Huey Long Should Share Their Wealth Summary

Why not? Because of the difference in rates of population growth between rich and poor nations. Suppose that in 1974, the U.S. had decided to share its wealth with a group of countries such as Columbia, Venezuala and Pakistan. Suppose that the combined population of the poor countries equaled the total (1974) populationof the U.S.: about 210 million. The populaiton in the U.S. increass at a rate of about .8% per year; the population of those countries increases at a rate of about 3.3% per year. By 2061 -- 87 years later -- the population of the U.S. would

In 1964 President Kennedy started the process of making a substantial effort to eradicate poverty when he received a memo showing that the number of families that were poor at that time (which was below the $3000 threshold) would remain poor even with full-time work if changes were not made (Haveman, R ( 1 ), Blank, R ( 2 ), Moffitt, R ( 3 ), Smeeding, T ( 4 ), & Wallace, G ( 5 ), 2015). He also directed that antipoverty measures be included in the 1964 legislation when awareness of the plight of more than 40% of blacks living in poverty was made (Haveman, R ( 1 ) et al., 2015). After his untimely assassination President Johnson moved the plan forward signing the Economic Opportunity Bill into law in 1964 (Haveman, R ( 1 ) et al., 2015). A total of $800 million (equivalent to $6 billion in today’s dollars) was appropriated to the Executive agency Johnson created to address and oversee the programs that were to be used to combat poverty (Haveman, R ( 1 ) et al., 2015). Many of the programs had existed prior to 1964 but these efforts were targeted to “provide direct services to the poor, promote the development of human capital and stimulate social and community change.” (Haveman, R ( 1 ) et al., 2015) Medicaid was also created to provide for the poor and the farm community helped to expand the Food Stamp program (which also helped address concerns about food surplus), and Housing subsidy was expanded as well and most, if not all, of these programs continue in some form

Combating the wealth gap is tricky business and because the income gap is so wide, it would require more than two presidential terms or one straight forward policy to fix it. Income inequality and economic growth have a positive correlation meaning the economy cannot maximize its growth potential if income inequality is high, so there are two ways to approach this issue; one being from the economy and business side to increase economic growth and hopefully stabilize income inequality and two being to tackle the wealth gap directly to promote economic expansion. The latter would tackle the problem head on but would require more work while the first option is not a guarantee fix and could make the problem even worse. The only sure fix would be to close the income gap directly to promote economic wellbeing. Two options that could be explored to do so would be; one: use government intervention to further shape market forces

An additional solution to the problem many poor people face would be some kind of kidsave accounts this money would be given by the federal government annually. For instance, children could receive $1,200 at birth and $250 every birthday from ages 1-10. This money will not be to be touched until the child reaches 18. This extra money could go toward funding a college education, buying a car, house, etc. This would take some of the pressure of parents and give all young people access to

In the video, Wealth Inequality in America, there were many things that caught my attention the second time around that i had not understood the first time listening to it. When they had surveyed 5,000 people I was not surprised to see that the ideal for most Americans would be a somewhat even distribution of wealth among the various groups. What I was most shocked about was what most American think about the distribution of wealth is not even close to what the reality has to hold. The fact that lowest 20 - 30 percent don't even register as sharing in the wealth of America as they are behind the poverty line. They are living of “pocket change”. The top 1 percent didn't even shock me as much as how the middle class did.

A view on the subject matter I find myself agreeing with is that “redistribution of a static supply of resources accomplishes nothing and makes no one richer.” (M. Pennington, 2013.) The reasoning behind my stance on this subject is that the more we tax the wealthy to redistribute to the poorer, we fall more and more into a socialistic society. While

The vast wealth inequality in America (and the rest of the world) has been cited as a problem by Obama in many of his State Of The Union address, the Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen, and many other liberal politicians and economists. Their talk about the problem of how the “1%” help perpetuate the wealth inequality has brought this issue to the forefront of society. In America, many citizens believe firmly in the idea of equality. The fact that some people have more money than they could ever spend, while others live in poverty on the streets conflicts with that value of equality. The most famous reaction to this rampant inequality was the Occupy Wall Street movement that started in 2011. Tens of thousands of people camped out next to Wall Street offices in New York and several other financial centers across the nation to protest the inequality between the 1% and the other 99%. This infamous movement gained media attention as the vocal protesters wanted to make it known that the wealth divide is unacceptable and politicians must rectify the situation. One important policy tool the United States has implemented to combat wealth inequality is a progressive tax. This means that people with more income are taxed at a higher rate than those with lower income. However this tax system has many loopholes in the United States, and the wealthiest individuals are routinely able to avoid being taxed at a higher rate by distributing their wealth in bank accounts

Over time, the way social movements are organized changes. As technology becomes more advanced the process of these movements is able to reach a larger number of individuals. In the early twentieth century, two men were able to change the nature of social movements in ways that are very different, yet very similar. Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin altered the way social movements advanced their agendas by using their standing within society and unconventional resources to organize and advance their causes. Huey Long’s

For example, redistribution of wealth, education, and equal taxes for everyone. Redistribution does nothing if people are not educated in how to invest their money. In an article by Noah Smith named "How to Fix America's Wealth Inequality: Teach Americans to Be Cheap" he gives the best answer to the problem. “The best way to address wealth inequality is to provide basic financial education in schools and encourage people to be more frugal and save more” (Smith). By providing financial education in our schools, it will teach the generations to come how to save money and obtain more wealth so they will not have to rely on programs like Social Security. Also, in Smith's article what wealth is happens to be the amount of money that a person can save that does not go towards his or her basic needs like food, water, and housing. In a survey that Michael I Norton of Harvard did, “[w]hen we asked respondents to tell us what their ideal distribution of wealth was, things got even more interesting: Americans wanted the top 20% to own just over 30% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% to own about 25%. They still wanted the rich to be richer than the poor, but they wanted the disparity to be much less extreme” (Norton). In article by Michael I Norton, and Dan Ariely named "Americans Want Less Wealth Inequality than Currently Exists" people agree that wealth inequality is too high and the wealth should be redistributed and most

I think this would be a good thing because the wealth is distributed fairly and we still have hard workers and smart workers. Americans thought 60 percent were the poor, 20 percent were middle class and the remaining 20 percent was between the rich and richer (Gilson). The thing that shocked me the most is the actual distribution of wealth. A whopping 90 percent of people are considered the poor and only make an average of 29,840 dollars a year (Gilson). That’s almost the entire United States. One to ten percent of Americans make 161,139 a year, top one percent makes about 1,019,089, top 0.01 to 0.1 makes 2,802,020 and the top 0.01 percent makes about 23,846,950 (Gilson). That means that one percent of American make more in an hour that what middle class people make in an entire lifetime. I honestly think in a situation like this, people of the middle class and lower should not pay any taxes or a high amount. The poor even pays more in taxes. The one percent of the richest pays only five percent in taxes (Jilani). The rich of nine percent pays 21 percent and the 90 percent of the poor pays a whopping 73 percent of our income

In America, each citizen is promised that through working hard we are all given the chance to achieve the success we work for. The promise is that an individual can climb from class to class and eventually end up at the top with the rich and the famous. However, this isn’t the case in our present day and age; citizens in America are of often stuck in the social class they were born in due to the surrounding opportunities presented in that class. The income between each class is also widely varied, the poor being lowest and the rich being highest in the class ladder. Many people may not see this as a big concern because the poor are “poor for a reason” and they believe that the rich get

However, the problem with the progressive thinking of levying extraneous taxes on the rich is that it will not—as some economist suggest—level the playing field, but will ultimately maintain and or expand poverty within America by depleting entrepreneurship and jobs, willingness to invest, and decrease philanthropy.

The United States spends about 1% of it’s revenue trying to end poverty. Even though poverty levels are increasing every year, therefore in a few years with the increasing numbers, over half of all children, the future of tomorrow, will be living in, and affected by poverty. At any rate, more revenue should be spent on resources to end poverty, without a doubt to at least help the children who desperately need it. Plus also help to shape the United States, known as “the land of opportunities “ into just that, “the land of opportunities “. In other words, for the rich, poor, black, white, male, female, young, and old, everyone should have the same opportunities, and the same chances to prosper in life. At this point, the United States has more

The wealth gap, which has two causes in the United States and the effects of, should Americans deal with it as soon as possible. The solutions can be helpful to decrease this problem to be massive. The Americans are trying to do that and the people are wailing to do more for the society. However, the wealth gap became a huge, but the government and people can solve it by the time. This is a global issue like what are happing now in Greece and European counters. If Americans will not do any serous action to stop that, they might face the same result. The countries around the world should put their hand together to solve it by supporting each other once they do it maybe we will stop it.

The United States debt and defecit is a major problem in our society. One thing I would propose to the President would be to tax the rich. Time. It's useful to keep in mind how the rich are different. When you are poor, you are willing to trade your time to earn money. When you are rich, you trade your money to get more time. For example, the rich hire people to clean their homes, and they don't waste time shopping for bargains. In business school I learned that when people have different preferences, you can usually find a way to engineer a deal. Gratitude. Imagine that the government arranges to provide genuine person-to-person gratitude to the rich in exchange for higher tax rates. Suppose (bad idea alert) the government makes it a