Money Too Richer While The Poor Are Getting Poorer

James Madison once stated inequality of the rich and poor predicament to be “evil” and believed that the government should avoid an “immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” (Johnston, 2016). As one of the founding fathers of our nation, James Madison had a concern about the separation between the rich and the poor. He felt the government should do what it could to avoid the separation, which one can infer that he meant for the government to tax the rich by a greater percentage, thus reducing the financial burden on the poor. A rift has always been present between the rich and the poor throughout history. Depending upon the job, the working class may or may not make enough to support a family. At this point, the

Reich starts his exordium with a distribution of where American workers found themselves in the early 1990’s in reference to where almost all American workers were just 20 years before. Reich placed most of the workers that contributed to the economy during the Nixon administration as being in one boat, analogous to the famous quote by G.K. Chesterton, “We are all in the same boat, in a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” Under Reich’s distribution you were still in a lifeboat, but the sea state and your future could be rough or smooth sailing depending upon your chosen profession. To which boat one found his or her self was directly related to how

Why shouldn’t the wealthiest of Americans pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes? Certainly, things would get better if the wealthy paid more taxes. This philosophy is why welfare continues to exist today. People worry more about what is right for the other person without looking at themselves and taking responsibility. It is overrun with individuals who prefer to be on welfare than to work hard and contribute to society. This doesn’t mean welfare is not needed, but that it should not be a career. It offers no permanent solution, but only prevents a real solution from being realized. So why should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes just because they can afford it? They work hard, so shouldn’t they be allowed to keep what they earn? This is not an example of scrooge-like behavior, but that hard work should have its rewards. The way to a better life should start with hard work and the desire for independence from government support. This would help people regain personal pride and become productive members of society, rather than a drain on its resources. It is not a crime for the wealthiest to earn high incomes. Shouldn’t hard work pay off? Why be penalized by paying a higher percentage of your income when you worked hard to make that income? Simpler solutions are required.

In the book by Jacobus, A World of Ideas, Robert Reich writes the article, “Why the Rich are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer”, and he uses a metaphor to describe the three economic groups that are now in different boats. He compares how the routine producers’ boats and the in-person servers boats are sinking while the symbolic analyst is rising. He also discusses how immigration, and technology competes for the job of routine producers and in-person servers while the symbolic analysts are in such great demands. Robert Reich is correct about the symbolic analyst have the potential to become wealthy and it is expected for them to have high level education and job experience: for example, being a student is considered as an in-person server but taking high education, such as nursing, will make them be identified as a symbolic analyst.

In recent years, a growing gap between the wealthy and the middle class has grown, as the wealth of the world has increased significantly, yet only a minority of individuals get to enjoy it. Income inequality has been proven to be detrimental to not only the economy, but to the overall well-being of a nation as it leads to societal upset and can potentially prompt a decline in progression as a nation. Over time, income inequality has led to negative results in the United States, as well as many other nations including Greece. Consequently, the solution to prevent income inequality from deteriorating a nation and prevent economic upset is to ultimately tax those who are wealthier at a higher rate and put said money towards education and healthcare

In the book by Jacobus, A World of Ideas, Robert Reich writes the article, “Why the Rich are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer”, and he uses a metaphor to describe the three economic groups that are now in different boats. He compares how the routine producers’ boats and the in-person servers boats are sinking while the symbolic analyst is rising. He also discusses how immigration, and technology competes for the job of routine producers and in-person servers while the symbolic analysts are in such great demands. Robert Reich is correct about the symbolic analyst have the potential to become wealthy and it is expected for them to have high level education and job experience: for example, being a student is considered as an in-person servers but taking high education, such as nursing, will make them be identified as a symbolic analyst.

Amity Shlaes talks about how presidents such as Nixon, and Bush removed millions of Americans from the tax bracket completely and that those same exact people don’t want a proportional tax rate and want to tax the rich because “they can afford it”. That just seems unfair and unjust. The first video was very opinionated saying that the rich now make more money than before, of course they have the money now due to war times & depressions being over however, the less money they have the less likely they’re to make more investments into other things such as creating more offices, and hiring more people to work for their company

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

"The most perennially political issues in the United States is the question of how much Americans should be taxed. Indeed, discounted over taxes was one of the major motivating factors in the revolution that established the United States as an independent nation"("Extending Tax Cuts", 1). Since taxes are one of the biggest topics in politics, there is always going to be two sides of the subject, and Taxes will always strike controversy in our country. The topic of having the rich pay more in tax has a deep history to consider, and there will always be both supporters and critics who continue to debate this topic.

With rapidly rising income inequality in the United States, would the redistribution of taxes benefit the US economy? It is one of the greatest political questions that deserves to be debated since the US economy suffers with a huge deficit that topped $20 trillion this year and is expected to grow by another 10 trillion over the next decade. In Julie Borowski’s blog post,”Why Shouldn’t the Rich Pay More in Taxes,” she reveals the value of equal opportunity as she proves her argument of why the rich should not bare a larger burden on the national debt crisis through her use of ethos, logos, cynical diction and rhetorical questions. Before we analyze her views, it is important to note that our federal income taxes pay for social security

In America, most people are trying to get the government to raise the taxes on the rich, but why doesn’t the government raise the taxes on everyone? It is not fair at all to raise the taxes on the rich just because of how fortunate they are. If the government taxed everyone a little more and also made the poor pay their taxes, our nation would be in the same spot as if we made the rich pay a higher tax. This way is more equal and in today’s world we need to be as equal as possible so we can stay united as a country. The only thing that could go wrong with this plan is if the Americans who take advantage of the government’s money keep living this lifestyle. If these Americans would keep taking advantage of the government it would make all taxpayers

Tax deductions, credits, special rates and homeowner deductions will allow the richest 20 percent of Americans to receive more than half of the $900 billion in tax benefits in 2013 (CBO). America does not treat all sources of earnings equally. Currently, the American tax code’s approach to income tax progressivity is focused on economic models in which labor is the only source of income. Since the upper class often accumulates large quantities of wealth through assets and capital, the tax code lacks progressivity. With the omission of the refundable earned income tax credit, the American tax code perpetuates inequality by offering tax benefits that solely benefit the

It is with out a doubt that in our country the United States of America the lower and middle class have the common perception that the government and the “super rich” have some kind of unknown agreement to maintain extremely lower tax rates on the “super rich”. What do the “super rich” do with all the saved money coming from the tax cut is another unknown, perhaps some luxurious new home, car, or maybe put it to work and continue getting richer. While all this may be true to some degree, one of the “super rich” elite members has stepped fourth not only once but a few time but none compare to his current attempt to make change.

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.