Should Not Be Paid Than A Wealthy Person Pay 40?

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

Situations like these create problems and make it hard for all people to move up in society, which is something that Alger does not point out. For years, many people continue to work hard in order to one day to reach the upper class. However, for most of us making high amounts of six figures or better is really a dream and never shapes into reality.

I always believed that you are considered wealthy when you make a high income. According to the authors, most high income earners are not rich, which surprised me. Most people with high incomes fail to accumulate any lasting wealth. They live hyper-consumer lifestyles, they spend their money as fast as they earn it. I always perceived millionaires as living the lavish life with their big sport utility vehicles and huge mansions. Well I was wrong, in

Although many Americans believe the top one percent should have higher tax rates there are also many people who believe that the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes.

According to Alternet.org, “The wealthiest 85 people on the planet have more money that the poorest 3.5 billion people combined. The super rich .01% of America, such as Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) take home a whopping 6% of the national income, earning around $23 million a year. Compare that to the average

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

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

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

Yes it is true that everyone in this country is stated to be equal, but it is hardly fair considering that a majority of the country that struggles for just necessities to survive, pay as much as those who live leisurely and above most of the population in terms of wealth. This also becomes an issue with how much of tax is being collected by the government. Krugman puts a chart in his essay, showing that the tax percentages have been cut in about half. Krugman specifically says, “Between 1979 and 2006 the top tax rate on earned income was cut in half; the tax rate on capital gains was cut almost as much; the tax rate on corporate profits fell by more than a quarter” (Krugman 570). These kind of statistics are a huge issue for our country since the amount of money our country makes is decreasing. On the other hand, raising taxes won’t solve anything due to those in need of money as of now, but instead there can be a slightly higher charge for those in the upper-class. This will not only help the country’s income of taxes , but also lower the richest 1 percent of citizens to about 4.5 percent. Now number like these may not seem large or significant, but they actually are a major step towards the solution to solving the issue of social

The rich should not be taxed more. Increasing tax rates for the upper class will not solve the present inequality problem. The wealthy americans should be expected the same amount of taxes as the poor for equality. Those who earn more shouldn't help the less fortunate because they worked harder for the money they earn.

In his article “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich”, Warren Buffett criticizes the fact that billionaires in United States actually pay less percentages of taxes than those working-classes. Buffett believes the government needs to stop protecting the “super-rich”.

Many proponents of capitalism argue that the wealth is shared with the workers. But is it true? According to an annual report in 2008, an average American CEO makes as much money in one day compared to what an average worker earns in one year1. And the disparity between business leaders and average workers continues to grow over time. From 1990 to 2005, the CEO’s salaries increased almost 300%, while a worker received a scant 4.3%2. The social consequence of this disparity is the concentration of wealth on a small percentage of population.

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.

Two important factors that determine a workers' income, regardless of their class, are their race and gender. Minority groups as well as women are less likely to receive an income they deserve, regardless of the job. They are seen as less educated and less capable of doing certain jobs, and they are restricted in advancing and achieving a more suitable income. Only the top capitalists, white males, are receiving the bulk of the nation's income revenue and all the benefits that come along with it. They are the richest people of the United States and instead of being taxed like everyone else, they are allowed even more lee-way. "There is a solution to this problem that will save small farms and businesses, eliminate the ‘death tax' for all Americans and still preserve the integrity of the federal budget: Tax the net worth of the very richest Americans on a regular basis during their lifetime" (Eitzen & Leedham pg. 40). The already rich continue to earn more and more money with their jobs, and they are not being taxed in proportion to their income. They have gotten away with accumulating more of the nation's wealth, while others struggle to make it in life.

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.