For this blog, I will be analyzing two articles, one from each side of politics, and will be pointing out details that make up their arguments. For my political issue, I am analyzing taxes and what opinions different political interest groups have on them. I am selecting two political interest groups on the opposite ends of the spectrum: The Americans for Tax Fairness (Liberal) and the Rate Coalition (Conservative). The Americans for Tax Fairness group are for taxing the rich and corporations, and the Rate Coalition are for reducing taxes on corporations. The mission of the liberal side of the topic is to increase taxes on the rich and corporations and closing any loopholes they have found to evade taxes, in turn helping the lower class and middle class. They want to raise the taxes of the richest 2% of Americans and to open up more jobs for the lower class. The Rate Coalition’s mission is to reform the tax code, lowering income tax for corporations so that they are competitive with the global market. This would incentivize investments in the US, allowing the economy to grow, benefiting consumers and small businesses. These Parties are polar opposites and will be evaluated in this blog. The first article (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/tax-dodging-corporations-pay-what-you-owe/) is from the Americans for Tax Fairness group. This article is about how big corporations evade taxes by creating loopholes. What the Americans for Tax Fairness want to do is tax those big companies more and close those loopholes so that they finally pay their “fair share”. They think that doing this will give us money to invest in infrastructure, creating better schools and jobs, etc. This article leaves out how increasing taxes on big corporations will affect the middle and lower class as well of the corporations themselves. This article is biased because of this and also because it is very liberal, so it is on one end of the political spectrum. This hurts their overall argument because they lose a little bit of credibility in only spreading the good side of their plan. It only addresses the factors that their plan will benefit. The Rate Coalition article (http://ratecoalition.com/2017/10/25/new-docs-studies-show-painful-cost-high-tax-rates-economists-tout-tax-cut-benefits/) that I selected is quite different. This article is about a study that shows tax cuts being beneficial for the lower class, increasing their annual income moderately. The point of this article is to prove that their plan will have a positive impact on everyone in the deal. The studies concluded that “nearly all the burden of the corporate tax falls on labor,” so their idea of reducing taxes on corporations would make sense. This article isn’t biased because the studies done were conducted by multiple different organizations whom all came to the same/similar conclusions. The Conservative side is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the Liberal side, so this source could be biased towards their ideals.
The Liberal and Conservative sides of this argument are polarized. The Conservative side wants to lower taxes on big corporations and the Liberal side wants to raise taxes on big corporations. The Conservative side thinks that lowering taxes will increase the average income because studies have shown that the burden of taxes on corporations are borne by the lower class. But the Liberal side wants to increase taxes on corporations because big corporations have been evading their tax duties by stashing their money in offshore bank accounts. These plans are polar opposites, so similarities are seldom present. A similarity between these sources is that they both mention that their plans will benefit the economy and help lower income families. One difference is that the Conservative side has more official studies that show the benefits of their plan than the Liberal side. The Liberal side does include sources about the current problem, but not any that show any predictions on their plan’s success. They are basically asking people to trust that the outcome will be exactly what they say it will be. This is unrealistic because plans, especially big plans, don’t go exactly as expected in the real world (this is another discussion so I won’t go in depth).
The Liberal and Conservative sides of this argument are polarized. The Conservative side wants to lower taxes on big corporations and the Liberal side wants to raise taxes on big corporations. The Conservative side thinks that lowering taxes will increase the average income because studies have shown that the burden of taxes on corporations are borne by the lower class. But the Liberal side wants to increase taxes on corporations because big corporations have been evading their tax duties by stashing their money in offshore bank accounts. These plans are polar opposites, so similarities are seldom present. A similarity between these sources is that they both mention that their plans will benefit the economy and help lower income families. One difference is that the Conservative side has more official studies that show the benefits of their plan than the Liberal side. The Liberal side does include sources about the current problem, but not any that show any predictions on their plan’s success. They are basically asking people to trust that the outcome will be exactly what they say it will be. This is unrealistic because plans, especially big plans, don’t go exactly as expected in the real world (this is another discussion so I won’t go in depth).
No comments:
Post a Comment