Everybody Should Get Tax Cutshgb | Teen Ink

Everybody Should Get Tax Cutshgb

December 14, 2010
By WrItEr2010 BRONZE, Durango, Colorado
WrItEr2010 BRONZE, Durango, Colorado
4 articles 0 photos 15 comments

There has been a huge controversy about if there should be tax cuts for the "rich." First of all, I'd just like to say that you can't just define someone as rich by the income they get. My family gets a higher income than some others, but we have 7 children at home, 10 in all. My parents have to support all those kids, and my mom doesn't work. I don't think it's fair to just make it so that people with a higher income have to pay a higher percentage of taxes as someone with a less income. I agree with the Republican view of the tax cuts. If some people get tax cuts, everyone should get tax cuts. Yes, you do get tax cuts for having a lot of children, but if you still have to pay a lot of money for taxes, then you don't reallly have that much money anymore, therefore, you're not rich. How come, since my dad has been working for the same company for years and can't retire for like 9 more, how come he has to pay a lot of money in taxes, and someone that doesn't work as much as my dad, is paying less in the percentage of taxes. Right now, "rich" people are paying around 35% of their income, our country is talking about increasing that to around 39%. People in the middle class only have to pay around 20%. My family recently made a trip to Florida. It wouldn't be very fair if since we didn't get tax cuts, we couldn't go but someone in the middle class could go, because they got tax cuts and we didn't, but my dad is working his bottom off to get the income he gets. Also, I'd just like to bring up the point that some scholarships you can't be available for them if you get within a certain bracket of income. My family has a lot of kids to support, clothing, food, heating and electricity bills, gas and lots of other things for those kids. So, why should I not get accepted for a scholarship just because my family has a certain income. It's not very fair. One last point I'd like to bring up is the equaility of everyone, if some people are getting tax cuts, why can't others? The government should just set a percent and not make it matter what your income is, otherwise, they're singling people out and then we aren't equal anymore. If one class gets tax cuts, everybody should.

The author's comments:
Thanks to my teacher, Mr. Javier, for supplying me with information for my arguement, even though he was arguing the other side. ;)

Similar Articles


This article has 6 comments.

on Dec. 26 2010 at 9:06 pm
WrItEr2010 BRONZE, Durango, Colorado
4 articles 0 photos 15 comments

i am also saying that we should just get one percentage, no matter what amount of money you make. there are circumstances such as yours, where i sympathize, but the government shouldn't be setting higher tax percentages for one person and not another. they shouldn't look at your income to tell what taxes you pay


on Dec. 23 2010 at 1:28 am
Treefiddy BRONZE, Tarzana, California
1 article 0 photos 158 comments

First of all, I sympathize with your situation. It is unfortunate that things happen to us which are beyond our control. That is unfortunately, the nature of the human condition.

Nobody is calling your or your family lazy because you struggle to pay bills and make ends meet. You hardships should be assisted by your fellow men, not a faceless bureaucrat. The people at your local church or place of worship may have a charity set up to help provide food and assistance for your family.

I am arguing for a flat tax rate, not that all Americans pay the same amount. The taxes raised by the government should expressly be used to fund only what the Constitution compels the federal government to be involved in. Today, we have a massive welfare state which consumes 25 percent of the national gdp, raises costs on goods through subsidies and inefficiencies, and promotes failure which keeps people impoverished.

AMP1 said...
on Dec. 22 2010 at 7:08 pm
I think maybe the should just deside who's rich or poor better if they really decide how you say the do. Take in to account the number of kids your parents are supporting. But honestly my family is considered poor because my mother is handicap and cannot work. Not because she's lazy. And we do not have our dad to support us either because they are deviored. So the only income we get is what my brother makes puting boxes into trucks at at Fed Ex. Which isn't much He works hard but doesnt have the money to pay for college because he has to help pay for our needs. So should we be forced to pay more for our taxes even though we try so hard? Should we not be able to pay for groceries and heat because someone labels all the poor people lazy??

on Dec. 22 2010 at 5:11 pm
WrItEr2010 BRONZE, Durango, Colorado
4 articles 0 photos 15 comments
by the way! Sorry for spelling cuts wrong. I must've accidentally pressed buttons.

on Dec. 17 2010 at 12:38 pm
Treefiddy BRONZE, Tarzana, California
1 article 0 photos 158 comments
Also, just to clarify, there are no tax cuts. The objective to to maintain the status quo on the Bush-era tax cuts which set to expire January 1, 2011. It would be fantastic if taxes were to be cut, but that isn't a reality under the current Congress. All that suits them is the class-warfare populism which helped to get them kicked out of office last month in droves.

on Dec. 17 2010 at 4:49 am
Treefiddy BRONZE, Tarzana, California
1 article 0 photos 158 comments

The federal government has no legitimate businesses creating very arbitrary means and definitions of valuing one person by the amount of money that they make. The idea that the government can lable somebody as "rich" or "poor" frightens me. Where do these people come up with these standards?

As it is today, 50 percent people pay no federal income taxes and receive money back on their tax returns. All of the class warfare about how the rich don't pay their fair share (another arbitrary phrase), and yet the top 1 percent of tax payers pay 38 percent of federal income taxes.

This is exactly what our founders fought against. An early system designed to protect private property of individuals was to only allow "freeholders" (those who own private land and property) could vote. Although people may disagree in theory over the results of such a system, the implications were clear.

They also hated the idea of a democracy. In a democracy, there is no rule of law beyond the rule of the majority. There needs to be restrictions on laws and the authority of government. Our framers created a representative republic, where a rule of law, not a rule of the majority triumphs. In a pure democracy, it always leads to a tyranny of the majority.

For sake of clarifications, I am not rich. My family is not rich. My family's taxes are not being debated over in the House of Representatives, nor do I have any monetary benefit to gain from the House extending tax cuts for the top income bracket. However, I do hold the interest that you hold as well, and that is individual liberty.

There was a time when "the rich" were taxed at over 90 percent of their incomes. Even at a time, President FDR proposed a 99.5 percent income tax for those making over $100,000. "Why not?" he responded when an advisor questioned him on this.

I hold no particular reverence for those who make more money than me. For those who directly provide me with a service or good which I am willing to pay for, I thank them for their services, as I serve to gain  from the transaction. I do not consider them dwelving into saintly deeds either, but I am not willing to call them looters, worthy of having a larger share in the burden by actions of the state. I disagree profoundly with the progressive income tax.

"A republic, if you can keep it." -Benjamin Frankin