Persuasive Paper Part 2: Solution and Advantages

Solutions to Taxing $250,000 Earners.
Student’s Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Many have argued that increasing the tax on households that earn a combined annual income of $250,000 and above is an unwelcomed move that would not achieve the intended purpose, which is to reduce the gap between the have and the have-nots. The plan is also expected to increase the number of households that fall into the middle-class bracket. However, pundits have retorted that the gap will only grow and that implementing a blanket taxation policy is not the way to go considering standards of living differ all across the state. The move to increase the tax on $250,000 earners and above is a welcome one, but it should also take into account different locations of earners and how such laws will affect them.
By most standards, any household that earns $250,000 a year is quite a substantial amount. However, whether this amount is significant or not depends entirely on where people live. In a recent survey that was conducted, researchers discovered that people living in locations such as Peoria, Illinois are more likely to save more money than those living in urban areas such as Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. The high cost of life in these regions coupled with management of other debts such as student loans, water and electricity often mean that the amount that couples save is small to an insignificant amount. The best solution would thus be to make the tax regime apply selectively depending on the region.

Economically, this would ensure that people who earn above the stipulated amount contribute more and help in income distribution among the poor. It would also mean that people are only taxed what they can afford, and their living standards remain intact. The social issues that are occasioned by income inequality would also be solved as the gap between the rich and the poor is minimized. Politically, it would also send a message to people of all classes and make them understand that the government neither wants to oppress the rich nor the poor. All it desires to do is bring balance to the economy and minimize the gap that exists between the wealthy and poor.
People want to assume that $250,000 a year is a large sum. However, whether this amount is vast or not entirely depends on where one resides. The most viable solution would be to tax individuals based on locations. The same way that people are entitled to reliefs based on whether they are married or they has families should be the same way that the tax system should operate. A feasibility study should also be conducted to find out just how viable this alternative is. By taxing people who live in different locations and earn the same amount using the same rates, the government would only be compounding the situation rather than helping.
In conclusion, raising taxes on $250,000 earners is a welcomed relief for those who earn much less. This is because raising taxes would aid in income distribution and reduce the economic disparity that exists. However, applying the proposed changes uniformly across the country would not make much sense because the living standards of the nation differ significantly. Areas which have a relatively higher standard of living should be subjected to lower tax rates than those that are known to have lower standards. A varied tax system is critical to ensuring that the economy is bolstered while at the same time maintaining the standards of the nation’s people.