Monetary Equality : The United States And France

The main concepts of the article are describing the corporate welfare system and how it is responsible for growing economic imbalances between the poor and rich populations. The article elaborated on how we cannot ignore the issue anymore because of the substantial loss that we are facing by letting the gap grow (Huff, 1993). The article also goes into the IRS and how there are tax exemptions and deductions that people qualify for and what is allowed.

Alyssa Battistoni makes some very good points in her article, “The Public Overwhelming Wants It: Why Is Taxing the Rich So Hard?” regarding how the wealthy have a big part in influencing the government and taxes. Her article makes valid points on how we, as citizens, under estimate the political influence of the rich and that we have a hard time understanding the magnitude of the economic inequality and the relationship it has with political power (Battistoni, 720). She states that many of the politicians themselves are in the wealthy category. This article shows the frustration Battistoni feels by the tone and wording she uses to make her examples such as when she states that we are getting caught in a negative feedback cycle as the rich

Edin and Skinner begin their article by explaining to their readers that income inequality is a prevalent and complex problem in America today. The authors also point out that although President Obama and several other Democrats have proposed legislative approaches, such as raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich, to combat this problem, it will take a long time for these proposals to become law due to the Republican-dominated Congress. Because the authors believe these laws will take too long to be put into

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.

Amity Shlaes talks about how presidents such as Nixon, and Bush removed millions of Americans from the tax bracket completely and that those same exact people don’t want a proportional tax rate and want to tax the rich because “they can afford it”. That just seems unfair and unjust. The first video was very opinionated saying that the rich now make more money than before, of course they have the money now due to war times & depressions being over however, the less money they have the less likely they’re to make more investments into other things such as creating more offices, and hiring more people to work for their company

However, what people do not realize is that when Sanders is taxing these divisions, he is really increasing the tax for everyone, including the middle class. The Tax Policy Center analyzed that “Sanders would raise taxes by about $15.3 trillion over the course a decade” and that “tax hikes would be concentrated amongst high earners, just about everyone would pay more” (Suderman). In another article, it is stated that most of the tax burden would fall on the rich, with majority of the wealthy paying an extra $739,000 more than their pre-income tax and the top 0.1% paying about $4 million (Covert). This would seem favorable, unfortunately, the middle class will have a “tax increase of about $4,700,” thereby reducing their after tax income (Suderman). Sanders believed in a fair share of income, however, taxing the rich unintendedly lead to raising taxes for even the middle

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

Why shouldn’t the wealthiest of Americans pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes? Certainly, things would get better if the wealthy paid more taxes. This philosophy is why welfare continues to exist today. People worry more about what is right for the other person without looking at themselves and taking responsibility. It is overrun with individuals who prefer to be on welfare than to work hard and contribute to society. This doesn’t mean welfare is not needed, but that it should not be a career. It offers no permanent solution, but only prevents a real solution from being realized. So why should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes just because they can afford it? They work hard, so shouldn’t they be allowed to keep what they earn? This is not an example of scrooge-like behavior, but that hard work should have its rewards. The way to a better life should start with hard work and the desire for independence from government support. This would help people regain personal pride and become productive members of society, rather than a drain on its resources. It is not a crime for the wealthiest to earn high incomes. Shouldn’t hard work pay off? Why be penalized by paying a higher percentage of your income when you worked hard to make that income? Simpler solutions are required.

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

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

The vast wealth inequality in America (and the rest of the world) has been cited as a problem by Obama in many of his State Of The Union address, the Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen, and many other liberal politicians and economists. Their talk about the problem of how the “1%” help perpetuate the wealth inequality has brought this issue to the forefront of society. In America, many citizens believe firmly in the idea of equality. The fact that some people have more money than they could ever spend, while others live in poverty on the streets conflicts with that value of equality. The most famous reaction to this rampant inequality was the Occupy Wall Street movement that started in 2011. Tens of thousands of people camped out next to Wall Street offices in New York and several other financial centers across the nation to protest the inequality between the 1% and the other 99%. This infamous movement gained media attention as the vocal protesters wanted to make it known that the wealth divide is unacceptable and politicians must rectify the situation. One important policy tool the United States has implemented to combat wealth inequality is a progressive tax. This means that people with more income are taxed at a higher rate than those with lower income. However this tax system has many loopholes in the United States, and the wealthiest individuals are routinely able to avoid being taxed at a higher rate by distributing their wealth in bank accounts

Wealth in the United States is generally thought to be distributed fairly as the highest earners have a higher percentage of wealth. Although this common notion is technically correct, the wealth is not spread as fairly as people might believe. The United States uses a free market, capitalistic economy, which entails wealth inequality. However, the amount of wealth inequality depends on how the government limits the wealthy. Interestingly enough, the government does not have regulations to distribute the wealth more fairly as the top 1% of earners in the United States own about 40% of the financial wealth in the country and the bottom 80% of earners own a measly 4.7%. Astonishingly, the financial wealth for the top 20% increased from 1983 to 2010 meaning the wealth became more concentrated at the higher socioeconomic tiers as time passed. These economic inequalities benefited the wealthy as they gained political powers, controlled a large portion of the economic market, and used capitalism to manipulate the public’s perspective of the wealth distribution in the United States. While wealth inequality is a result of capitalism, extremely wealthy people use their wealth to exercise political power,but the average person does not understand that this is a corrupt method of crippling the economy in favor of the ultra wealthy.

politicians to put more emphasis on the power of education and support funding for it. By taxing the wealthy at a higher, but still fair rate, and putting said money into funding for education and public schooling, the U.S. will be able to enlighten more people in new fields of work, and this education will create jobs for those who are typically used to labor demanding work. Public funding in these programs will ensure education and healthcare to all, no matter how much money they make. Also, in the case of the current day United States, it is a matter of ensuring that politicians make these changes at federal levels, because essentially, that is the only way that a difference will be made. The current U.S. political system is dominated by money and this just goes to show that income inequality today has increased in ways that threaten economic growth, and even the health of U.S. democracy (Tyson). If United States politicians fail to acknowledge the rising gap between the rich and the poor, the inequality will ultimately keep rising, potentially leading the United States into a recession. By simply ignoring its existence, U.S. leaders and policymakers are essentially allowing the future of the nation to be jeopardized, with regards to social and economic

However, the problem with the progressive thinking of levying extraneous taxes on the rich is that it will not—as some economist suggest—level the playing field, but will ultimately maintain and or expand poverty within America by depleting entrepreneurship and jobs, willingness to invest, and decrease philanthropy.

One of the obvious reasons to raise the taxes of the rich would be because they simply earn more. One example is if two people started the year off with fifty thousand but then let us say one had a rich family member that died and they had received millions through a will, then say they received a gift of one billion by the end of the year they pay the same taxes even though one of they are now a billionaire (Cohen). The reason is that the government does not tax on gifts or wills so then they would not have to pay more taxes if they received a gift that had consisted of a large sum of cash (Cohen). Now there is a large chunk of change out of circulation and now the middle/lower