Grasping the Problem: Why Inequality Matters, for Non-economists
Before analyzing Piketty’s global tax on wealth, we must understand the problem Piketty is trying to solve. The central economic dilemma revealed by Piketty’s research is that greater returns (r) on capital investments are outpacing the overall economic growth rate (g), succinctly noted in the form r > g, and the imbalance is driving wealth inequality.
Thus once capital-rich individuals acquire (often through inheritance) large enough capital reserves, Piketty’s model and data suggest the continued higher returns on their capital will cause wealth inequality to grow, concentrating more and more capital into fewer and fewer hands. Piketty’s provides evidence of
…show more content…
In this section, I summarize Piketty’s arguments and attempt to strengthen the political rationale he offers for a global tax on capital; specifically I attempt to extrapolate the role of wealth in democracy and its effect on transparency. In the next section, I will offer a critique of Piketty’s argument for a global tax on capital, especially his failure to consider the legal and political maneuvering such a tax would require.
Piketty makes his point early that “to regulate the globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century, rethinking the twentieth-century fiscal and social model and adapting it to today’s world will not be enough.” More specifically, he defines the primary purpose and means of a global tax on capital:
“The primary purpose of the capital tax is not to finance the social state but to regulate capitalism. The goal is first to stop the indefinite increase of inequality of wealth, and second to impose effective regulation on the financial and banking system in order to avoid crises. To achieve these two ends, the capital tax must first promote democratic and financial transparency: there should be clarity about who owns what assets around the world.”
Before breaking down Piketty’s argument, we must remember that he understands this tax on the capital wealth of individuals (e.g. inherited wealth, stocks,
William Domhoff’s claims in the article Wealth, Income, and Power, are, for the most part, very strong. He makes strong statements regarding the concentration of wealth in the United States, and backs them up with good sources throughout. The statistics used are valid, and consistent among many trusted sources. The only area where Domhoff’s argument falls short is when he references the causes of wealth inequality. In this portion, his argument is a bit weak and could be strengthened by considering other important factors effecting wealth concentration, rather than limiting it to two seemingly all-important issues. Overall, upon examination of Domhoff’s ideas and sources, he presents an accurate and fairly strong argument about the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States.
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
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
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
SMITH, ANTHONY L. "The Super-Rich: The Unjust World of Global Capitalism."ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 18.2 (2001): 237-239.
In “Economic Elites, Investments, and Income Inequality” from the academic journal, Social Forces, graduate Ph. D student from Ohio State University, Michael Nau presents throughout his study the rise of an additional factor that has evidently influenced the concentration of vast amounts of income among the elite class, income from investments. In this era, the common belief is that demographics, labor market institutions, and technology are causing the inequality to rise and for the elites to produce astounding amounts of income. Nau’s findings present how the debate over the incomes of the elites has to be expanded apart from the ‘working rich class’ to also include the income producing wealth. In addition, Nau presents how the
Throughout the years, the gap between the poor and the rich has only increased. The wage percentage has decreased, while the productivity percentage has increased. During recent years, the wealthiest of the American population, also known as the top 20%, control over 80% of the American wealth, while the “poorest of the poor” barely control 5% of the wealth. An example of this income gap would be CEO of companies and their
In this paper I will be discussing the wealth gap. I will also be discussing if there should be a “special” tax to redistribute the wealth. I hope to enlighten the reader of the issue of the wealth gap, and if a tax would help.
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”.
I agree with distribution of wealth. If you're rich you have the money to give for taxes other than poor people Poor people don't have the money to give money to taxes they are working as hard as they can to put a meal on the table for there kids they don't have money to pay for taxes when they have to pay all the other bills like electricity and water. If you have money to buy a lamborghini you have money for takes.
This fact remains accurate after government attempts at wealth redistribution such as taxes. This shows that the government is not successful at helping to redistribute wealth and the dramatic increases in wealth of the rich while the poor barely improve show the inefficacy of the “trickle-down economy” model. To figure out why the 10% is gaining wealth so quickly, the people that make up this small group must be analyzed. The top 10% is essentially comprised of three main groups: superstars, CEOs, and high-income professionals. However, the incomes of superstars and CEOs are increasing more rapidly than those of the high-income professionals (Belsie). While the incomes of high-income professionals and superstars are market driven, they do not benefit from the same rate that CEOs do.
Thompson argues that global economic is inequable, the very small percent of riches earns more than half of earth’s incomes, and Zuesse discusses a related example. His point is “the top 8%
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
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.
Beginning in the mid-1950s and for the following twenty years or so, a debate concerning the neoclassical treatment of capital turned apparent in the discipline. This gave rise to a series of exchanges between scholars associated with Cambridge, England, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, (US). This debate is broadly known in the literature as the ‘Cambridge capital theory controversies’.