Robin Hood Redistribution Of Wealth

Wealth is often harder to tax however it is often caused by income so the tax system previously described may be used to reduce wealth and thus stopping inequality. This system can also be found in wealth though, with inheritance tax being used progressively. For example any money above 325,000 is taxed at 40%. This then creates a source of revenue for the government but also stops people inheriting huge sums of money, stopping inequality. However this system has its flaws as the tax has to be paid first, it could also be argued as unfair as someone who works for their money is entitled to leave it to who they want, especially as it was already taxed when it was earned. This system has also caused many pensioners to move abroad where what they leave is taxed less. The money inherited is also often used by entrepreneurs to fund businesses so the system may also reduce the possibility for future in income tax. This systems also sonly raises

“A Harvard businessman interviewed 5,000 Americans on how they thought wealth in the United States was distributed” (Wealth Inequality video). They assumed that the wealth was distributed a little unfairly, with the top 20% owning most of the wealth in a low but even decline into poverty. Then he asked them what they thought would be the ideal distribution of wealth, 92% of them (at least 9/10) said that they thought an “ideal” distribution had the top 20% barely distinguishable from the middle class with the bottom percent not too worse off than the bottom 20% of the middle class. The reality of how wealth in the U.S. is budgeted looks something a like this: the top 20% owning well of half of all the nation’s wealth, the middle class is now as worse off as what citizens thought the bottom 20%

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

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).

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

Money has become the lethal weapon that controls everything in society, it is an essential need in order to survive. Without money one simply cannot provide for their basic needs such as food, housing, clothing etc. As the value of money increases in the country it creates a heavy burden on the lower class. In terms of wealth in the United States we have the lower class (bottom twenty percent), the middle class (second twenty percent, middle twenty percent), and the upper class (fourth twenty percent, top twenty percent). As time passes by, the gap between the top twenty percent and the bottom twenty percent rapidly increases, leaving a dramatic gap between the two. The question that comes to thought is, is the distribution of wealth in the

Money is what makes the world go around. From day one, people are assimilated with the idea: to consume, one must spend a medium sufficient enough to receive an object that is desired. Every country has that medium. The Europeans have the Euro, the Japanese have the Yen, Chile has the Peso, and the United States has the Dollar. However, this idea of “getting and spending” has done more harm than good in specific countries. Particularly, in the United States there has been a growing issue of income inequality. The textbook definition of income inequality states: the difference between individuals or populations in the distribution of their assets, wealth, or income. The political problem itself, nevertheless, is deeper and

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

Trickle down economics logic is like a three-level pyramid with a few holes punctured at each status. The point of the pyramid would represent the wealthy business owners. The middle would represent the middle class. Lastly, the base would represent the third class or poor. Taxes would be cut from the first class in order for them to obtain more money. This is important because it was believed if the rich had more money they would use it to benefit their businesses. Then they would have enough money to hire employees. which would give employees money and that money that employees received could go to them and their families to purchase goods they were in need of. This money would help other businesses as well. Overall this plan would ideally provide job opportunities, salaries, and consumption that would help pull the economy out of the wreak it was currently in.

The video Wealth Inequality in America provides an eye-opening experience to inequality’s reality in the United States. Most Americans believe the system we have today is bad however what they think is far from the ideal and even farther from the reality. The video provides chart to have visuals of the wealth distribution in the United States. Of course, going to socialism would not be the best route. 9 out of 10 Americans feel the ideal wealth distribution should be a curve. The reality chart depicts the wealthy people and top one percent is off the chart since they have so much wealth. Additionally, the top one percent posses quarter of the national income. The narrator suggest we need to revise reality and not what we think it is.

According to John Maynard Keynes, the American government needs to start to tax the rich more and expand government programs (ProQuest Staff n.p.). Keynes may be on the right track by thinking about taking back more money from the people who do not have to worry about losing any of it. In the other part of his idea, expanding government programs would create many social service jobs for Americans to take if they need them. People also consider this "leveling up" the poor and "leveling down" the rich (Gramm and McMillin A. 13). Different groups of people also believe that the government should raise minimun wage for middle income workers rather than raising it for everyone (Scheiber A. 3). If minimum wage was increased for every worker, the middle-income families would not see very much of a jump compared to what higher-income families would

Imagine all the wealth in the United States. Roughly 84.9 trillion dollars, a pretty big number to wrap your mind around, right? Now imagine a third of that number concentrated into the hands of only 1% of the population of the United States. Not only would this seem unfair, but also immoral. Sadly, this unfortunate situation is a reality in the United States. Of all the political issues that face this nation, wealth inequality is often overlooked. This type of inequality is defined as the unequal distribution of assets among a population. The United States has one of the highest gaps between the upper and lower class out of other developed countries. Resolving this issue is a complicated

Those who are members of the 1% have earned (or inherited) so much money, and for the most part they tend to not give back. Jamelle Bouie’s article “The Rich Really Are as Selfish as You Think” reveals the results of recent studies conducted by three political scientists. These studies declare that a majority of the “One Percenters” are satisfied with not only the inequality of society, but the working conditions of the middle-lower classes. Along with this, 40% of this group are in favor of a minimum wage increase, 32% are fans of universal health care, and only a mere 8% support a governmental jobs program for unemployed citizens (Bouie 1). With the general public now aware of these statistics, it is unlikely that the 1% will be winning any popularity contests soon—that is, as long as the other 99% is eligible to

I do not think that equal distribution of income would be a good idea. We need incentive to work hard. It is exciting to have the opportunity to work harder and gain wealth and influence. The main problem is that the rich are just so much richer than the rest of the population. We need a healthy middle class to sustain our economy. One way to achieve a healthier middle class would be to reduce the wealth gap by raising incomes for the middle class. I would definitely be willing to pay more for goods and services to help support the raise of middle class incomes. I would essentially be paying myself more and creating more job opportunities, which would create a healthier

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.