The United States debt and defecit is a major problem in our society. One thing I would propose to the President would be to tax the rich. Time. It's useful to keep in mind how the rich are different. When you are poor, you are willing to trade your time to earn money. When you are rich, you trade your money to get more time. For example, the rich hire people to clean their homes, and they don't waste time shopping for bargains. In business school I learned that when people have different preferences, you can usually find a way to engineer a deal. Gratitude. Imagine that the government arranges to provide genuine person-to-person gratitude to the rich in exchange for higher tax rates. Suppose (bad idea alert) the government makes it a condition that anyone applying for social services has to write a personal thank-you note to a nearby rich person who, according to a central database, hasn't lately received one. Gratitude goes a long way (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html).
The American rich would even stand to make more money if they helped to rebuild the middle class. It has been an acknowledged rule of business since Henry Ford that companies thrive when people can afford to buy the products that the factories produce. I think If people focus on the oppurtunity cost of what there buying that could help with our nations debt. People should think about what they need to survive and not what they really want. My mom has thousands of clothes down in her basement which she doesn't even wear anywhere and if we sold all of them we could really use the money ! The oppurtunity cost of (loss or gain of what someone buys is really important with us at a nation trying to get out of a recession still)....
... middle of paper ...
...efit-cutting options for balancing the budget. Fewer than half want to cut the military, fewer than a third would cut Medicaid, barely a fifth would cut Medicare. It seems the rich are satisfied with medicare by the age of 65, the poor need medicaid, and people want to cut military spending (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/hill-leaders-fire-warning-shots_n_848392.html).
Works Cited
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/hill-leaders-fire-warning-shots_n_848392.html
http://biggovernment.com/ecantor/2010/05/12/tired-of-big-government-spending-then-youcut-it/).
https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2038/~/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-and-medicaid%3F).
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/classical-economics-vs-keynesian-economics.html).
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/classical-economics-vs-keynesian-economics.html).
Many of my thoughts throughout ethics have been towards the utilitarian side. This is where I would differ from that view. If I were to go by the utilitarian view it would be to tax the rich more than anyone. This money would then go to the poor where the money could be used up instead of sitting in a bank account. The utilitarian believes you do whatever it takes to make the most possible people happy. If you took the top five percent in America and taxed them more, then gave it to the bottom thirty percent, you have now helped more people then you did not help.
II. Implementing a flat tax without significantly increasing the deficit is impossible without shifting the burden from the rich to the middle-class, instead our current progressive tax policy needs to be changed so that it is simpler and does not allow corporations to abuse the tax loopholes.
Many ponder the idea of federal taxes and whether the wealthy deserve to pay a higher percentage rate of their overall income. That is, they argue that because our society needs more equality and a lower national budget deficit, taxes on the rich must be raised. This specific topic has been discussed for decades, and due to the severely different perspectives, it is unclear whether the two sides will ever come to an agreement. President Barack Obama and much of the Democratic Party strongly lean towards raising taxes on the rich, while the conservatives and the Republican Party heavily lean towards a more balanced flat tax. However, after extensive research and focus on what would be best for the equality of individuals, the nation and its economy, this paper will firmly prove that the top one percent should not be taxed any more than they are today.
Plus this kills off many small businesses trying to get on their feet, before they can even begin to stand a chance. The reason that there is a few rich, and many poor, and no middle class at this time, is because they would crush all competition as they started. It makes it so it is the very rich, and the very poor, and that is it. It may be said, that the very wealthy should be rich, and from their kindness they create jobs for the poor, in his book “Wealth”, Carnegie states “This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth… … To provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him.”(Carnegie 426). He states that the poor depend on the rich for jobs, and that their helping the poor to slowly gain wealth. His statement is flawed however, he is very biased, as he is one of the rich, and he does not know, nor acknowledge the point of view of the worker, who are underpaid to the point where they cannot get ahead. In addition if this helped the poor, then there would be no need for children to work, yet they
One person may see that the increase taxation on the poor and the decrease taxes on the wealthy is not an issue because the wealthy pay a lot of taxes already. However, many people don’t realize the fact that, yes, the wealthy are paying a lot of taxes because they make more money, but they can afford to pay more. Recently, in a CNN article, more than forty millionaires want their taxes to increase, which proves the fact that the wealthy have plenty of money to give back to the community. In addition, their just going to keep getting wealthier and wealthier by the
Wealth inequality is a real issue that needs to be fixed. The imbalanced growth of the upper class compared to the middle class is a danger to American society as a whole. The rich becoming richer while the middle class remains the same leads to a power imbalance, with the rich using their money to run the country the way they see fit while the middle class speaks to ears that do not listen. The issue of wealth inequality needs to be fixed by raising taxes on the rich.
It has long been thought by many that wealthy Americans are the job creators. It’s said that the more money they have the more they can spend, and the more businesses they can start up and hire employes. But this is a misconception because it is the middle class that drives the United States economy. The United State’s economy is a consumer economy 70% to be exact(Rogow 16) but how much stuff does a multimillionaire consume? They may buy a few cars and a couple of houses but the vast majority of the time very wealthy people do not buy multiples of the same things that an average person would buy. Instead they save and invest their vast amounts of money often this money leaves the country and ends up in off shore tax havens instead of circulating through the American economy. Nick Hanauer who was one of the first investors in amazon.com and a mu...
If everyone paid the same percentage rate on their income, the poor would wind up paying a greater total amount of their income than the rich.
Not just throwing money at them. Philanthropist Charles T. Munger says “To get what you want, you have to deserve what you want. The world is not yet a crazy enough place to reward a whole bunch of undeserving people.” The redistribution of wealth is also not a sustainable option. The wealthy do not have an infinite amount of money to draw from. As the number of people on assistance continues to increase the entire system will become unsustainable. Private charity would be a better option than the government redistributing wealth. First of all, it is voluntary. This would require that the US Government to lower taxes. People are much more likely to donate to charity, if they have more money to give. The redistribution of wealth can seriously disrupt the economy, and the best way to fix that problem is to move into a free market. When the free market is brought up people often think about trickle down economics. This is ironic because trickle down economics violates the economic premise of supply and demand. With trickle down economics the government is deciding what companies should thrive, not the market. In a free market there would be more competition, and as a
The opposite claim, as it were, is that the gap in income levels does not necessarily prevent the lower and middle classes from achieving the American Dream and that the supremely rich are a necessary fixation in the United States because they employ so many people. Therefore, the stability of the economy requires this inequality. In an essay written by Brandon King, who believes that the American Dream is still fully obtainable by all classes, he says, “...We should keep in mind the ways in which large businesses and financial insti-tutions enable many others to attain economic stability and security.” Although this view is very understandable and yes, the economy does partially rely on people of wealth for business, the excess wealth of those that own most of the money in the United States (not those of moderate wealth, but those who own the majority of it) is unnecessary and unbeneficial to the rest of the country. The majority find themselves unable to gain enough footing to provide themselves with the requisite materials to catch up to a world in which the list of imperative resources for success keeps growing longer and the ability to acquire these things keeps getting
The current tax system that the United States uses contains several flaws. First of all, it is very complex. It is comprised of many various variables that can create loopholes. These loopholes can cause two equal income families to be paying very different tax rates. In fact, there are 480 different types of tax forms (Website). The current tax system is also very unfair for the wealthy. Because it is a progressive tax, it is higher for people who have higher incomes. People should not be punished for being successful. If a flat tax policy were instituted, then it would simplify the complicated tax system, create fairness within the economy, and promote a desire to thrive financially.
...s are two of the highest reasons that Americans are in debt. Significant debt prevents Americans from spending money on goods and services, and America’s economy is driven by consumer purchasing. I believe the economy can benefit, in the long run, if there are more Americans that are educated and are healthier.
In the United States, accumulation of material goods as well as wealth is very valued and individuals are highly aware of exactly how much money they earn. The system is transparent and democratic. However, there is an extreme difference between how much money someone earns in wages and other gains and how much they actually go home with. The difference between gross and net income originates in the system of taxation based on income earned. Since the income tax has existed, the income tax code has become increasingly more complex and difficult to understand. Businesses and individuals have suffered at the difficulties and costs of complying with the income tax. There are many other ways a government can collect taxes, the income based tax system does not stand alone as the only option for collecting tax revenue necessary to fund the federal government. Instead of taxing the money that a business or individual earns the government could tax money that they spend.
... rich, this would somehow be the great equalizer and bridge the ever increasing income gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate. However, this concept could not be further from the truth. In essence, this would not solve anything. The unequal distribution of wealth is an erroneous and irrefutable perception America will always be left to face. Whether intentional or not, the unequal distribution within American society is seen as a flaw in our nation’s history.