budget, a potential plan in the Fiscal Cliff, yet the gross domestic product is below the level it had been at when Cameron had started (Brown).
This comparison proves inaccurate because governments are individualistic and many factors, such as the executives chosen in the government and the differing economies or markets in each country, could affect the result of certain decisions. Britain’s ailment is specifically due to a lack of demand not of supply, Adam Posen, a specialist in British economics, argued, and the U. S. cannot be properly compared to the parliamentary government of Britain (Brown).
If the government was to raise taxes it is not guaranteed that it would result negatively on the economy as a whole.
Actually, by raising taxes the nation is being given a chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future (Cohen).
A trip to the drawing board of economics combined with an on the dot tax plan could revolutionize the economy of America instead of resulting in disaster as many people against the raise in taxes have argued. To tax or not to tax; that is the problem. Despite arguments for a decrease in taxes it is clear that if the government ignores the demand for money to appease the increasing debt then the economy will fall into a harsh depression that will become harder to fix.
Citizens put their safety in the hands of the government, they put their children’s safety in the hands of the government, they put their education in the hands of the government, and they put their money in the hands of the government. Why then can they not put their trust? Taxes should be raises so that the deficit does not increase to a larger rate. It is time to start refilling the empty bank of American. Works Cited Brown, Abram. “The Argument Against Fiscal Cliff Austerity: Just Look At Britain’s Mess. “Forbes.
Should Government Tax Sugary Drinks? Over the past few years, overweight and ... type of liver and heart disease. According to “A tax that Invests In Our Health”, by Richard F. Daines ... succesfull to reduce the amount of obesity since fat tax only effect some group of people and many people ... oppose fat tax. But taxing sugary drink will affect not only some ...
Forbes Magazine, 24 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. Cleveland, Grover. Quote – Though the People Support the Government; the Government Should Not Support the People… on Quotations Book. N. p. , n. d. Web. 16 Feb. 2013. Cohen, Tom. “Fiscal Cliff: What Isn’t Said Tells More than Actual Words. ” CNN. Cable News Network, 07 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. Dixon, Kim. “Analysis: “Fiscal Cliff’ Deal Called a Dud on Deficit Front. ” Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 01 Jan. 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. Dubay, Curtis S. “Send This Report to a Friend. The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 9 Jan. 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. Ohlemacher, Stephen. “Fiscal Cliff Deal Will Raise Taxes On 77 Percent Of Americans: Tax Policy Center Analysis. ” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost. com, 02Jan. 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. “President To Make Argument For Fiscal Cliff Plans. ” Breaking News for Black America. News One, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. Russell, Don. “A Clear Concise Look at the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Controversy. ” Examiner. com. Examiner, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2013.