AOW 10/31: Editorial

This week's editorial comes from the USA Today. The article's opinion is derived from a diverse group of individuals who decide on the entire board's opinion and also require all editorial pieces to examine all sides of an argument to allow the audience to make their own conclusion with all available information. This allows a broader range of audience to read the article that states an opinion an Editorial Board composed. This allows people of different social standing to form separate and unique opinions. The editorial discusses to difference between a flat tax and a simple tax code. The author discusses how a flat-tax means that all individuals pay a certain percentage of their income to the government. This benefits the rich because they would pay a lower rate than they currently do. A simple tax code involves the different deductions and breaks available to each tax bracket. This editorial was written shortly after Rick Perry and Herman Cain had announced their  flat-tax plans in push for the GOP nomination for the November 2012 general elections for President. Cain's plan involves a flat 9% tax on sales, corporate, and income tax. Perry's plan is more complex, individuals have the option to pay based on the old tax code or pay a new flat tax of 20%. They use Juxtaposition to show the differences in the complexity of Cain's plan and Perry's plan as well as the comparison of a flat-tax versus a simple tax code. Their argument is that the flat-tax plan, such as Perry's, is very complex because the lower class would have to calculate two sums they would have to pay and decide which one to chose. The author tried to portray the message that flat-taxes are still very confusing and give most benefits to the upper class. The author also states that the middle and lower class will struggle to determine what tax amount they would pay if Perry's plan is put into effect. The author accomplishes their purpose by juxtaposing the differences in the recently composed plans and how each presents their own level of complexity.