For decades now, our political and economic policy have been constructed around one idea: that if taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea has been the backbone of Republican trickle-down Reagan-economics and has been scarcely challenged by Democrats. America’s economy as well as the global economy as a whole are facing extreme income inequality and this idea has only widened the gap. Our political system has been flooded with the money of the rich through lobbyists or super PACs, who then are the ones receiving the tax cuts and are garnering political favors by doing so, effectively moving us farther from a free and fair democracy, but rather towards oligarchy. The middle class has been fading away due to stagnating …show more content…
Hanauer begins his argument by comparing the fallacy on hand to another fallacy we once believed, which turned out to be dead wrong: “For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It’s not and an astronomer who still believed it was, would do some lousy astronomy.” In doing this, Hanauer seeks to bring out the “duh!” response out of people and relate it back to the argument at hand. The argument being that if a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make policy equally as lousy. Although he incites the emotional response in the reader he also backs it up with facts and his experience as one of the plutocrats. He cites his experience as well as,going into some basic economic theory: “I have started or helped start, dozens of business and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would have all failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.” He uses this to pivot to his next point, which is the main point of the argument: “That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small.” He backs it up with his theory, which is a basic economic principle of demand when broken down: “What does lead to more employment is a ‘circle of life’ like feedback loop between customers and business.” Not only is it not the rich who create
In the reading of Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up, it is very true about the findings about the middle class. Honestly, 35,000 to 100,000 in today’s money are a huge gap differences. This is where now they started calling some individuals upper middle class. The article also, does a great job talking about Social Security. When was brings in Social Security, can a individual who was making 700 every week at Shoprite (which is middle class), at age 64, then retire a 66, and collect Social Security, and only get a paycheck for 600 every week, did they just get moved to lower class? In the reading The Shrinking American Middle Class says age is a big factor, as well as race, family status, and education.
The documentary “Inequality for All” focusing on Robert Reich, a Berkeley professor, Harvard graduate, and previous Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, argues how the United States economy is struggling with the widening income gap; indeed, since the 1970’s, the income gap between the wealthy and middle class has continued to widen which has created many problems within this country.
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.
. In the Gilded Age the economy was dominated by the wealthy corporations, “And so it went, in industry after industry---shrewd, efficient businessmen building empires, choking out competition, maintaining high prices, keeping wages low, using government subsidies” (Zinn 257). This is seemingly what is happening again in the 21st century; the level of inequality has peaked once more with, “…inadequate wages, poor social mobility, lack of access to universal healthcare and basic social safety nets, limited labor rights and attacks on unions, a tax system that benefits the rich in general and unearned wealth in particular” (Morning's Minion
In ”Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” Robert Reich talks about the growing gap of higher class and the lower class of today’s society. He states that the rich are getting richer because they are the ones trying to take over the lower paying jobs.Along with that, the poor are getting poorer because of many losing their jobs due to competition with other countries because they are willing to work for less money. With today’s society it is common to replace low paying jobs with machines that end up cheaper and more efficient. Reich uses a metaphor to describe how the economy is doing for the rich and poor. This essay is informational and mature. In choosing this topic, Reich was reaching out to the older audiences by using
One such argument is that, the wealthy are job creators. This is the belief that the wealthy people of the U.S. are the ones that create jobs for the middle class. Therefore, the income they receive and low tax rate that they pay are justified. Another argument for opponents of higher taxes for the wealthy is that an increase in the tax rate for the wealthy will not create more revenue. It is argued that in fact it will weaken the economy, or in other words higher taxes will ultimately hurt job growth and the economy.
Nowadays, the middle class is shrinking, while majority of people are either moving into the lower or upper classes. This is due to the major economic and policy changes that have occurred throughout the past thirty years. Based on the Basic Economy Security Tables, one in four full-time working-age adults are not earning enough income to meet economic needs for themselves or their families. This is a serious problem in America today, the fact that the median income today is six hundred dollars less than it was in 1989 is proof of this epidemic. It is much harder now, than ever, to work your way into the middle class, much less stay there. The percentage income growth since 1967 for the top 5 percent of earners is 88%, top 20 percent of earners grew 70%, and middle-income households only grew 20%. (Camp) In simpler terms, the upper classes income has increased tremendously, while middle-income households have seen very little growth in their income. Since the middle class is not receiving any income growth, it is declining and moving towards the lower class. It is not nearly as easy as it was thirty years ago to get a decent job and make
Over the last several years the middle-class has continued to suffer a stall in incomes, while the upper class have had dramatic increases in their incomes. The middle-class have also had to bear more and more of the tax burden for social programs and struggle to make ends meet. Since Reconstruction, this disparity has been seen among those that are part of the upper class or top 1% in the country has had control of the majority of the wealth in the country. Capitalism continues to rule in US society and until some changes are made in balancing the wealth this will remain to be the rule rather than the
It is a fact that in the US, 50 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. But is it really such an unfortunate reality that we would need a system other capitalism to stem the tide of upward movement of wealth distribution. In my view, what is wrong is not the 1 percent's hold on 50 percent of wealth but the resulting decline in middle class that is now a major problem for the US.
During the past couple of decades, the decline in the middle class has been associated to the political agenda of the Republican Party. By ending governmental subsidies and other programs created to build the middle class, has ultimately ceased the growth. However, realizing the importance of the middle class to our fragile economic platform, the Democratic and Independent political parties are desperately trying to create and revamp 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
The United States of America was once renowned for and demarcated by the size and successfulness of its middle class. Currently, America faces a shrinking middle class and a new rising oligarchy that is creating the largest wealth disparity in eighty years. Robert B. Reich wrote Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, for the sole purpose of exposing the reasons why the wealthy get wealthier and poor get poorer. Reich contends that the free market vs government debate serves as a means of distraction, covering up the real issues of the top one percent reaping economic gains. Reich states in the book that the “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining the rule changes and questioning who they serve. Reich further states “it is no accident that those with disproportionate influence over these rules, who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted, are also among the most passionate supporters of the “free market” and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over the government.”
In Robert Reich documentary “Inequality for All” he makes a compelling discussion about the serious crises that the United States faces due the widening economic gap. He looks to raise awareness of the U.S. economic gap between the rich and poor. According to Reich the widening divide in America is real and growing. Income levels at the middle and labor class is stagnant and are at it’s lowest levels compared to upper class incomes since the beginning of WWII and is growing wider each year. Reich suggests that the economy runs more smoothly when the middle class has jobs with fair wages, when unions are strong, and when middle class workers have some extra money to spend if possible when the government uses the tax policy properly and when it raises the minimum wage regularly to control the income gap between labor and management. In other words Reich argues that economically healthy middle and labor class equality is the foundation of a thriving economy and is necessary to maintaining a sound national infrastructure and educational system within
Thesis statement: The upper middle class residents of South End proudly expressed their love for diversity in the community yet romanticized being helpful by controlling and reconstructing the original residential norms. In condemning the routinely behaviors and common establishments in the neighborhood, it became evident that their true intent was to control the population.
The era of volatility has created a shift from America being the middle-class society to simply rich or poor (Sachs, 2011). A gap this large has not been experienced since the 1920’s (Sachs). “The top 1% of households takes almost a quarter of all household income” but an economy this top heavy will not be able to succeed (Sachs, 2011, p. 30). The working classes are struggling with housing, wage, and employment issues. Rich individuals are ignoring these troubles, shipping their business operations out of the country, thus furthering the downward spiral of the economy (Sachs). To make matters worse, this has become in a large part a political issue, because the rich can influence candidates with funding, where the poor and working