Are Sales Taxes More Regressive Than Income Taxes

Q:: Im a Canadian who has been following the Canadian elections. I heard one of the parties claim that a reduction in sales taxes help the wealthy not the middle class or poor. I thought sales taxes were regressive and were mainly paid by low income people. Can you help me out? A: Great question! With any tax proposal, the devil is always in the details, so its hard to analyze the exact impact a policy will have when all that exists is a promise that could fit on a bumper sticker. But well do our best with what we have. First we should determine exactly what we mean by regressive taxation. The economics glossary defines a regressive tax as: A tax on income in which the proportion of tax paid relative to income decreases as income increases. Theres a couple things to note with this definition: Even under a regressive tax, higher income earners pay more than lower income earners. Some economists prefer to use the term regressive rate taxes to avoid confusion.When looking at taxes, progressive or regressive refers to levels of income, not wealth. Thus to say a progressive tax is one where the rich pay proportionately more is a bit of a misnomer, since we usually think of someone as rich who has a lot of wealth. Thats not necessarily the same thing as having a high income; one can be rich without earning a dime in income. Now weve seen the definition of regressivity, we can see why sales taxes are more regressive than income taxes. Theres typically three main reasons: Wealthier people spend a small portion of their income on goods and services than poorer people. Wealth is not the same thing as income, but the two are closely related. Income taxes typically have a minimum income level at which you do not have to pay taxes. In Canada, this exemption is for people who make around $8,000 or less. Everyone, however, is forced to pay sales taxes, no matter their income.Most countries do not have a flat tax income rate. Instead the income tax rates are graduated - the higher your income, the higher the tax rate on that income. Sales taxes, however, stay the same no matter your income level. Policy makers and economists realize that the, on average, citizens are not in favour of regressive rate taxation. Thus theyve taken steps to make their sales taxes less regressive. In Canada the GST is exempt on items like food, which poorer people pay a disproprtionately larger portion of their income on. As well, the government issues GST rebate cheques to lower income households. To their credit, the FairTax lobby proposes giving every citizen a prebate cheque in order to make their proposed sales tax less regressive. The overall effect is that sales taxes such as the GST is more regressive than other taxes, such as income taxes. Thus a cut in the GST would help low- and medium-income earners more than a similar sized income tax cut. While I am not in favour of a cut in the GST, it would make the Canadian tax system more progressive. Do you have a question about taxes or tax proposals? If so, please send it to me by using the feedback form.

Martin Luther King Jr. And Socrates The Idea Of Civil...

The main idea of civil disobedience is that citizens have the right and the obligation to challenge the laws of the state when they feel that the laws opposes certain superior ideals. Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates have different opinions towards civil disobedience and how they should react toward laws that are unfair. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactic for civil disobedience just as I agree that steps must be taken to reform the laws that we find unjust. However, I do agree with Socrates on why we should follow the law but if no one ever challenged the laws then some old unjust laws would still be set in place today. In Crito, there is a conversation between Crito and Socrates. Crito is attempting to convince Socrates†¦show more content†¦To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are li ke that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws. Martin Luther King Jr., was a civil rights activist who spoke freely about civil disobedience in the Letter from Birmingham Jail while he was locked up for civilly disobeying the law. He was writing to eight white clergymen that also felt that many of the laws were unjust, however they showed agreement with Socrates by stating that he should not disobey the laws. Martin Luther King Jr. said, â€Å"one has a moral responsibility to disobey just laws because if we did not disobey them then unjust acts wo uld continue to occur, causing our country to be harmed†. He also stated that â€Å"an unjust law is no law at all†. Martin Luther King Jr. did believe that laws were setup and enforced to assist and support the residents of the state however, if a law was unfair or unconstitutional, then the law wouldShow MoreRelatedSocrates Vs Socrates Similarities1577 Words   |  7 PagesThere is no doubt to the fact that Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. had similar characteristics—whether it be their willingness to make the public aware or their passion to do what was right to them. But to say that Martin Luther King Jr. is a twentieth century Socrates does not seem fit to par. The way I will attempt for you to understand this will proceed as follows: I will first explain each of our character’s stories, perhaps heavily implicating some of their most distinct characteristicsRead MoreMartin Luther King Jr. s Letter From Birmingham Jail1223 Words   |  5 PagesMar tin Luther King, Jr.’s, â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail,† emphasizes the need for civil disobedience when faced with unjust laws. This idea contradicts Socrates’ claim made in Crito, that one must follow the law under all circumstances. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not a proponent of civil disobedience based on King’s definition of civil disobedience and Socrates’ charges. Moreover, I will argue that both Socrates and King disagree with one another based on the concept of civilRead MoreMartin Luther King Jr.862 Words   |  4 Pagesactivist, Martin Luther King Jr. and Greek Philosopher, Socrates, understanding the overall purpose each of their journey’s these men ultimately shared a common goal. In this proclamation, I will prove that without a doubt, Socrates would have agreed with Martin Luther King’s ideas of civil disobedience. Socrates was a man in search of wisdom, truths, and justice, who simply refused to accept the discernable deficiency of evidence which sustained such injustices. Martin Luther King Jr., a man inRead MoreViolent Protest In 1848 : Civil Disobedience896 Words   |  4 PagesBartolomà © Soto Non-violent civil protest is what its known as a direct action from society and it is part of what Henry Thoreau called in his essay on 1848: Civil disobedience†. Civil disobedience, according to Rawls, is a public act of law breach that looks for create awareness among the population about the need to change certain public policies or certain laws that are considered to be unfair. Nowadays, we can see vivid examples of civil disobedience, being the most famous the case of VenezuelaRead MoreSocrates s Value Of Athenian Law1586 Words   |  7 Pageseveryone breaks them. In 399 BC, Socrates would have disagreed with this assertion, and died in part to keep this idea from spreading. Socrates was sentenced to death by an Athenian court, though the punishment did not fit the crimes he was accused of. We assume that any knowingly innocent person would have escaped this sentence if given the opportunity and support to do so, yet Socrates refused to and died soon after. Over 2,000 yea rs later, Martin Luther King, Jr. is also imprisoned for a pettyRead MoreThe Great Thinkers Like Socrates And Martin Luther King1229 Words   |  5 Pagesthinkers like Socrates and Martin Luther King took themselves in a unique way of thinking in social changes and attempts to influence others. Martin Luther King is a theologian who used his enlighten powers to fight against inequality in the southern region of United States during 1960s. Dr. King Jr. is a good interpreter of Socrates because they both were aiming to help the society by making them knowledgeable about justice and social advancements. Socrates and martin Luther king were quiet similarRead MoreAnalysis Of Martin Luther King Jr.s Letter From A Birmingham Jail1493 Words   |  6 Pagesbecause everyone breaks them. In 399 BC, Socrates would have disagreed with this assertion, and died in part to keep this idea from spreading. Socrates was sentenced to death by an Athenian court, though the punishment did not fit the cr imes he was accused of. We assume that any knowingly innocent person would have escaped this sentence if given the opportunity and support to do so, yet Socrates refused to and died soon after. Over 2,000 years later, Martin Luther King is also imprisoned on petty crimesRead MoreJust And Unjust Laws In Martin Luther Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail1420 Words   |  6 Pagescritical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again. Martin Luther King Jr. is a pioneer for the philosophy behind just and unjust laws. In the early 1960’s, King was arrested in Birmingham’s jail for confronting unjust laws. While under arrest, he took the time to craft a letter addressing how his actions are justified – they seek morality. In his â€Å"LetterRead MoreNon Violent Protest Ââ€" Dr. Martin Luther Kings Moral Disobedience!1563 Words   |  7 PagesNon violent protest Ââ€" Dr. Martin Luther Kings moral disobedience! Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the issue of non-violence in his letter from Birmingham Jail. He states that any law, which is unjust and inhuman, is not a moral law. Dr. Kings argument for non-violent protest against the authorities is just and moral; because any action taken for the greater good of human beings may be called disobedience by the authorities, but as Erich Fromm states in his essay Disobedience as a Psychological and MoralRead MoreThe Letter From A Birmingham Jail1266 Words   |  6 PagesDr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a key figure in the civil rights movements that took place in the 1950s and 1960s. The â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham Jail† is an open letter written by King defending nonviolent resistance against racism. The letter argued that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust and unethical laws. The letter also stresses themes of unity among brothers in order to overcome racism. I will argue in support of King’s stance that citizens are morally justified in breaking

Atomic Bomb - Hiroshima and Nagasaki free essay sample

â€Å"The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a necessary evil to end the Second World War. † To what extent do you agree with the statement? Explain your answer. I agree with the statement to a large extent. World War II is known for acts of heroism on both sides, as well as controversial decisions. One major event that has long been debated was the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The political landscape before the bomb was dropped prevented a Japanese surrender. The war would have taken much longer had an invasion been attempted. An invasion would have cost more lives for both sides than the bombings. The Allies were justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I agree with the statement as the bombing was the most viable way to force the Japanese to surrender. The Allied offer of the Potsdam Conference on July 26, 1945 stipulated that the war would end only when the Japanese surrendered and gave up Emperor Hirohito. This offer was completely unacceptable to the Japanese, who, at the time, regarded their emperor as a god. President Harry S Truman was in a situation where he could not change the terms of the offer, because the American citizens wanted Hirohito imprisoned, if not executed. Changing the terms of the offer would also be regarded as a sign of weakness on the Americans part, which was unacceptable during a time of war. Thus, dropping the atomic bomb could cause the Japanese to surrender without having the Americans to change the terms. However, it is considered as a war crime and an immoral act against humanity to drop the atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even scientists who worked on the bomb were against using it and said: â€Å"If the U. S. were the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons. † Using such a policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war is morally wrong. In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 and was therefore illegal. Nonetheless, I feel the atomic bomb is essential to bring WW2 to an end. Even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was looking for a way out. Indeed, the only thing preventing a Japanese surrender was a matter of semantics: Japan wanted to surrender unconditionally without using the words unconditional surrender. While the question of what would have happened is by its nature speculative and cannot be answered conclusively, those who made the decision to drop the bombs did so in the belief that the bomb would be of no material assistance in our war against Japan. (Admiral William D. Leahy). Another reason that the Americans were justified in dropping the bomb was that it ended the war much more quickly than would an invasion. The second of the two atomic bombs was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 and the Japanese surrendered 5 days later on August 14, 1945. The alternative to the use of the atomic bomb, an invasion over land, had been scheduled for November 1 had the bombing no t succeeded or had it been cancelled. This invasion could have dragged on for months, if not years, and the war easily would have carried on into 1946. However, the atomic bomb can be dropped at some rural areas instead of heavily populated cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ultimate aim of the Americans for dropping the atomic bomb was to show the Japanese how powerful American was. Dropping the atomic bomb at a rural area could still show how powerful the atomic bomb was and the Japanese would surrender in the end and not risk letting the Americans to drop another bomb onto a big city which would cause a great loss of lives. In this way, the Americans can achieve their aim of ending the war sooner while at the same time without destroying the lives of the innocent Japanese citizens. In my opinion, dropping the bombs onto the cities were necessary as United States only had two bombs (plus one tested), and the bombs were very expensive and time-consuming to manufacture. If the Japanese were not sufficiently impressed with the show of strength, then the United States would only have one bomb left to attack Japan with. Since they did not surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese definitely would not have surrendered if the bomb were to drop at a rural area. The bomb at rural areas would not show the full power of the bomb as clearly as actually using it on a target. Also, the demonstration may not have shown any of the power of the bomb: the bomb could have been a dud. Even if the bomb did work, the United States would have to tell the Japanese where to look ahead of time, and the Japanese might have put prisoners of war or other people in the target area. There are many flaws with the idea of have a demonstration of the atomic bombs power. Lastly, I agree with the statement is because the bombings claimed far less lives than would have been taken during an invasion. Between the two cities, there was estimated to have been approximately 115,000 deaths as a result of the bombings. President Truman estimated that as many as one million American soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan, as would most of the two million Japanese soldiers stationed in the home islands, as well as many civilians. President Truman intended the atomic bomb to be a way to end the war at a minimum cost of American and Japanese lives. However, one of the reasons for the Americans to drop the atomic bomb was to take revenge from the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbour. By way of comparison, the attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbour killed 2408 people and wounded 3596. The civilian casualties at Pearl Harbour were 68 dead and 35 wounded (1. 6% of total casualties). It is argued that the attacks on Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 provide justification for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as this is the easiest argument to dispose of. There is an assertion: If you get into an argument with somebody at a bar because you spilled his beer and refused to buy him another one, you are in the wrong, and he has every right to tell everyone in the bar what a prick you are. If he breaks into your house with a knife, later that night, hes now in the wrong, and you are within your rights to shoot him. This argument might be valid if there were a certain degree of rough proportionality between the attack providing justification and the response. Here, however, there is no proportionality. 2 times as many people were killed in the atomic attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as were at Pearl Harbour; moreover, this does not include the long-term effects of the attacks. The disproportionality becomes even more obvious when we note that 98. 4% of the casualties at Pearl Harbour were military, as opposed to 5% at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Beyond the obvious disproportionality, this argument is inapposite in another respect. If he breaks into your house with a knife assumes a degree of necessity that is not present in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, under the law, even self-defence must be proportionate to the danger presented by the assailant and not exceed the amount of force reasonably necessary to ward off the danger. I feel that dropping the atomic bomb is necessary. During the Japanese occupation in Asian, more than millions civilians were killed. In the Nanking Massacre alone, 100,000–200,000 people were killed and around 300,000 casualties. This number, as compared to the number of deaths and casualties caused by the atomic bomb is far larger. The dropping of the atomic bomb did not cause more death, but actually to end the sufferings of people in Asia. In conclusion, the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a justified strategy on the Allies part. A Japanese surrender was impossible due to the political landscape before the bombings. The war would have dragged on much longer had the bomb not been dropped and an invasion carried out instead. The bombings claimed fewer lives than an invasion would have. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a decisive end to the Second World War, as well as ushering in the nuclear age; changing the world forever.

Robert Frost1 Essay Example For Students

Robert Frost1 Essay â€Å"Neither Out Far Nor In Deep†Robert Lee Frost is an American poet who is known for his verse concerning nature and New England life. He was born in San Francisco in 1874. When his father died in 1885, his mother moved the family to Lawrence, Massachusetts. Frost attended college sporadically after graduating high school and made a living by working as a bobbin boy in a wool mill, a shoemaker, a country schoolteacher, editor of a rural newspaper, and a farmer. He also wrote poetry but had little success in having his poems published until, in 1912, when his family moved to England. There, he was befriended by such established poets as Edward Thomas, Rupert Brooke, and Lascelles Abercrombie. With their help, Robert Frost’s first two volumes of poetry were published. These works won him immediate recognition and, in 1915, Frost returned to the United States to find his fame had preceded him. He continued to write poetry with increasing success while living on farms in Vermont and New Hampshire, and teaching literature at Amherst College, the University of Michigan, Harvard University and Dartmouth College. Frost was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry four times during his lifetime and became the first poet to read a poem at a Presidential Inauguration (of John F. Kennedy in 1961). The majority of Frost’s poetry is based mainly upon the life and scenery of rural New England, and the language of his verse reflects the strong dialect of that region. Frost’s colloquialism, however, is structured within traditional metrical and rhythmical schemes; he disliked free verse (Encarta, 1). Although he concentrates on ordinary subject matter, Frost’s emotional range is wide and deep, and his poems often shift from a tone of humor or jest to the passionate expression of a tragic experience. Much of his poetry is concerned with the interaction between humans and nature. Frost regarded nature as a beautiful but dangerous force, worthy of admiration, but full of danger. The underlying philosophy of Frost’s poetry is rooted in traditional New England individualism, and his work shows his strong empathy for the values of early American society (Encarta,1). I have chosen to analyze Frost’s two poems â€Å"The Road Not Taken† and â€Å"Neither Out Far Nor In Deep.† I chose these particular selections because of their vast differences in form and meaning. Each of these works represents a completely different outlook of Frost about life issues, and were written approximately twenty years apart. So many of Frost’s poems describe relatively ordinary scenes or events that raise issues about the meaning of life and then conclude by suggesting a positive answer, such as â€Å"The Road Not Taken† does. However, â€Å"Neither Out Far Nor In Deep† represents the opposite end of the spectrum, dealing with the harsh questions of life, but offering no consolation or conclusion. The latter format in Frost’s poetry is the rarer of the two among his extensive collections of poems, and which is the reason I chose one of each type. â€Å"The Road Not Taken† is one of Robert Frost’s most familiar and most popular poems.It is author Terri Andrews’ belief that the popularity of the poem is largely a result of the simplicity of its symbolism: The speaker must choose between different directions in life (1838). However, for such a simple poem, it has, in fact, been subject to various interpretations of how the speaker feels about his situation and how he should be viewed. Robert Frost himself referred to this poem as being â€Å"a tricky poem, very tricky† (Andrews, 1838), probably referring to the many ways that the poem can be viewed and interpreted. The poem is written in the first person narrative. On several occasions, Frost has confirmed that the poem’s speaker is based on his friend Edward Thomas, stating that Thomas was â€Å"a person who, whichever road he went, would be sorry he didn’t go the other† (Andrews, 1839). Biotechnology EssayBibliography:Works CitedAndrews, Terri L. â€Å"The Road Not Taken.† Masterplots II: Poetry Series. Vol. 5: 1838. Englewood: Salem Press, 1992. Frost, Robert Lee. Complete Poems of Robert Frost. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Microsoft Coproration. â€Å"Frost, Robert Lee.† Encarta 96 Encyclopedia. (c) Funk and Wagnalls Corporation, 1995. Muste, John M. â€Å"Neither Far Out Nor In Deep.† Masterplots II: Poetry Series. Vol. 4: 1481. Englewood: Salem Press, 1992.