Raising Taxes By The Middle Class

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

Income Inequality in America is a problem that’s been going on for decades, and many feel that it hardly exists, the many people that feel that way are highly uneducated, and seem to not really care about this tremendous problem that in one’s eyes really has no end in the near future, in fact it has been gradually rising and one feels that it’s just not fair. Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done, only of course if the poor class of people decide to actually educate themselves and get a higher education. One says poor class, simply because that’s how they’re classified. There are five types of levels that Americans are classified as, and they are: 1. Upper Class, 2. Upper Middle Class, 3. Middle Class, 4. Working Class, 5. Poor.

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

The tax policy in the United States is very confusing. When the tax policy was originally written in 1913 it was four hundred pages. Now, over the past ninety one years, that tax policy has evolved to over 72,000 pages. Since the tax code has become so lengthy and nearly impossible to understand, the topic of tax reform has been in the minds of many. Although, most barely think about tax reform until tax season. It is a controversial subject due to the impact a change in tax code would have on the American people. The two most popular and widely known stakeholders in this debate are the two major political parties in the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans. The two parties share absolutely no common ground on the subject of

Today in America, income and wealth inequality has continued to grow at an unsettling pace. The rich continue to get richer, while the number of people categorized as lower class grows exponentially. As Joseph Stiglitz has explained, many theories that are seen as strongly Republican, such as the trickle-down effect, has caused the rich to take money from the poor, and as a result the lower class grows and the middle class disintegrates. The top 1 percent of America’s households currently holds 30 percent of America’s economy, which is much more than other first-world countries and helps to emphasize the extremity of inequality currently in America today. This increased inequality has in turn caused America to become a much more divided society; those born in poverty typically stay in poverty, with little to no chance of self-improvement due to a lack of education provided in their areas. In contrast, those that are born wealthy typically go to better schools, have better health care, and are all but spoon fed information on how to remain wealthy. These two sides of society almost never cross, and this causes the country to be more divided than ever. In order to limit this inequality, drastic changes must be made, such as large corporations paying their fair share of taxes and giving back to the lower class, and minimum wage should be raised. If everyone in America works together, we can raise social mobility and re-unite what has become an increasingly divided country.

The American dream is all but a figment of the imagination that is unrealistic to attain since it is becoming harder and harder for any middle class to sustain itself in the middle or the poor society to prosper to the intermediate class. What once was possible is almost impossible to achieve success and wealth through hard work, persistence, and action. The top one percent of the American society is making it impossible for the lower class to hold on to hope for a better future. The richer are getting richer by remarkably increase profits. Yet, the lower class wages have either decrease in some sectors of employment or have remained stationary resulting in “income inequality. That is “…the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population” (inequality.org). Today it is even more evident that the lower class is stuck, unable to go nowhere. Savings is almost none existence to the middle and poor classes yet, they are working harder than ever before. Fortunately by having a free democratic society take control over “wealth inequality” the economic difference can stabilize through unionization for all low-wage labor.

I agree with the second article. The article is called “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” and is written by Richard A. Epstein. “Three Cheers for Income Inequality” is about reducing income inequality through tax policies. In order to do so, Richard Epstein discussed giving wealth to the lower class citizens. Richard Epstein says that taking from the wealthy would help and be more beneficial to those who do not have as much. This would make the income line more equal. The money would come through the taxes. (260).

Edin and Skinner begin their article by explaining to their readers that income inequality is a prevalent and complex problem in America today. The authors also point out that although President Obama and several other Democrats have proposed legislative approaches, such as raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich, to combat this problem, it will take a long time for these proposals to become law due to the Republican-dominated Congress. Because the authors believe these laws will take too long to be put into

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

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

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

One of the obvious reasons to raise the taxes of the rich would be because they simply earn more. One example is if two people started the year off with fifty thousand but then let us say one had a rich family member that died and they had received millions through a will, then say they received a gift of one billion by the end of the year they pay the same taxes even though one of they are now a billionaire (Cohen). The reason is that the government does not tax on gifts or wills so then they would not have to pay more taxes if they received a gift that had consisted of a large sum of cash (Cohen). Now there is a large chunk of change out of circulation and now the middle/lower

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.