The US Tax System

While readers may look at the statistics and reasonings, some will immediately entrust the author to provide them with accurate and meaningful information such that they are prepared to prevent the worsening of poverty in America. Reeves recognizes that the Brookings website audience is predominantly a large group of liberal democrats. Their passion to assist those in the lower middle class makes the author 's argument compelling and lends credence to Reeves 's position of separation of the classes. Our author comments, "Efforts to increase redistribution, or loosen licensing laws, or free up housing markets, or reform school admissions can all run into the solid wall of rational, self-interested upper middle-class resistance." The idea that the upper middle class can somehow impact the wellbeing of those less affluent can be very intimidating for many. The fear of separation amongst the classes may move his readers to action, and quite possibly stop the widening between the classes.

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.

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

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).

In the Documentary, “Inequality for All”, scholar Robert Reich forces viewers to dissect our Nation’s wealth distribution model and the shattering effects it has on income equality. Reich begins his argument with a staggering piece of evidence that was shocking to learn that the upper 1% of the nation, the wealthy portion, makes up over half of the national income. This means that the remaining 99% of the population of the United States makes up less than half of the income in our nation. This is a gigantic gap that almost seems unfixable in a day where wages are decreasing and expenses keep rising. He identifies that the middle class is rapidly sinking and no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy stable.

My fellow conservatives and Republicans our countrymen that are Democrats have a valid point. No society can remain strong with wealth disparity in wealth and diminishing opportunities for upward mobility. This is not a novel argument. All the great philosophers of the Western tradition have articulated this. Yet, in 1916, William John Henry Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister,

Everything written in the article titled ‘The Upside of Income Inequality’ by Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy is not only a manipulation of the reader’s trust but it is also an insult of the reader’s intelligence. The fact that this article was first published in a magazine should speak volumes on the credibility of the statements made by these two authors. Becker and Murphy mention statistics comparing salaries and college educations but it is close to impossible to factor in the entire county to these statistics therefore, they are invalid. The article suggests that taxing the rich more than the lower class or ‘poor’ is similar to offering a subsidy to high school dropouts and taxing those going to college, but this is comparing apples to oranges and frankly it is a laughable comparison. Using appeals is an art form. Appeals help people articulate things that are important to them. Unfortunately, ethos, logos and pathos can be used to manipulate people as proven in this article.

Should be taxed: Professor at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management, David Cay Johnston, in his article, 9 Things the Rich Don't Want You to

The current tax code for the United States is almost 74,000 pages long. Or to put that into a different light: About 116 copies of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It is small wonder that a few of the announced candidates for President of the United States, have again begun to kick the tires on the topic of a Flat Tax. But is a flat tax actually a solution to our country’s growing tax complexity? What are the potential economic effects of a flat tax (both positive and negative)? Finally, is a flat tax even a viable solution? In short, will it work? As a concept, a flat tax is spectacular. Simplicity at its finest. As a fiscal policy, I believe that same simplicity must be examined and inspected closely.

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

(What is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?). Redistribution of wealth policies in the United States take a greater share of income from those families belonging to the top 20th percentile than those families in the bottom percentiles (Prante and Hodge). Families in the top 20th percentile earn on average 50 percent of our nation’s income (Prante and Hodge). As a result the nation’s middle to upper class earners would appear to have stopped achieving as much success due to the redistribution of their money, this causing a tremendous drop in the nation’s income averaging around 39.6 percent. When comparing the top 20th percentile to the bottom 20th percentile, those within the lowest quintile of our population makeup only 3.1 percent of the nation’s income, according to statistics from 2012 (Prante and Hodge). By the process of redistribution, it increased those of the lower quintile incomes by almost $1.1

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

Our wealthy pay the highest taxes in the world. If they leave, then we will lose 58 percent share of taxes, 80 percent of charitable contributions and the majority of jobs. They are leaving. The Census Bureau reported that departures of top earners, used as scapegoats for the failings of government, doubled this year to 154 a week (74 in 2011). As Obama’s attack escalates, departures escalate. Soon, tax burdens must fall on the middle class. Europe’s decline began the same way.” The minimal amount of good raising the taxes of the wealthy would do doesn’t seem worth the risk of them moving to places with a lower tax rate. There are many arguments to be had on both sides of this debate. The poor and middle class aren’t given the chances the rich are because the schools are better in rich neighborhoods then in poor neighborhoods, poor and middle class can’t afford college (which is false because financial aid makes it possible for everyone now), and the rich have the money so why not tax them more? The rich say they earned their money so why should they be responsible for bailing out America and not all Americans including the ones who make less, and why is success a measure of how much you should be taxed? Neither side is right and neither side is wrong and it comes down to a personal preference. This is where Obama was smart because most of America who are middle class won’t think like me and my mom and do believe the rich

In his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Economist Thomas Piketty argues that global wealth inequality has become a growing problem that will continue in the future, as returns to capital consistently exceed the rate of economic growth in many countries. Piketty maintains the key to solving this problem depends on policies implemented, specifically, a global progressive tax on individual net worth. (Thomas Piketty, Save Capitalism from the Capitalists by Taxing Wealth, Financial Times, (March 28, 2014, 5:42 PM), http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/decdd76e-b50e-11e3-a746-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3UZfQn4YQ). The goal of this tax is to have those with limited earnings and assets pay a small amount, in contrast to the super-rich with billions, who would be required to pay more. Id. Piketty proposes that a steep progressive tax, coupled with a provision requiring assets to be taxed on a worldwide basis, would help reduce wealth inequality and enable those at the bottom to advance financially. Id. Regardless of the