In the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor has been substantially increasing over the years. This growth between the rich and poor illustrates the wealth inequality between the social classes in our nation. Although it is impractical to precisely measure the morality of wealth inequality, we can use philosophical thought to determine what makes a political and economic system just. By analyzing the theories of political philosophers, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, it is clear that wealth inequality is morally justified, as long as equal opportunity and concern for justice among a society is provided under certain conditions. Wealth inequality relates to race, gender, and access to health care as there are many wealth and income disparities among these groups of individuals.
On the other hand of the spectrum lies the planned economy where all economic decisions are made by the government (Sloman, 2001). Both economies have their advantages and disadvantages. In a free-market economy there is freedom of choice, high incentives, and the belief in consumer sovereignty, yet, there are problems such as inequality of income, macroeconomic instability, and the chance of market failure. Likewise, though a planned economy has advantages such as low levels of unemployment and equal distribution of income, there is a loss of personal freedom and lack of consumer choice. Many people feel that efficiency lies in the free-market economy where one can easily answer the questions what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom.
By providing equal opportunities for education and taxes being used to redistribute income to the poor will decrease income inequality. In the long run, helping the poor will be beneficial and has a big possibility to end poverty as well. In conclusion, wealth disparity makes inequality a big problem to the fullest extent to social stability in American society because it discriminates against the poor, while it privileges the rich.
The wealthy pay their way out of their problems which makes it unfair for the rest of the people who cannot afford it. The government has also been involved in reducing taxes on the rich, making them wealthier. Krugman adds, “the hedge fund loophole is a classic example of how the concentration of income in a few corrupts politics” (Krugman 250). The hedge fund loophole is decreasing taxes on highly successful business managers and is harming the government’s profits. While the governme... ... middle of paper ... ...ve more money to spend on people who need it.
The rich will become richer, while the poor will still be poor. With having a corrupt government it would ensure the similarities to other government agencies such as the IPS (Indian Police Service). A good example of a theory that is the exact opposite of the theory explaining India, would be utilitarianism. Utilitarianism emphasizes the benefits for the greater good which is the total opposite when compared to the rational choice theory because rational choice emphasizes on an individual itsel... ... middle of paper ... ...onship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses (Thomas Gale, 2008). The support from the government is very crucial and beneficial for the general public because there are some parts in India which are in dire need of support.
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.
The lower classes are suffering as the upper classes continue to thrive, and this must be improved if the United States expects to be a global economic leader. The tax cuts for the wealthy have caused the great divide between classes to separate further, and tax increases for the wealthiest Americans will not only help to improve this income gap, but they can fund programs that will help the lower classes. In Oct... ... middle of paper ... ...late the economy have been proven ineffective, as they promote inequality between wealth classes. We can benefit everyone through these increased taxes, funding new programs and distributing wealth more equally among the population. The wealthy may disagree, but in a country increasingly divided by income, we may not have a choice.
In the world nowadays, the health of a democracy seems to be directly related to the economic prosperity. The reason behind this is the more wealth there is in the economy, the more likely it is that the people of that particular nation will be more satisfied with there government, thus the healthy democracy. The better off the democracy is obviously the people will most likely be better off as well just adding further to the wealth of the economy. And equally the prosperity of the economy affects the way that the people feel about their government again bettering the relationship between the two. If wealth is an essential requirement of democracy, an unequal distribution of wealth imperils the democratic process.
Investors are an important factor to consider because without investment the economy will decline. To sum up, investment solves vital economic problems and is a nourishing factor to the economy. Investors desire to invest in a capitalist economy because they make their own decisions not like communist economy and they set their own prices and they are not restricted to minimum wages. It is clear that capitalism is more advantageous than communism in every aspect in the economy. All stakeholders such as common people, state, government, banks, and investors will benefit more in a capitalist economy.
The article mentions the areas where poverty can be fixed. “Oxfam says action is needed in three key areas: fair tax rules that ensure that all players—including the rich and multinational companies—pay their fair share; the investment of the missing tax billions in better public services; and secure, well paid jobs for men and women that allow them to work their way out of poverty.” (Elliot) This shows the needs of the audiences being that there is a solution to poverty and it can be fought against. The audiences from both the wealthy country and developing countries need a solution for poverty and the article gives them various answers to fighting poverty. My thoughts towards this is that there should be more fair taxes that don’t only benefit the wealthy, but also the poor. I also believe that wages should be raised and I believe that this directly ties in with the wealthy.