Reforming Inequality Research Paper

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

Wealth inequality is already shaping American politics and society, and has the dangerous potential to be the defining problem of the upcoming generation. A sizable cause for wealth inequality in America is a dire lack of

The United States of Inequality is an article that delves into the harsh realities we face in our country today, with regards to income inequality. Income inequality in the United States is at a rise. And the sobering factor is that so little is being done to address this issue. According to a new study by researchers at the Economic Policy Institute, forces of rising inequality are operating at an all-time high throughout the United States. The study, “which measures income inequality by state, metro area and county, shows that inequality has risen in every state since the 1970s.” It also shows that rising inequality is deep-rooted.  “Recessions in recent decades have temporarily slowed income growth among the top 1 percent, but they have not altered the basic pattern in which the rich have gotten much richer while nearly everyone else has seen income stagnate or decline (Tritch, "The United States of Inequality", 2016).” In all, the top 1 percent in the United States captured 85.1 percent of total income growth from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, the 1.6 million families in the top 1 percent made 25.3 times as much on average as the 161 million families in the bottom 99 percent.

Economic inequality in the United States has risen and absolute growth has slowed over the past half-century. This growing level of inequality sparks in a wave of support for redistribution. The U.S.’s inability to redistribute to the bottom quartile of the income distribution results a multitude of factors that explain why people would support or oppose redistribution. An explanation of economic inequality involves the argument that the wealthy have the needed resources in order to flourish in achieving political decisions that they favor, “through campaign contributions and other forms of economic influence” (Gelman 1213). The proposal for this paper is that there is a factor that is unaccounted for, in which it is possibly impacting the

In the Documentary, “Inequality for All”, scholar Robert Reich forces viewers to dissect our Nation’s wealth distribution model and the shattering effects it has on income equality. Reich begins his argument with a staggering piece of evidence that was shocking to learn that the upper 1% of the nation, the wealthy portion, makes up over half of the national income. This means that the remaining 99% of the population of the United States makes up less than half of the income in our nation. This is a gigantic gap that almost seems unfixable in a day where wages are decreasing and expenses keep rising. He identifies that the middle class is rapidly sinking and no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy stable.

This article examines the rampant issue of income inequality that has plagued the United States for decades. From the 1970s onward, the 1% of Americans are accumulating more wealth created in the country, leaving the other 99% to scrounge around for the rest; some of these citizens live below the poverty line and may not know if they have enough money to keep the lights on for another month. Evaluating various other reports under the social interpretation of the social conflict theory, the results from most of these findings support the expansion of the labor union’s bargaining power to protect its workers as well as an overhaul of federal and state laws concerning taxes more likely paid by the upper class of citizens.

Educating the public on wealth inequality can help gain support to reduce wealth inequality. Many politicians have decried policies such as higher taxes and closing loopholes intended to help the middle class and harm the wealthy. Senate President pro tempore Orrin Hatch disagreed with former-President Barack Obama’s speech on tackling income inequality by responding that Obama was committing “class warfare,” which is a statement used by pundits to conceal the actual problem of wealth inequality. In addition, although a lower social mobility in the United States will likely keep people in poverty, around 80% of Americans thought that a person in poverty could eventually become wealthy. In addition, although only 0.2% of estates owed estate

Combating for public reform in the areas of taxation and policies for the wealthy will make positive difference in the economy. Income inequality has been increasing since 1970 (Hatch). One way to battle this issue is to vote to increase taxes among the wealthy. Though, this will not in a sense create income equality however, it would promote additional income and income distribution to lower income households. Through this method the standard income requirements to be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could be lowered, this provides a tax credit to qualified working family units. The EITC helps to reduce inequality among some working families, as this is common example redistribution of our nation’s wealth (Hatch).

The George W. Bush administration is remarkably renowned for passing a major tax-cuts package, known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, (Bartels, 2005, p. 19). The package postulated a reduction in the federal income tax rates, increment in the child credits, augmented tax-free retirement contributions and the educational savings account, as well as a gradual elimination of the US estate tax. The entire tax package was to cost the US Treasury over $1.3 trillion (excluding interest) up to 2010, the expected expiry time of the package. If the system was to continue in the later years, the Treasury could end up spending over $200 billion each year. According to Bartels (2005), The Bush move was supported by the ordinary citizens before the passage of the package. The people’s support was not meant to imply the way they were impressed with the package as contributing to inequality, as they were mainly concerned with their own individual welfare. Notably, they wanted a system that could relieve them from paying massive or burdensome amounts of taxes. Though contrary to the perception of the legislation by the people and their personal preferences regarding it, 36% of the tax benefits were to accrue to the richest, who comprised only one percent of the American population. The share was almost equal to the one that was received by those in the bottom who constituted around 80% of the population (Hacker & Pierson, p. 33).

For many years wealth and income inequalities in America have progressively gotten worse. The recession in 2007 did not help to reduce the gap. Wealth is determined by everything a person owns and income is determined by how much a person makes at their job. The better job a person has the more income they have and this increases their overall wealth. Wealth and income inequality can be reduced by lowering the cost of higher education, implementing a progressive tax, working with one another to end the stigma of the color of ones skin, and by putting an end to the gender wage gap.

Within the United States, a multitude of Americans live in poverty, actually, according to the Census Bureau in 2010, “there were 42 million poor people in the United States,” and a large portion of those who reside in the middle class are approaching the poverty line, thus, augmenting the amount of people who live in the lower class. As a result of this occurrence, income inequality has become a paramount topic in recent times, especially in the 2016 election. In addition of politicians and other government members discussing this gargantuan issue, professors, journalists, and others have written about this topic to inform the populace about income inequality, and provided ways to fix the issue. The authors Robert B. Reich, Gregory Mantsios, Alan Ajas, Daniel Bustillo, William Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton are experts within the field of economics and labor; however, all of these writers are people from different backgrounds, such as Robert B. Reich, who was the Secretary of Labor under President William J. Clinton, and Alan Ajas, who is a professor at Brooklyn College. Although these authors write about income inequality and its causes in the United States, each of the three essays written have a unique focus to each of them, a unique style they are written, and unique solutions to the problem plaguing the U.S.

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted

One of the main inequality issues in America is income distribution. Income is not distributed equally among social classes resulting in unequal amount of pay and earned income. US income rose from 1970s to 2007. People in the 70th percentile noticed their income declined while anyone above 70th percentile has an increasing income. People who were placed at the 10th percentile discovered their income start to plateau from 2001-2007. They did however, notice they had a bump in income resulting from a raise in minimum wage, but most states had a decrease in income from 2005-2007. Anyone at the 90th percentile or above noticed a raise in income. There was about a five times difference from workers at the 10th percentile to the 90th percentile. There was also an increase in

Yes, I do believe that reducing income inequality would lead to an economic growth. If we think about it, more money we have, the more we tend to spend or buy which means that the economy would benefit from that. Unfortunately as we all know, inequality in wages or income is dictated from our broken education system. I personally think that most of the problems in the income inequality start from education and I believe that because the more a person is educated, has knowledge and the more is capable to do, the less is the chance to have income inequality. Nowadays, we see hard workers earning less than some people that pretend to work and unfortunately are earning twice of the hard workers. In addition, I

Economic inequality refers to how economic metrics are distributed among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Economists generally think of three metrics of economic disparity: wealth, income, and consumption.