Surowiecki recalls a time in American history where workers needing to support their family were paid accordingly. However, in today’s market, the economy tends to benefit upper class individuals to a greater extent. Peter Drucker is
Contributor to Forbes, Tony Nitti identifies which classes and types of people will benefit from the recently passed tax bill. At the time the article was written, the bill had not yet been signed into effect by the president. According to Nitti, “Tonight's victory belonged solely to the Republicans. The Senate passed the bill without a single "yes" vote from one of its 48 Democrats, but then, this was the plan all along.” He also pegs the winners as corporations, the richest one percent, and the middle class- “for now.”
Paul Krugman author of the article “Confronting Inequality” stresses the inequality of our social classes in the United States, he uses statistics to demonstrate the staggering consequences of this inequality within our social classes. Krugman emphasizes the fact that a majority of our wealth is owned by about one percent of the population, which is leaving the middle and lower class at an extreme disadvantage. One example Krugman uses is education; children that have wealthy families, have a higher percentage of finishing college than those of lower income families, proving the statement that Krugman was accentuating, “Class-inherited class- usually trumps talent.” The parents within this middle to lower class have been exceed their financial
The article “The Liberals’ taxing policies: What they will mean to you and when” by Jamie Golombek, basically summarizes some aspects of the taxing policies campaigned by the liberals in the 2015 election. This article talks about how the liberal party, if elected, plan to cut the tax rate for the middle income tax bracket best known as the middle class. The party plans to cut the tax rate from the current 22% to 20.5% for Canadians with taxable annual income between $44 700- $89 400.To make of for this middle class tax cut, the party also plans to increse the tax rate from 29% to 33% for the wealthiest one percent of Canada who have an anual income of over $200 00. The liberal party also intends to cancel income splitting due to how it does
The EconGuy Video entitled What liberals and Conservatives Both Get Wrong about Taxes was particularly interesting to me. As a person who rejects the two party/ideology system, I felt a slight sense of vindication in hearing that both were wrong. It was nice to here him explain why both conservatives and liberals were wrong. The Conservative position being that taxes hurt the economy in that the taxes collected from the individual is money that cannot be spent. This is wrong, as EconGuy explains, because it assumes that the money simply disappears, but in reality, the money is spread around, among other things, to pay the salaries of government workers who can therefore put the money back into the economy.
According to Hardwick, the Face of a Nation authors' use of language fails to adequately account for the actual implications of the IRS system. She quotes their words “parents resented the government” (Hardwick, 104) to describe how the authors provided little to no information regarding how parents and families felt by this forced separation that left many
Larry Bartels, Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker seek to explain why the general public seemingly favored the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts, a policy that disproportionately favored the wealthy elite and reduced funding for social programs while increasing the national debt, even though the tax cuts were in direct conflict with the economic self-interest and policy preferences of most voters, such as: government programs and deficit reduction. Bartel’s primary argument centers on pervasive misinformation and/or ignorance of the electorate surrounding the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts. Hacker and Pierson cite elite manipulation as the primary reason for the public’s perceived “support” of these cuts; altogether, both seem to agree that rampant misinformation or the absence
“The policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, which openly favored the rich, abetted a secular trend already in motion, causing inequality to increase measurably between 1981 and 1992.” (Loewen, 215) The wealthy already had their advantage when they gained their wealth. The wealth they had helped greatly in the process
Reading through RIP, the Middle Class: 1946-2013, it became fairly obvious that the author, Edward McClelland, was presenting a thesis idea that consisted of promoting the middle class through examples of its prime time when middle class thrived. McClelland made the point clearly as he repeatedly provided examples ranging from the glory days of the assembly line industry that had provided high paying jobs for many people, to presidents who attempted to keep business within the United States to promote home grown jobs. He was especially focused on the point that the middle class was shrinking due to a large discrepancy between the wealthy and the rest of society as capitalism achieves its goal of padding the wealthiest and keeping the middle
They believe taxes are first and foremost a means of redistributing income, and therefore strenuously oppose any system that lowers tax rates at upper income levels.”
There is lower, middle, and upper class, but there are also subcategories that fill the gaps in between, like the impoverished and the top one percenters. “Class in America”, written by Gregory Mantsios, addresses the myths and realities about socioeconomic class in America and how they affect American lives. His article highlights the unequal divide that has persisted over the course of history and will continue to manifest in the future. To introduce the existence of this issue, Mantsios states that this country’s citizens “don’t like to talk about class...or class privileges, or class oppression, or the class nature of society” (Mantsios 378). This is the case in America today because people are neglecting to acknowledge the existence of these elusive
One of the arguments used is that we could regulate and tax the 1% income because that would be “fair” but these numbers show how harmful that way of thinking is. 18% of taxes for the “bottom” of the bracket which is around 20% of the U.S population.
In “14 ways Republicans have declared war on the middle class; Poll after poll shows Americans strongly oppose almost every facet of the new GOP budget proposal” by Steven Rosenfeld, the author explains his perception of how the Republican Party has declared war on Middle Class America. The source is creditable and relates to the argument of the effectiveness of Middle Class America. Shaughnessy, H. (2012, May 04). The Future of the American Middle Class: As Defined by China.
According to the Washington Post, “Ever since Trump’s election, discussion of the vast divides in our nation between prosperous regions and those battered by economic change have filled our newspapers, websites and airwaves” (Washington Post). These big tax cuts that are coming may benefit some however over all may make this gap between regions larger. Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes by decreasing the income of the government and increasing the income of those whose taxes have been lowered. Trumps tax cut plan seems great because it will increase the amount of money in a worker’s pocket by keeping it from going to the government. However, not only will the cuts just benefit the top one percent and middle-class workers it will increase government debt even more.
Why must the rich pay more tax to help the poor? Although taxing more on rich seems unfair for the rich, it is necessary that rich people should pay more tax and the amount they pay are based on their incomes. First of all, the important reason that can be presented is that the rich people have utilized the public system more. As Elizabeth Warren said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”
