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. Paul Krugman 's New York Times article “We Are the 99.9 Percent” and George Packer 's Foreign Affairs article “The Broken Contract” both share similar points of view. Krugman 's article discusses the large wealth gap between America 's middle class and super rich and how we need to raise taxes on the country 's richest to close the gap. Packer 's article explains how the United States reached a point of such a wide wealth gap, how political power imbalance came into play, and subtly states ways we can fix the issue. Krugman points out some alarming statistics in his New York Times article A report on inequality from the Congressional Budget Office …show more content…
Krugman points out how despite the obvious and ever growing gap between the rich and middle class in terms of wealth increase, Republicans tend to vote for tax cuts for the rich and for decreases in funding for programs that benefit the middle and lower classes of society, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cutting funds for these services puts the middle and lower classes at even more of a disadvantage than they already were. Meanwhile, the rich receiving more tax cuts means they receive more money, furthering the economic wealth gap and increasing the money they can spend to influence politics. Krugman suggests the solution to the problem is increasing taxes on the
To prove his point, Krugman explains that about forty years ago (thought to be because of the New Deal) the United States was mainly a middle class society with opportunities move up in the class rankings. In contrast, today's society leads americans to believe that income is a fluctuating thing; one year you
America was once known as the land of opportunity. However, that is no longer the case. Americans are still suffering from a depression that began three years ago in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007, the United States unemployment rates were 4.6 percent. In 2009, one year after the depression began, the unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent. Millions of Americans are living in poverty, unable to afford the basic necessities. On the other hand, there is a minuscule percent of the population that are billionaires. Written in 2005, Holly Sklar’s essay “The Growing Gulf Between the Rich and the Rest of Us” argues that if something isn’t done about the growing inequality between the rich and the poor, the American economy as a whole will weaken. A year later, the Economist published the article, “Inequality and the American Dream” implies that the American dream is broken. Sklar’s argument sheds light on the Economist’s argument. In particular, Sklar’s use of facts regarding the wealthiest Americans, the poorest Americans, and the discussion of the impact of inequality on society provide insight into the Economist’s article.
3. What are the effects of this wealth inequality in the US and what causes it, as well as some possible solutions and their ramifications, will all be discussed and answered below. There has always been a wealth gap between the richest and poorest in society. However, in the past decade, the wealth gap between the richest and poorest citizens in the US has been growing rapidly. In the 70s and 80s, the wealth and income growth rate for both poor and rich people were similar, however, between the years 2009 and 2012 the top 1% income increased 31% while for the bottom 20%, their income actually dropped and for the vast majority of Americans, the average yearly income only increased by 0.4% [4].
We, as Americans, view inequality one way, while Krugman perceives it rhetorically. This rhetorical view represents his signal to us, stating the fact that our society changes continuously. “The America I grew up in was a [...] middle class society. Over the past generation,
Krugman challenges us to think about one question, “Why should we care about high and rising inequality?” (Krugman, 586) Some of the reasons inequality is a problem is the standards of living and the lack of progress in the economy for the middle and lower class families (Krugman, 586). These show that the distribution of wealth in the United States is not equal at all. There is also the damage that the inequality does to the society and the government. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” Today that would mean that the middle class is the most important part of our society, however, the farther we move into the future the weaker the middle class becomes (Krugman, 587). The America that we live in is both unequal in income and social aspects. The rich do not live the same lives as those that are less fortunate and the less fortunate do not get to enjoy the perks that come with lives of the rich people. The inequality does not mean that it is unfair that the majority of the population
Wealth inequality and income inequality are often mistaken as the same thing. Income inequality is the difference of yearly salary throughout the population.1 Wealth inequality is the difference of all assets within a population.2 The United States has a high degree of wealth distribution between rich and poor than any other majorly developed nation.3
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
Income inequality in the United States has increased and decreased throughout history, but in the recent years, the widening gap has become a serious issue. Income inequality is usually measured by Gini coefficient. According to this method coefficient varies between 0 and 100; while 0 represents complete equality (income is distributed equally among all the population of the country), 100 represents complete inequality (only one person receives all the country’s income, while the rest of the population receives nothing). According to the Census of Bureau, the official Gini coefficient in the U.S. was 46.9 in 2010. This is way higher than the all-time low coefficient of 38.6 set in 1968 (qtd. in Babones).
Time and time again we hear politicians and office holders preach the need for a powerful middle-class. You may then be surprised to hear that “about 82% of America’s net worth belongs to the top 20%, the next 80% of people only own about 18% of America’s wealth” (UCSC). Some may argue that this disproportion is the beauty of capitalism, the chance to create an empire. I argue that the proportions are simply unfair. Why is it that “ the average CEO makes 350X as much as his/her employee” (UCSC)?
Inside of this video, this guy really targets an issue nobody has really been presented. He shows charts that talk about how we Americans think our wealth is distributed. We think distribution is doing alright. Americans think that the bottom 40% is getting a bit of money. They also believe that the middle class is doing reasonably well. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the video, he breaks it down a little bit getter. He shows a graph that shows how money is actually being distributed. The poorest of poor don 't even register on the poverty line. The middle class is barely making it. And then there is this huge difference between "the rich" and the poor. It is proven that the 1% of America has 40% of the entire nation 's wealth ("Wealth Inequality in America."). The bottom 80% of America only share 7% of the nation 's wealth among themselves. The top 1% has 50% of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The bottom 50% of Americans only own 0.5% ("Wealth Inequality in America."). The poor is not just getting by but they are scraping and fighting to get by. Now that it is clear that there is a lot of poor people in America, it is important to figure out how to fix
In Confronting Inequality, Paul Krugman discusses the cost of inequality and possible solutions. Krugman argues to say that it is a fantasy to believe the rich live just like the middle class. Then, he goes into detail about how middle class families struggle to try to give their children a better life and how education plays a factor in children’s future lives. For example, children’s ability to move into higher education could be affected by their parents economic status. Also, He discusses how politicians play a role in the inequality, because most of politicians are in the upper economic class. Finally, Krugman says how we could possibly have solutions to these various inequalities, but how America won’t get
Inequality exist and is high in America because the amount of income and wealth that is distributed through power. In America the income distribution is very inequality and the value of a person wealth is based on their income with their debts subtracted. “As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff, 2011). In contrary the poor do not get ahead and the rich get more. Americans are judged and placed in class categories through their home ownership which translates to wealth. Americans social class is often associated with their assets and wealth. “People seek to own property, to have high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs, to enjoy the finest in travel and leisure, and to live long and healthy lives” (Domhoff, 2011). Power indicates how these “values” are not distributed equally in American society. Huge gains for the rich include cuts in capital gains and dividends and when tax rates decrease for the tiny percent of Americans income is redistributed. Taxes directly affect the wealth and income of Americans every year.
Income inequality has affected American citizens ever since the American Dream came to existence. The American Dream is centered around the concept of working hard and earning enough money to support a family, own a home, send children to college, and invest for retirement. Economic gains in income are one of the only possible ways to achieve enough wealth to fulfill the dream. Unfortunately, many people cannot achieve this dream due to low income. Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income and wealth between the social classes of American citizens. The United States has often experienced a rise in inequality as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, increasing the unstable gap between the two classes. The income gap in America has been increasing steadily since the late 1970’s, and has now reached historic highs not seen since the 1920’s (Desilver). UC Berkeley economics professor, Emmanuel Saez conducted extensive research on past and present income inequality statistics and published them in his report “Striking it Richer.” Saez claims that changes in technology, tax policies, labor unions, corporate benefits, and social norms have caused income inequality. He stands to advocate a change in American economic policies that will help close this inequality gap and considers institutional and tax reforms that should be developed to counter it. Although Saez’s provides legitimate causes of income inequality, I highly disagree with the thought of making changes to end income inequality. In any diverse economic environment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. I believe income inequality e...
The connection between wealth inequality, education inequality, and income inequality is basically set up as an analogy. College+Income=Wealth. That “equation is saying that you go to college have a job while your in college, and then that will all equal wealth/ more money that you would be making rather than just going to a high school.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.