When I'm 30...

It is now 2025 and I am 30 years old. Over the past 12 years there have been many budget cuts in order to reduce the massive debt we had. There were cuts to the national defense and many other public programs. Sadly, this is includes social security, schools, national parks, etc. Although, to go along with these cuts, we've had an increase of taxes. We're on the same tax system but each rate has increased by 3%, this means that everyone is paying more taxes than they have had to in the past. It's been difficult to adjust to these hardships, although the economy seems to be doing better and hopefully funding will be able to flow back into most of the programs that had to reduce their spending. 

The past 12 years have been a mixture of hope and resentment. Many citizens don't want to/can't pay higher tax rates even though it helps bring the economy back up. Neither party is content because of the tax hikes and budget cuts, although it should level out soon because by working together, we are able to envision the goal we want to reach. The debt has been reduced from $16 trillion to $5 trillion. Although we still have a long ways to go, this improvement has been beneficial. We are able to still provide the usual services, but also bringing in more revenue than debt. Some years have been more difficult than others, we haven't always been able to reduce spending consistently each year. Some years have had unexpected events occur that involved having to spend more money, but hopefully within the next five years we will have reached some sort of balanced state. 

Manifesto 2.0.

1. I believe that the government's role in the economy should be dependent on the needs of America. Right now, in these hard times, I think that they have the responsibility to try and help balance out the debt that many people are in. In an article on CNN titled, President touts Obamacare benefits for moms, Obama talks about being "110% committed to getting it done." He is referring to health care as being important for the well being on our people. He also says that '"there will be some mistakes and hiccups as the thing gets started up"', which I also agree with. Sometimes the government has to do things that don't seem favorable at first, but end up with a better result. I feel like it's their job to help us stay stable and confident in our ability to act as a nation.

2. It is interesting to see how much of our taxes are taken out of individual's incomes, 46%! This is surprising compared to the amount taken from corporate taxes which is only 10%. I feel like the taxes coming from corporations should be higher since they're able to afford more because of their larger size. So I would change the way they bring in revenue because it puts a large burden on each individual or family to pay taxes and if they can't then the government can't make a profit.

3. I think that the spending for the national budget seems fair, despite the fact that we are spending more money than we are taking in. I feel like if cuts are to happen, then it should mostly be from the discretionary areas or areas that can be combined with other groups in order to make a better profit. We need public services for those who can't provide for themselves, and for those who have retired and aren't working anymore. Although certain programs could be improved, I think that spending is on the right track.

4. In the Federal Budget Challenge, I cut spending more than raising revenue in order to reduce the deficit. The largest area I cut spending in was War Spending Estimates. Throughout the whole process though, I had a tough time deciding what I wanted to cut because I felt like a lot of these public programs were important to America. Even though I did reduce spending in the Social Security and Health areas, I didn't want to because I think that people should have access to affordable medical care. The revenue I raised was somewhat close to how much I wanted to cut, although I felt like if the government and companies are already in debt, then how would individuals be able to pay more taxes? It was a good demonstration, but in real life I would hope there would be more options.

5.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/T/e/I/H/2/4/parent-and-child-holding-hands.svg

I chose a picture of an adult holding hands with a child. To me, the government seems like an adult figure, although less so the older I've gotten. So it only seems right that it would try and lead us to the best of its abilities. This means they would decide where our taxes go, how we should raise revenue, etc. And just like a child, as America grows stronger and more capable to agree and have a voice that they would let us grow up. Also, just like a parent, they will always be there, but it just depends on the amount of influence we let them have. 

Taxes.

Value-Added Tax

Pro: It slowly gains taxes from each step in the process and so people are less likely to commit fraud because they wouldn't benefit from it. It would lower corporate taxes to help keep them in the USA. It also encourages investment instead of spending, which can be beneficial in the long run. 

"We should be taxing consumption, not income . . . We should be in a position to have a tax system that finances our government and stimulates investment . . ."

Con: It is a regressive tax that is burdensome on the poor because they have to pay more in comparison to how much the wealthy have to spend on the same items. Although it's possible to reduce the tax on the essentials, it's still harder for the poor to afford them. It also wouldn't let individuals get tax incomes and so the IRS wouldn't be needed. 

"Being a tax on consumption, it's a regressive tax, one that is disproportionately burdensome on the poor and middle class."

I oppose a value-added tax because it is a burden to the lower and middle class who spend their money on the essentials items in life and would make it harder for them to put money into the economy. 

National Sales Tax

Pro: This tax would increase savings in households because they would be more conscious about what they purchase. It would help businesses bring their work back to the US, as their companies wouldn't be taxed anymore. We would also be able to tax foreign visitors whenever they buy items here. It is also said that the prices would drop because it wouldn't incorporate the businesses income tax. 
"By removing the tax on the return to savings and investment, a consumptions tax would increase savings and investment . . . [and] result in higher production rates and higher wages."


Con: The tax would be regressive because the middle and lower class would have to spend more money on necessities while the richer can afford to save some of their income. It is also stated that the sales tax would be taken from the item plus the tax. They are also skeptical because they believe that the tax would have to be higher than the proposed rate in order to keep bringing in the same amount of revenue. It would eliminate the IRS, as well. If there were an immediate switch, then the older, retired people would have to pay double because they had paid income tax when they were working, and now they're paying taxes on the things they buy.
"The report argues that replacing most federal taxes with a national sales tax would cause large tax increases for most Americans while allowing huge tax cuts for the wealthiest."

I oppose the national sales tax because it doesn't seem realistic that we would create enough revenue to help eliminate the debt and if an item isn't sold then the government wouldn't be able to gain taxes from it. 

Flat Tax

Pro: Republicans are the ones who are in the most support for this tax reform. There wouldn't be as many loopholes are there are nowadays in our tax system. Companies in the higher bracket wouldn't be able to talk to lobbyists or find loopholes in order to reduce their taxes. Investment tax also wouldn't be taxed, it would lead to economic growth and eliminate double taxation. We would also be able to save millions of dollars that we put towards hiring others to help us understand the tax code right now. 
"Fairness is the greatest virtue of the flat tax . . . No matter how much money you make, what kind of business you are in, and whether or not you have lobbyists in Washington, you will be taxed at the same percentage as everyone one else."

Con: The tax would impact the lower and middle income bracket highly because they would end up paying more in taxes than the upper class. The investment income that fuels the high class wouldn't be taxed, compared to the full-time worker in a lower class where their paycheck would be taxed. It was shown that by using this system, the deficit would continue to grow. So the only way to improve it in this system is to tax more heavily on the lower and middle class. 
"'. . . Forbes's plan "would greatly enlarge the gulf between have and have-nots'".

I oppose the flat tax because it would create too much of a burden on the lower and middle class, while the higher class would be able to have a smaller rate on taxes than they do now.

Progressive Tax

Pro: They believe that if a person earns more money, then they should pay more in taxes. They think that the tax rates have decreased over the past years for the higher class and that it isn't fair because some of their money comes from investment incomes. They also say that lowers the upper brackets' taxes doesn't improve the economy like they said it would. They believe that if the money stays in the lower to middle class that it would be more beneficial to the economy. 
"'A progressive system distributes the risks of economic changes by basing a family's tax burden on their ability to pay.'"

Con: It unfairly taxes the higher class and it won't make up for the tax deficit that we have right now. It is believed that taxing the rich they won't be able to create businesses and jobs because they wouldn't have the money to do so. Many are tired as being seen or labeled as lazy people who don't have to work. Which causes them to be upset because they end up funding programs that they don't even use because they are directed towards the jobless/poor Americans.
"Taxing the rich to benefit the poor is also an unjust practice, opponents argue, because income distribution is inherently immoral."

I support the progressive tax because it would help level the playing field for each income bracket and so that each group would be taxed based on their incomes which would result in an increase of money into the economy. 

The Big Picture.

Seeing as I'll be having to pay taxes for a large majority of my adult life, I am forced to look ahead at the impact taxation will have on me. If I were to advise the President and his people, then I would let them know how much I want our tax money to be put into secure programs. If I'm paying for social security and putting money into my retirement fund, then I want to be sure that I will get the same amount, if not more, when the time comes that I need to tap into it. I also feel like having better public services is a must for a nation to be successful. If that means more taxes, then so be it. As long as I am able to see a change. 

The debt is definitely not something to brush off. As it keep growing, the burden grows on the next generation to fix it. Although we can see cuts right now, the budget is still being debated over. They can all agree that it needs to be reduced, but through which means? As much as it will suck, I feel like we should pay slightly higher taxes in order to reduce the debt, as long as the budget isn't increased also. These cuts are becoming increasingly worrisome, and are affecting poorer areas which is upsetting. If my money can help our economy rebuild itself, then I feel like it will pay off in the long run.