Introduction
Americans can and do always argue about the increases to taxes, even if those taxes do not affect the people complaining. Some believe that tax cuts to all income brackets help to stimulate economic growth. However, other feels tax cuts maintain the socioeconomic imbalance in America today. Two such scholars, Amity Shales and Paul Krugman, debate these as well as other issues concerning tax cuts in American society. While Shales believes, there are several statutes which taxes should follow to maximize the benefit for individual Americans. Krugman maintains that if tax cuts increase, spending on public works and assistance decreases.
Main body
April might just be the most dreaded month of every year for Americans. Tax season is in full throttle and people are reiterating the arguments against the amount of taxes they currently pay. Shales (212) believe there are always areas in which government can seek to reduce taxes. She stipulates that taxes should meet certain requirements; such as easy to get and less complex tax records, tax exemptions for all wage brackets, moves toward centralizing and privatizing tax codes and create a system void of complacency. (Shales, 213). Perhaps, most importantly, Americans want to preserve their autonomy. Therefore, tax reform must meet a number of criteria before being made into law.
Conversely, Krugman would tell anyone who listens that tax cuts create a mirage of a robust economy. Also, they do little more than take funding away from already dire community programs. Krugman (215) uses the logistical side of tax cuts to prove his points. Tax cuts provide the individual American with a few extra pennies. Yet, the money that supplies those tax refunds must come from within the community. Hence, tax cuts are achieved through reducing funding in other areas or from other government programs. Moreover, tax cuts are designed to widen the gap between those that have it and others who do not. The widening of the gap occurs when decision makers seek to lower the taxes of the rich so that private funding does not falter. (Krugman, 216).
The trend for many Americans has been to follow the same path as Shales and she tends to speak for most Americans when she says that tax cuts are necessary. She also feels adamant about setting stipulations on the tax codes. However, Shales fails to account for the opposing argument of the absence of funding in the public sector if tax cuts continue. On the other hand, Krugman uses that funding for the basis of his entire argument. Krugman wants the taxes that American pay to increase so that funding issues will longer be a problem for community necessities. Krugman goes so far as to question the state in which America will find herself if tax cuts continue.
Conclusion
These two scholars both make compelling arguments for their respective sides to tax cuts in America. Shales envisions a tax code with systematic cuts and relief efforts to bolster what could become a quite sluggish economy. Even though her argument is well articulated, it does not account for the residual issues within the community. Krugman makes a slightly stronger case since his argument is built around public sentiment to assist their community. The sentiment alone does not complete his argument, but he adds to a compelling claim that these cuts lead to widening the social gap. Most Americans will agree that the difference between the socioeconomic groups should cease their expansion.
Works Cited
McKenna, George and Stanley Feingold. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues. 15th ed. Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw Hill, 2007.