TOPIC: Economics
FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
A lot of great discussion here. On the topic of the rich paying more taxes, and even on the topic of communism, my follow up is: how does our nation account for historic inequalities? I hear some people saying "the rich worked hard for their wealth, so they shouldn't have to pay for the poor." Do the poor not work hard? Is there such a thing as systemic inequality?
Use Adam Smith, the general concepts of the Enlightenment and current events to support your ideas.
Questions:
1. Is Capitalism the best economic model for the world?Would Adam Smith approve of some of the recent practices of Wall Street and major corporations? What about offshoring and tax evasive practices?
2. President Obama recently announced a series of initiatives (free community college, paid sick leave, paid maternity/paternity leave) that would require funding. He proposes to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes, and close loopholes so, essentially, the rich would pay more. Is this a fair way to fund these initiatives?
3. Income Inequality is a serious issue for our nation. The United States is quickly becoming one of the most disparate countries in the "developed" world. The richest (in the 95th percentile of earning) have benefitted the most from our economic recovery, with their incomes increasing by 36% over the past 4 years, with those in the 60th percentile (which is still higher than the traditional middle class) incoming increasing by only 9%. Is this a fair way for a society to be set up? If not, how should this be addressed?
4. Affordable Care Act:
our healthcare system is broken in many ways. Apply these concepts to
Obamacare and debate how to fix our healthcare crisis.
You do not have to comment on ALL these questions, though you are invited to. You must engage at least 2 of these questions.
You
are required to post and must directly engage another student. I am
grading based on quality and amount of interaction, so post away! Your first post must be by Friday Jan 23 by 9PM. Blog will close Sunday night. Engage
with your fellow AP Worlders and debate! Use as much evidence from the
readings and any other research to back your claims!
GO!
REMEMBER: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! ANY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND PUNISHED.
ALSO: IF YOUR IDENTITY IS NOT COMPLETELY EVIDENT IN YOUR SCREEN NAME, YOU WON'T GET CREDIT!
ONE
LAST THING: Don't write essays nor address every questions in one post.
Spread it out and make your posts short enough that people will
actually read them and address them. Remember to use the reply function!
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a champion of the middle class, recently stated that “between the 1930s and the late 1970s, 90% of all workers shared 70% of all income growth. Between 1980 and 2012, guess how much that 90% got? Zero!” This recent unfair development regarding income inequality must be countered in some way. This structure of society is neither fair nor just, and the government must step in and redistribute the nation’s wealth, allowing for the lower 90% of earners to share in at least some of the income growth. Adam Smith believed in free trade and fair markets, and there is nothing fair about the current income inequality. One way this income disparity could be resolved is that the government could intervene and further increase the upper class’ taxes while further cutting the lower class’ taxes. Currently President Obama is proposing that the government increase the capital gains tax, which is the tax that people pay after selling an investment for a profit. This slight increase could bring the capital gains tax rate back to those seen during the Clinton and Reagan Presidencies, during which the nation saw one of the strongest economic conditions in recent history. The money received from this tax increase could be rebated back to the middle and lower classes so that their incomes would increase. Thus, this change could be a step closer to achieving equality and allowing all Americans to reap the benefits of the country’s economic recovery. Adam Smith and other major proponents of the Enlightenment strongly opposed monopolies, calling them “exclusive privileges of corporations” that “restrain” the amount of competition and free trade occurring in a nation’s economy. In modern times the upper class could be viewed as those who monopolize the nation’s wealth to the detriment of all other citizens.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenn’s comment, I believe that Adam Smith would not agree with all of your economic ideology. Since he was strictly opposed to government interference in the economy, I do not think he would agree with taxes that will deter large corporations from expanding and hiring. Adam Smith opposed monopolies, but his idea is for a balanced trade market that the government does not interfere with. He believes that system is the most effective way to be profitable. By limiting the large companies now, the economy may regress. The income of the middle class may not be growing rapidly, but with government action against the foundation of the American economy, the income of these workers may quite possibly regress.
DeleteI agree with Robert in that Smith would not have been an advocate of the government increasing taxes of the wealthy in order to create a more favorable balance of trade. Though there are times when the government must take proactive measures in order to steer the country in the right direction, the repercussions of raising taxes on the wealthy must be considered. The Economist presents some scenarios that it describes as “unintentional consequences” to forcing higher taxes onto the wealthy. By making significant increases in taxes, wealthy people may be discouraged from spending. Like it or not, this spending fuels a substantial amount of the economy. If taxes were increased, this spending may reduce and could impede economic stimulation. The wealthy could even pick up and move out of the country to live in a place with lower taxes, thus taking their spending out of the country entirely. One alternative proposal, also suggested by The Economist, is to instead close/limit “loopholes and deductions” in the US tax system. Yes, taxing the wealthy may be a short-term solution to the issue, but the prospective implications must also be considered and further alternatives should be investigated so that there can be a more sustaining solution to this inequality issue.
DeleteI disagree with you as well Jenn. Adam Smith would definitely have not supported this plan. Although he does, as you say, support a free market, he does not support fair trade. Smith supported capitalism in its purest form, much like Andrew Carnegie's Social Gospel. Smith had no care for the fairness of the market as long as the government maintains a "laissez faire" attitude. Therefore he would most definitely not support the government interference that you are suggesting. While it is a good idea, you're argument does not support it well since Smith would dislike most of this proposal.
DeleteI agree with you guys. I do not think that Smith would have been an advocate of this plan as he talks more about the idea of a free market with very little government interference. While I believe that it is necessary for some government involvement in the trade market, so monopolies and other illegal practices such as price fixing can be prevented, Smith’s beliefs would contradict this because he believes that free markets are the most efficient way to gather large profits
DeleteI agree with Jen in that there is an unfair income inequality in the United States, however raising taxes for the rich while cutting them for the poor is not the only way this problem can be solved. Today's economy with corporatist practices, is also a big problem. Because the government backs the big corporations, the rich just get richer because of the protection while receiving additional political power as well. This practice creates an even bigger income differentiation and needs to be stopped. Additionally, Jen says that Adam Smith "strongly opposed monopolies." Adam Smith was definitely against coercive monopolies but didn't oppose natural monopolies. Smith opposed coercive monopolies because it includes government involvements like bailouts. However, Smith was not against monopolies that occurred "naturally" knowing that there was competition before and there will eventually be competition to stop the monopoly. If coercive monopolies can stop, taxpayers would stop paying for the government bailouts and keep more of their money which would also create a less inequality in the income problem.
DeleteLogan, I don't fully agree with you on that. I believe that Adam Smith was completely for monopolies. Smith was a capitalist and support the very basic ideals of capitalism which means supporting a hands off government policy and, more importantly, all monopolies. But other than that, I agree with the ideas you discussed.
DeleteI agree with Will in that I don't think Smith would have supported this plan because he believes in the concept of Laissez Faire, a policy that believes the government should not be involved in the free market. However, I believe that the government should have a small part in the economy. I think this because without it more companies would turn into monopolies, thus creating no competition within the market. Smith would most likely disagree that the government should have a role in the economy because he feels the most effective way to gain profit is by having the government not involved in a Laissez Faire type system.
DeleteIn response to my criticisms, I have noticed a consistent theme in that most of you mention that Adam Smith did not support government interference, but that in most cases at least some government involvement is necessary to make changes to the income inequality. I agree with you all that Smith supported Laissez Faire economics, but isn’t the lack of government involvement what caused the income inequality and the emergence of coercive monopolies in the first place? An experiment in Laissez Faire economics recently occurred in our country. Largely because of little government regulation (Adam Smith’s philosophy), the banking system imploded and plunged the country and the rest of the world into one of the longest and most severe recessions in history. This recession negatively affected the lower and middle classes much more than the upper classes as witnessed by Elizabeth Warren’s quote from my original blog. If Adam Smith had been confronted by this recent banking crisis, would he have amended his original thesis?
DeleteIn general, I don't understand why Adam Smith's work is so utterly important in the discussion on how economic systems work. Keep in mind, Smith lived in far different times from the present day, in the age where mercantilism was the norm and Smith's ideas were considered different from it. However, Smith's ideas about capitalism may not necessarily be universal, especially in a world where consumerism, technology, and government sending are so important. With so many different technological and political changes in the present day, perhaps Smith's work may be outdated.
DeleteIn response to question 2, I absolutely support President Obama's proposed initiatives to strengthen the middle class and provide people with the best opportunity to better themselves through higher education. It was recently reported that the wealthiest 1% of Americans is on pace to have over 50% of the total wealth of the nation. The fact that 99% of Americans combined have as much money as 1% of Americans should be enough of a reason to increase taxes on the exceptionally wealthy in order to fund such worthwhile initiatives. Many people are dissuaded from pursuing higher education because of the overwhelming costs, but this plan would put many people in a better position to succeed and allow them to tap into their potential at the cost of a slight increase in taxes for the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex in the fact that Obama's actions to strengthen the middle class is both acceptable and necessary. According to the social contract, individuals have the responsibility to contribute to their society as a whole; these individuals do not and should not exclude the upper class. The wealthy should be expected to give back to the country, as it has provided many benefits for every kind of person, including the one percent. Although, it is extremely naive to think that the upper class would give their money away to causes that will most likely not affect them directly.
DeleteAdding on to what Alex and Hannah said previously, in his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke a lot about eliminating the "trust-fund loophole," a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. Obama plans on increasing the tax from 23.8% to 28% for couples with an income above $500,000. Like Alex said before, I believe that this money that will go toward aiding the education systems will play a significant role due to the fact that more Americans will be able to attend community college and receive higher learning. While being very beneficial, it is a fair way to fund these initiatives, putting these less advantaged people in a better position to have a bright future.
DeleteMatt Hand
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Matt and Alex. They make excellent points. Whenever people advocate that it’s not right for the wealthy to be having their taxes raised because it’s money they’ve earned, I am hesitant. On one hand, I agree. Just because someone has worked hard and had the odds in their favor does not make them any less deserving of their profits. However, like Hannah has stated, there comes the fact that they’re also an American citizen aka their social contract. I can think of no better contribution than aiding to someone else’s education. A middle class (a class that is comprised of college graduates) that succeeds helps the stability and prosperity of our economy.
DeleteI agree with the statements that have been made. While it may be true that many of the wealthy Americans have worked hard for their money, it can be safely assumed that a decent majority of these individuals simply stumbled onto the money. The fact that many of these people partake in tax evasion practices is disgusting to me. While it may not seem "fair" for these wealthy individuals to fiscally boost the less fortunate, it is not fair to those in the middle and lower classes who are hard working be just as burdened. The "1%" may state that those who are calling for these tax cuts are just whining but in reality it is more substantial a claim when complaining about providing for your family than complaining about having to buy a smaller yacht. These affluent individuals can do their part as humans and American citizens and pay the extra amount that I'm sure their bank accounts can handle.
DeleteI agree with what has been said so far. The wealthy upper-class has more than enough money to survive and thrive on. If the tax is raised to 28%, that it not excessive, and it will help out those who need it. According to the Keynesian economic model, raising taxes on the rich and creating programs will not only help the poor, but it will also help to jump-start out economy.
DeleteSmith would be ashamed Eric. Throughout the reading from over the weekend, Smith was shown to be an advocate for individuals that are "selfish" and desire to make profit for themselves. He says that “every individual endeavors to employ capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in support of domestic industry.” It is clear the according to his perspective, the best way to benefit the community so for the wealthy to well... be wealthy because they provide for the rest of the community. This roughly translates to the more modern idea of trickle-down economics which is an effective system. But in the same sense I agree with Sam in that the burden on the lower and middle classes can be cruel.
DeleteIn regards to what Jordan has to say, I completely disagree. Jordan is the one who should be ashamed. How can you say that it is just to rob the lower class of their money--and even their basic needs--while the "1%" becomes increasingly more wealthy? We should most definitely tax the wealthy more, because they have money to spare. I completely agree with Sam in that the "1%" has should put their money toward the betterment of society through taxes. Someone making twenty thousand dollars a year cannot afford to pay the same tax rates as someone making a million dollars a year when they can barely afford to put dinner on the table.
DeleteI am actually in agreement with Jordan here. First, as Jordan stated, Smith claims that individuals should try to maximize their wealth as close to home as possible. As he stated, by doing this, the individuals are actually doing as much as they can in support of the domestic industry. Smith claims that by pursuing their own interests, the individuals promote society more effectively then when they really intend to promote society. And also, the wealthy are not robbing the middle and lower classes of money. The wealthy are just taking every possible advantage they can in order to live a great life. Plus, i would not have faith in the government that every single penny of increased taxes would go towards better education. For all we know, it could be diverted to some covert CIA mission.
DeleteI agree with Jordan and Matt that Adam Smith would want the people that "earned" more money to be able to keep it, as an initiative for others to work hard in the fields that would be the most successful and would thus help the economy. However I disagree that this is the most effective idea for our country's economy. A major point in Smith's argument was that of social mobility. He believed that with the hopeful idea of a better life, people would want to invest their efforts into the most lucrative field (which would be the most beneficial field for the country’s economy). Without the hope of or means to move up, people will not be propelled by “selfish[ness}” and, if Adam’s theory is correct, growth would stagnate. Unfortunately, according to the Economist, social mobility is much lower in America than in many other European countries. The distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes would help to alleviate this problem. Obviously, the issue with social mobility is long and complex, so I will focus on just one example of inequality: education. Funding for public education in Pennsylvania comes mainly from a property tax, which is local. According to the Pocono Record, “Districts in the top 20 percent of average resident income are budgeted to spend slightly more than $4,000 more per student this year than the poorest 20 percent of districts”**. As can be seen in the Philadephia Public Schools, lack of funding can have a serious effect on the education offered, and thus make it more difficult for people in lower classes rise to the middle class. By taxing those who (for the most part,) grew up with the privileges of the elite, “selfish[ness]” and productivity can be increased overall in the country if the hope for mobility and self-improvement is renewed.
Delete**http://www.poconorecord.com/article/20141228/NEWS/141229570/101105/NEWS?template=printart
Jordon your ideology sounds nice but over and over again trickle-down economics has proven to be ineffective in helping anyone but the top. First you are assuming that tax breaks given to the wealthy will make them pay more to their workers. That is just not the case. Since the time of Reaganomics where we have experienced pretty conservative policies, middle class wages have been basically stagnant. Many of the upper class take the tax cuts and hold on to that money to ensure their wealth. For instance the Walton family is home to around $144 billion yet their workers need food drives to eat. That is ridiculous. I think Adam Smith would have valued a truly free-market where everyone has a chance to compete, not just the huge businesses. For example, billionaire Warren Buffett understands that a fair market is important for an overall strong economy.
Delete(posting on behalf of Ethan Cook) in regards to Jordan's comment, I would say that while in an ideal society trickle down economics would work, but in the current society we have many upper class people hoarding their money and exploiting tax holes in order to gain more money for themselves instead of trying to reinvest it into back into the market. What I think that we need to do in our society is that we have to begin to enforce our tax laws and we also need to revitalize the middle class. I a specially believe that we need to find a balance between the two arguments in the previous comments because neither of the ways will work solely by themselves. We need to figure out different ways to fix these problems instead of sticking to the same things that have not worked yet
DeleteI disagree with Jordan. I understand your opinion, but the question is whether it is fair to tax the rich more heavily than the middle/ lower classes. Whether Smith supports it is irrelevant to my opinion. The rich have more than enough to survive, while the poor are struggling to put food on the table. This answer to this question really depends on your political party, and therefore our opinions differ.
DeleteI have to disagree with you Eric. How can you say that it's fair to take more from some one just because they have plenty to spare? Is it not more ethical to let these people share through volunteer programs rather than forced taxes? Those who are rich have worked hard and sometimes a result of not working as hard is not earning as much money and being "poor." Should these people who don't have the same drive to achieve be rewarded with fewer taxes? How is that fair? While there may be special cases of families working hard but still struggling to rise in society and escape poverty, these families can seek special aid. Not all poor are needly and helpless though.
DeleteTo add on to what you guys have said, I think a person’s opinion on this topic all depends on the political party they belong to. Generally, the Democrats would be the ones in favor of the rich being the most responsible for paying for these initiatives, where as the Republicans would generally believe that since the rich work hard to earn their money, they should not have to give a portion of it away to fund government projects. I also agree though that the rich should be more responsible for helping to fund these programs since they have more money than others and can afford to make larger donations. By funding these initiatives society, as a whole is able to benefit which reflects the main principles of the social contract. All people in a community should put the welfare of the entire society as their top concern so that way everyone can have an opportunity to be successful.
DeleteTo add on to what has been said so far, I do support Obama's ideas, especially funding education. Education is the foundations for development in a nation and everyone deserves to recieve a proper education. I believe that the upper classes will be able to handle the increased taxation while allowing the lower classes to have an opportunity for success.
DeleteRegarding the issue of taxing the rich, probably the least morally incorrect option is to close tax loopholes instead of directly increasing tax rates. Few people would consider those tax loopholes to be that important, especially when they cover very specific circumstances. Many of these loopholes either have fulfilled their purpose already or had no real purpose in the first place, so many of hem could and should be taken out. In that way, the issue of making the rich pay more would easily be sidestepped, as it would be hard to argue cutting inefficiency out of the tax code.
DeleteI agree with James, I think that it all sounds good, but will never work. The upper class have shown to keep tax breaks to themselves. Also, the middle class has rarely benefited from the upper class getting tax cuts. Also, even if the money is earned, it's not always earned properly, such as taking advantage of loopholes and treating the people beneath you poorly.
DeleteHannah I disagree with your statement that the wealthy should be expected to give back because the country has provided them with so much. I agree that the wealthy should be giving their fair share of their income in taxes, but to go as far to say that it is basically their moral job to donate more money to help those who cannot help themselves financially is a bit extreme. It is silly to forget that the upper class is taxed at a higher percentage already simply for being apart of the 1% and we already know that the government is not going to tax the wealthy more solely because of the suffering lower class, as that money doesn’t directly go into those poor bank accounts. I understand it is logical to think that it wouldn’t hurt the banks of those wealthy enough to just give more back to those with less, but forcing them to do so through the law isn’t just.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Alex. America has been recently faced with a crisis of a disappearing middle class. This furthers social tensions between the classes and creates a society in which only the top percent can truly benefit from society. I believe that Smith would not necessarily want the upper class to give money to lower classes. However, Smith's method of capitalism is not effective in today's society in which 45 million Americans are in poverty. Capitalism is a effective economic system when there is a constant flow of money between the different social classes. This is not the case; most of America's money continues to stay in the hands of the upper classes. I believe that it should be the responsibility of the government to enforce higher taxes for the upper class. Although some may argue that it is unfair to take money from people who worked hard to earn it, we must refer back to the social contract. In the end, the increased tax money will help the future generation thrive. Increased taxes will go towards education to ensure that society will be well taken for in the future. Sacrifices must be made in order to better our society as a whole. Although Smith would not agree, methods from the 18th century might not be applicable in today's era.
DeleteI agree with the liberals here, but I don't play the moral card because that is totally subjective to the opposition. Instead, I think that in a globalized economy like the one we live in, the rich could just as easily use their tax cuts to buy goods from other countries than buy goods domestically. Then the tax cuts are going somewhere else, not to America. In addition, the foreign products are almost always cheaper than domestic products, so there is no incentive to buy American goods. To exacerbate the issue, the cost of production in America is significantly higher than that of other countries. As a result, companies have no incentive to invest in America, causing the trickle down model to be totally ineffective.
Delete
DeleteI agree with Alex and James and Marissa. Trickle-down economics sounds nice, but it does not guarantee anything because the rich do not always spend their extra money on charities or creating more jobs. In addition it’s unjust that there can be such a big discrepancy among wages in the United States. I also disagree with the argument that the rich should not get increased taxation because they worked hard to get money. Even besides the fact that many rich people are born with better opportunities or are born into wealthy businesses, there are just as many poor people that are hard working or intelligent—they just do not always get the chance. If we decreased taxation for them and gave them a change, they could just as likely benefit the economy or create new jobs. Thus, we should have higher taxations for those who can afford it, because it goes directly into helping the lower class find jobs and increase income as opposed to trickle-down economics which only might help depending on the temperament of the rich.
Expanding on Bryn's comment: If you take more money from the rich just because they have money to spare, then the rich feel less obligated to volunteer their time and money to other charities that could be supporting those who need it most. I do not think that we should tax the wealthy any more than we already do. With this being said, I also do not think that the wealthy should receive tax breaks. The wealthy should keep paying the taxes that they currently have.
DeleteI disagree with Sam. It is ignorant to think that the wealthy just happened to stumble into their wealth and that they spend money soley on frivolous things such as yachts. In fact by increasing the taxes on the one percent, many wealthy business owners would be forced to downsize their business resulting in the loss of jobs amongst the middle class. So much more serious than a smaller yatch. If this happened across the nation, it would result in a negative effect on the economy.
DeleteThe thing is, there are good people and bad people in both groups. There are lazy people and hardworking people in both groups. To paint the picture that the poor people are poor because they are lazy while the rich are rich because they are hardworking may be true in individuals cases but overall its just not the case.
DeleteYeah I completely agree with James. Many people who fall below the poverty line have to work several jobs just to get by. These people work way harder than some of the higher ups at big companies who take vacations every other week. It is incredibly ignorant to assume that people are poor simply due to their work ethic. It sounds great to think that work ethic equates to success, but that is just not the case. There are a million variables at play, and to write off an entire social class is not fair. The wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes without having to liquidate their companies and foreclose on their homes or whatever Greta said, and the benefits would be tremendous.
DeleteResponding to question #2: Of course it is a fair way to fund these initiatives. I absolutely agree with President Obama’s proposal. The lower class, as well as the middle class, should have their taxes cut, while the rich should pay more. It is silly to think, in this day and age, that the people who are barely getting by financially, should be expected pay as much as the people making 6-7 figure salaries. The rich should most definitely fund these new projects, which will benefit society. Almost all of the lower and some of the middle class are, currently, unable to live a comfortable life, let alone be expected to pay the same rate of taxes as their much more financially sound counterparts. The 1% should be expected to fund these projects, as their disposable income allows them to. The U.S. gets the money to fund these projects (education and workers compensation) through their citizens, so it makes sense to ask the wealthy ones to help out much more than the less fortunate ones.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Vincent, I do agree with the fact that the middle and lower class Americans would benefit from Barack Obama’s initiative. I feel that this initiative is a perfect example of the idea in the Social Contact’s idea of caring about the nation and putting the sake of a group of people before the sake of a single person. However, I do not feel that this initiative will be easily carried out in today’s society. I feel that the wealthy Americans would see it as a punishment for their hard work (which may or may not have been that hard) and would care more about their personal success and stability rather than others. Is it sad? Yes. However, I feel that society has reached a point where this is the norm and people care more about being “the best.”
DeleteI agree with both Vincent and Hailey that raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes would create a more equal society and would help to support those with lower incomes. But as Hailey said, this will cause a significant amount of dissidence with the upper classes, for they may not view this as fair on their part. While there are some higher-class people who are willing to support the lower classes, there are others who view this as an intrusion into their hard-earned money. Part of the reason that some upper class citizens may feel resentful towards higher taxes is because they do not see the benefits behind supporting these initiatives. If there was a way to inform these people of how the initiatives would benefit society and thus benefit themselves, there may be less opposition among the wealthy for higher taxes. For if they truly are being selfish, then informing them how these initiatives could ultimately benefit/affect them would be a way to present to the rich the benefits of raising taxes.
DeleteI do think that it is beneficial for everyone if the wealthier classes paid more taxes. Blue-collar workers are the backbone of this country and they are usually treated the worst and paid the worst. For example, garbage men are so important in our society because they do a job that most people would not want to do. However, we view them as vile creatures who are beneath us. With more wealth equality, it would allow less discrimination based on wealth and promote a more prosperous country. If we have blue-collared workers who are happy and making a lot of money, we have a better infrastructure in our country. Right now, stock-traders get paid huge amounts money for doing a job that is basically useless while construction workers are doing the important job of building buildings and they dont get paid as much. It obviously just is not fair to a lot of people and the scales should be tipped, even if it means a person in the upper-class will have to trade in a Ferrari for a Lamborghini.
DeleteI disagree with you Vince on the topic of wealthy people having to pay more simply because they have the privilege of having a larger salary than the common middle class or lower class person. You have stated that it is wrong to tax the lower classes more, which makes sense, yet by taxing and forcing the upper class to pay more money simply because the lower class can't afford different things is very hypocritical of the government. Every job, regardless of the amount of effort needed, is important to society and the welfare of our country, but just because someone who has spent years going through various colleges to become a doctor and make an above average salary for himself shouldn't be the one to pay more because someone who has a job as a garbage man, like David was saying, doesn't make the equivalent salary. It's illogical for everyone to make the same amount of money for every type of job, so it doesn't make sense for the rich to be taxed more. Although I understand the plan set by Obama is the best solution currently, it doesn't mean that there won't be ramifications from those who will now have an increase in their taxes.
DeleteI agree with Michaela. One of the core fundamentals that our country was made off of is that you can be whoever you want to be in life as long as you work for it. In our country, six digit salaries aren't just handed out on the streets. It is basically improbable to get a job anymore without a degree of some kind or at least GED. The people who have the highest paying jobs paid their ways to get their jobs. Endless years of college, graduate schools, training (for athletes), finding a job, and moving up in ranks. All of these things have cost the upper class thousands upon thousands of dollars. Yet, these people have to pay the most taxes to fund people who didn't go as far as them and are working jobs that no one else wants. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Taxation should be more equal.
DeleteI disagree with Micayla and Gabrielle. No one is proposing a socialist state where we share everything. Democrats and Republicans alike know that people should be able to enjoy the money they have earned. But when looking into the role of a government, the role is to provide for the people as a whole, and there a lot more poor and middle class people than rich people. Therefore the role of the government should be to give these people a chance to achieve the "American Dream". Even in an America where the income inequality is absurdly high, no one is asking doctors to give up there earnings to pay for lazy poor people. Actually, people propose plans where the rich would give up some money and maybe buy a mercedes rather than an audi to pay for the food, education and healthcare for the people who were simply born in the wrong class. No one wants to pay taxes but I think it is important to put things into perspective and weigh the effects on rich and the poor. On another note, if your point is that the rich deserve their money because they worked for it. Then surely you will agree that an inheritance tax would be a very reasonable measure.
DeleteMicayla: I understand how you feel regarding the importance of every job and the seemingly unfairness of taxing the rich heavier, but what else are we going to do. We are faced with a difficult situation in which too many people are left in terrible situations. Perhaps taxing the rich is a component of the social contract. You forfeit your right to this extra money for government protection and other privileges as a citizen.
DeleteI disagree that taxing the rich is a component of the social contract, or at least John Locke's idea of the social contract. Taxing the rich would violate the very principle of Locke's belief that people should pursue their own self-interest and earn profit in this fashion. The social contract is established on the condition that the government protect the rights of life, liberty, and property of the members of society. Forfeiting this extra money would be a violation of the right to property, under the Lockean contract. Perhaps a better option than taxing the rich would be cutting down on excessive expenditures, such as military expenditures.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm going to agree with you, Vince. Those who have more to pay, should have to pay more. Also, if community college was free, it would allow those who don't even have the opportunity to attend any form of higher education, to attend, thus meaning that more people will have higher paying jobs, and then increasing tax revenue. The rich paying for the poor is most certainly a part of the social contract. With more educated people, those wealthier people who payed for the poor to go to college, will have more educated workers for businesses they may run, therefore the money will eventually circulate back to them.
DeleteI believe that their should not be a higher taxation given to the upper class because it is unfair to them. Even though they do earn huge salaries, that does not mean that they should be forced to pay a portion of their hard earned money to the government through taxes. Also, this is hypocritical against the core motive this idea is trying to reach since it de-motivates people to work hard and get into the upper class due to the bigger portions of money they will be giving to the government than previously. What's the point of working hard to get an amazing salary when after the tax cuts, you'll be earning close to what you earned being of a lower class with barely any tax cuts? And even if they do impose a higher taxation on the upper class individuals, it is improbable that they will be able to earn an equivalent salary, thus, I don't believe that this is beneficial.
DeleteI agree with Vince. The upper classes should be expected to give back to the community. The upper class undoubtedly worked hard for their money, but they are also living very comfortable lives. Poverty is a major problem due to the fact that the money from the upper class is not trickling down to the lower classes. This is creating a wider gap between all of the social classes. This increasing gap threatens our nation's stability and future success. America is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity. However, the lower class is repeatedly left behind due to lack of proper education and other devastating factors. The trickle down method of economics is not working so the only real solution is to tax the upper class more. This will provide the lower class with opportunities in order to drive them out of their impoverished state. Who knows, maybe the child who would find the cure to cancer one day is being neglected proper education and care by society.
DeleteOnce again, I agree with the liberals. Taxes go to fund social projects, like infrastructure, health care, and schools. By definition, poorer people cannot pay for these projects. Therefore, the rich have to. If they want roads to be efficient, health care to be effective, and the education to be good, then it comes at a price. You can't deny that. I think it is hypocritical when rich people say that they shouldn't have to pay for roads when they themselves drive on them. Regarding the issue of Obama's new community college initiative, having a smarter and better-informed public directly benefits the rich because the problems associated with dumb people are much more expensive than those associated with smarter people. And in the end, the rich are going to save that difference by investing in making people smarter.
DeleteI agree the wealthy should have to give more back. Capitalism in its purest form is going to have winners and losers. The top 1% is benefiting from this system, yet they've still taken part in loopholes and tax evasion. Lower and middle class citizens work just as hard as those in the upper class, but because of individual situations, cannot benefit and rise to a higher social class. They need these programs taxes fund and the wealthy have the means to fund it that will not endanger their lives. Poor people are dying from lack of health care and other programs. No one in the upper class is dying because their taxes went up.
DeleteI disagree with Lisa, the wealthy should not have to give back just because they make more money than the poor. The 1% didn't just become the 1%, they worked hard, possibly even more hard, than the poor and middle class. They are the creme of the crop and should be rewarded for this. Whether middle class or upper class, tax payments should be equal. Furthermore, many times the government takes more than half of what the upper class makes.
DeleteI agree with Sophia that the idea of taxation on the rich would go against Locke's ideas, yet in today's day and age, a balance is required among classes. Each class must contribute its fair share, and like Kadysh said, lower classes are the hardest workers in society and do the jobs to keep society as is. I know that there are a few standouts from this "1%" that does help contribute to society through massive donations and constant funding for various projects (Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, the list is endless). Yet there are those who are part of this exclusive club and do not participate in benefiting lower classes. Taxation of the rich is not the only solution, for some will always help out those in need, yet taxation is currently a way that can work to benefit the whole of society.
DeleteThink of it this way, if the winner of the super bowl got the first pick in the next draft, that would seem very unfair. That's why that team gets the last pick and the worst team gets the first pick. So when applied to the economy, doesn't it make sense that the richest pay more than the poorest. Getting the first pick of the draft doesn't make that team equal to the super bowl winner who gets the last pick, it just gives them a fair chance to improve their situation.
DeleteTaxation should be relatively proportional. Why should someone who makes thirty thousand dollars pay anywhere near someone who makes like five hundred thousand? The wealthy can pay more in taxes and not have to struggle to put food on the table. A lot of these super wealthy people donate thousands to foundations they've never heard of for good publicity so why can't some of the excess money go back into the system to help out those who need some assistance by way of government programs. And along with what James said, how often do you go from worst to first with a single draft pick. It would only serve to make the team more competitive and prevent another losing season.
DeleteIn response to question 1, I feel that Capitalism would increase the efficiency of manufacturing and trade because goods would not need to go through an extra step of government approval that would take time. However, I feel that today’s Wall Street practices would not allow for this practice to run without honesty and caring about the nation as a whole. Unfortunately, it has seen over the past couple of decades an increase in immoral practices on Wall Street which have allowed brokers to make millions while others are deceived and left in debt. This goes against the whole part of the Social Contact stating that people should watch out for the benefit of an entire nation rather than an individual. It would also cause great debate over when the government should get involved. Adam Smith would definitely not approve with today’s Wall Street practices including offshoring and tax evasion because once again, the individual is thinking about themselves before the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think that capitalism has it benefits and its disadvantages. First, I agree with Hailey in that it would increase trade and manufacture’s efficiency. In addition, capitalism has little government interference, so the rich would stop having to deal with the government taking their money. However, because capitalism doesn’t interact with the government, the poor would be without much assistance or financial aid. Thus, I believe that people with different economic statuses will have different opinions on capitalism. Also, I agree with the fact that Adam Smith would not approve of today’s society in Wall Street. Like you said, it goes against the Social Contract and creates many problems. People start to get greedy and only think about themselves and their benefits, and start to ignore the benefits to society.
DeleteAll economic systems have advantages and disadvantages. A certain system may work in a nation, but will fail miserably in another. Capitalism can increase trade and manufacturing efficiency, which are two advantages and key components in order for capitalism to prosper. The fact that the government is not running the trade in America also allows people to be more efficient when producing, selling, and shipping goods. However, if Adam Smith heard and saw what is happening on Wall Street, he may turn over in his grave. The events that have occurred on Wall Street violate the social contract. People become greedy and selfish, and therefore do not think of finding ways to better society. Capitalism is supposed to give people freedom, but people have taken advantage of this freedom and have broken the social contract.
DeleteI agree and disagree with Mari and Hailey. I agree that capitalism has both advantages and disadvantages. However, I disagree that Smith would not approve of the practices on Wall Street. The idea of capitalism is based off of competition and needs competition to run. This competition is created by greed. Smith encourages self-interest. In the Wealth of Nations, Smith says that “In almost every other race of animals each individual… in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature”. Smith shows that self-interest is a good thing and encourages greed.
DeleteI definitely agree with Eric in this instance. Smith would surely be in favor of Wall Street as it is the classical example of a situation where greedy individuals compete for success. His support for self-interest is clearly a reason that he would agree with the practices on Wall Street.
DeleteI agree with both Eric and Jordan for this case. I like to think that competition breeds success, and as most people should know, Wall Street is a place where both competition and success exist. The people who are competing may have other motives, but wealth is probably the most popular one. Greedy individuals, like Jordan mentions, are the ones who will put themselves first to reach success. Like these people, Smith mainly cares about himself and how the big picture looks for him. He does not care about anybody else. His support for self interest is definitely a reason why he would agree with the practices on Wall Street, and stand by them.
DeleteWhile capitalism may be serving its purpose to the individuals, it is definitely not abiding by the social contract. Capitalism allows specific citizens to benefit from the lack of government involvement, increasing productivity in trade and manufacturing. However, all of this is a violation of the communal aspect of the social contract. The social contract advocates a sense of tight society in which government and citizens help each other. Through capitalism, individuals are greedy and only look to help themselves, not the community. So although capitalism helps to increase the efficiency of specific people's finances and fortunes, it does not benefit the community as whole, which goes against the general belief of the social contract.
DeleteI diagree, I don't think it goes against the social contract. Each member of the social contract is expected to put in a certain amount of effort to benefit the community. Those who choose to not contribute are essentially not following the social contract, and should not get to experience the benfits.
DeleteEric, I am going to have to disagree with you. I do believe that capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages, but I don’t believe that competition is catalyzed by greed. In fact, I feel competition is created through a profit motive. Obviously there will be some greedy people out there, but in general, most people have to compete to stay in business. The idea that you have to earn more money (a greater profit) than the person next to you in order to stay successful is what fuels competition. The idea of a profit motive spawned around the ideology of capitalism and it is both a good and bad thing. It is one of the driving forces of today’s economy, but it also causes greed and corruption. However, the greed and corruption that results aren’t what fuels competition, it is rather an offset of it.
Delete@Jordan, Adam Smith mainly advocated people working for their own interest to aid the whole, but in this case, Wall Street could not really be considered to fit his ideals. Even setting aside the argument that Wall Street is not encouraging economic growth, Wall Street couldn't really be construed to be working in its own interests. Much of its income is based on short-term gains that do not pan out in the long run. A perfect example of Wall Street's short term decisions is the use of subprime mortgages for collateralized debt obligations, or in laymans terms, the repackaging of bad mortgages into new bonds for the sake of disguising their shoddiness. The decision to repackage the mortgages did result in some Wall Street executives getting a lot of money, but i also caused the subprime mortgage crisis. As shown by their actions in causing the current financial state of the US, Wall Street could not really be construed as benefiting America except in the barest sense of the word.
DeleteAs many have said before, capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages. But we can also look at economics as a spectrum rather than socialism vs. capitalism. Many problems of capitalism occur when the gap between classes becomes far too large (like the top 1% we have now).
DeleteObviously the problems of tax evasion and loopholes go against the social contract. It does nothing to serve the greater will and only benefits the wealthy.
Our nation thrives on competition and it keeps us innovative. However, there comes a time when the game becomes unfair and more refs need to step in to help the players at a disadvantage.
I agree with Michelle, I think you should get out what you put back in. If you are trying to take the rewards from others, you don't deserve the benefits others work for. Trying to take advantage of the system, instead of working for something is unacceptable.
DeleteI agree with Eric very much here. Yes, capitalism (just like every possible economic system, or any system, for that matter) has its disadvantages; however, in this non-ideal world, capitalism is the only viable economic system. It is by no means even close to perfect. I think that if we were in utopia, other economic systems, such as communism, would be much more effective. However, the simple fact is that people are driven almost solely by money. Therefore, the only feasible method of getting people to actually work hard trying to advance society is to provide a reward, namely getting more money. Thus, the foundation of capitalism is needed in order for our society to advance. Relating to our modern economy, I think we are running a system very close to Adam Smith and that he would not disagree with the current practices. People offshore and employ tax evasive practices simply to advance business and make more money. The ideas Smith set forth were all based on economic competition and the drive to do better by making more money. Whatever methods people use to accomplish that are perfectly acceptable in Smith's mind.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTimmy I completely disagree with everything you said. If people who are in need of the benefits you spoke of do not deserve them, then should the wealthy benefit from the programs that they are meant to fund. It would not make a lot of sense for a millionaire to apply for welfare. The taxes go towards helping those who need it. Even conservatives appreciate the fact that you cannot completely turn your back on the poor as much as they might want to. Rarely are people not working hard and just coasting off of government benefits. A lot of people below the poverty line really struggle to make do. Sure there have been cases of people taking advantage of unemployment and welfare, but the actions of a few should not negatively impact the thousands who might rely on it.
DeleteRegarding question 2, I believe that Obama's proposal is a solid plan. However, it is certain that the wealthy would not accept these conditions without a fight. Many of those in the wealthy class may not care about Obama's new plans, therefore they would see no point in paying for such a cause. Regardless, I think that cutting taxes for the lower and middle classes is a beneficial idea. It may balance out society economically and overall create a better environment through Obama's new plans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah that Obama’s plan seems to make sense, but I disagree in that I don’t think it is a fair plan. The wealthy have worked to earn their money, and although it is a nice concept to have them pay more so the middle and lower classes can pay less, it is not realistic because of the wealthy class’s strong opposition. Also, many people may take advantage of a higher paid leave and could be out of work longer than necessary. Although Obama’s plan seems utopian, I do not think that this plan will work in the long run.
DeleteI both agree and disagree with Dani. Of course Obama's plan isn't "fair", but life isn't fair. Although, life does seem a little more fair when you're rolling in money. Higher taxes for the wealthy most likely won't cause a financial struggle, but will merely be an annoyance that they learn to live with. The benefits reaped from these actions would certainly be worth it, for it would be helping people across the nation. In this agreement, certain citizens "give up" wealth ( that they were possibly born with) in order to receive the stability of society and thus get to enjoy the additional freedoms and privileges that come with living in a stable state. Sound familiar? (reworded social contract ;)
DeleteI disagree with Dani's argument. Not all wealthy people work hard to earn their money. What about the people who win the lottery? How hard do they work going to the store and buying a lottery ticket? Not very hard. Or how about the people who are bequeathed money? What have they done? Nothing. It is their ancestors' money. Also, all the money that the wealthy class possesses has come from the government, so how hard is it to give some back? Regarding the higher paid leave, your opinion is one with which I agree. You cannot assume the worst in people and think that they will take off for the money aspect of the leave.
Delete***with which I disagree
DeleteDani, although I am in complete agreement with you that a decent majority of wealthy Americans have worked for their money, it is very unfair to categorize citizens as taking advantage of programs such as welfare. Many lower class citizens are born at an automatic disadvantage due to the poverty cycle and the lack of opportunity for prosperity in the areas that they live in. There is no simple solution to this problem. In an ideal world, those who worked hard and were honest and dedicated to their passions are successful, but that is obviously not true. Obama’s plan is certainly the best option with the current state of the economy. As the economy slowly recovers it may be possible to fund these much-needed programs. All in all, despite the flaws of capitalism, it has certainly allowed a greater quality of life for the average citizen than in many other poverty-stricken countries due to its ability to create widespread growth in commerce, thus making more job opportunities.
DeleteI agree with some of the points being made. I do believe that President Obama is helping the right causes and I also feel that the moneys of tax payers and state governmental agencies will not fluctuate that much. Although it is safe to make the common argument that this "money will be coming out of somebody's pocket," I have to say that this process of paying for community college education has already been quite evident. On average, the two-year public college education costs about $2713. With 4/10 of all college students attending community colleges, these sums add up to a lot of money. But believe it or not, these costs will not change the tax payers bills. In a study done by CollegeBoard in 2006, $2200 of the average community college student's tuition was paid for by grant money and tax benefits. If the costs of community college have already been covered by similar processes in the past, the average taxpayer's taxes will certainly not fluctuate as a result of a process that has been occurring for the past 8 years. The common argument that "nothing is free," does apply, however, educating those who will eventually represent our country will pay off much more than the meager costs being paid today.
DeleteWhile I do believe that Obama’s plan is not fair and there is a strong opposition in the wealthy class, Obama’s plan seems to be the only option at the moment to help the economy. If people are abiding by the social contract, they should be willing to give up some of their wealth in order to stabilize society. Of course there are wealthy citizens who have inherited, won, or even stole large sums of money. Obama wants to see the social contract enacted among Americans. He would like to see that Americans are willing to give up some money in order to benefit the economy and society as a whole. I do not fully support Obama’s current plan, but I acknowledge that it is the only option that would cause the least amount of opposition.
DeleteI completely agree with most of Sarah's statement. It is safe to say that the upper class would most likely oppose the proposal, however, as stated by Monica, at this moment in time, this option seems like the most helpful and logical. The only point I do not agree with, is the point saying, " It may balance out society economically and overall create a better environment through Obama's new plans". The wealth gap in the US is the widest it, possibly, has ever been, with 99% of the country's wealth in the hands of 1% of the population. While this plan is definitely a step in the right direction, I do not think in any capacity that this plan will balance the economic status between the upper and mid to lower classes.
DeleteI agree with Arthur that education is very important. However, it is important to note that helping people pay for college through scholarships or programs could increase the cost of college in the long run. Cheapening community college will mean more people will want to attend (raising the demand from students as more can now afford to go) while the colleges cannot accept everyone (supply stays the same). Therefore, to compensate, the colleges will raise prices to make the most money. I agree with Obama's plan, but will cheapening community college work long term?
DeleteAlthough it sounds great, Obama’s proposal relies on too heavily on the rich making sacrifices. Tuition rates have risen exponentially and will continue to do so unless something is done. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 2001–02 and 2011–12, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose 40 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 28 percent, after adjustment for inflation. Obama’s proposal will help short term, however, like Eric said, more people will want to attend community college and “colleges cannot accept everyone (supply stays the same). Therefore, to compensate, colleges will raise prices to make the most money”.I feel that a better proposal would be to tighten student loan requirements as this would force colleges to lower tuition rates to something more affordable to people in the long term.
DeleteI agree with Arthur, Eric and a few others about how education is important. Some good points such as an increase in the cost of college in the near future should be brought to our attention. I agree with Eric that this could possibly happen because of helping people pay for college through scholarships, programs, etc. Thinking about cheapening community college and its long term success is really something to view carefully in my opinion. Yes more people will want to attend school and get their education because it’s more affordable, however, there will still be barriers that stop some kids from being accepted. The colleges, as a result, will raise prices in order to gain as much profit as possible. With that being said, I do in fact agree with President Obama’s plan, but like other ideas, I am uncertain about the long term success of these plans.
DeleteI partially agree with Sarah. The only way to fuel the economy is to put money into it. Taxing the wealthy more will benefit the lower classes. This will fuel the economy and ultimately benefit the upper classes. However, this is extremely idealistic. Realistically, a large portion of the money given to the poor through social programs gets wasted on non-necessities. Instead of buying food, the poor purchase drugs, alcohol and guns. Ultimately, this hurts the economy. The rich are getting taxed and losing money. The poor are wasting money and not putting all of it into the economy. The overall effect is a declining economy. While I do see the positives of Obama's idea,
Deleteit won't be successful in our modern society.
I agree with Monica considering the current state of our economy. While Obama's plans to cut lower/middle class taxes and increase upper class taxes may be considered unfair, it may be the only option to help sort out the imbalance in society. As Monica said, the social contract calls for sacrifices to be made, so citizens must be willing to give up at least some degree of their rights in order to help the general good of the community. Although the upper class may be opposed to these changes, there are very few options that would significantly help the society other than this tax reform.
DeleteI agree with Anshul. Obama’s plan to raise taxes for the wealthy class sounds great on paper, but simply will never be accepted. Like Jared said, the idea of only taxing the wealthy is extremely idealistic. As beneficial as this strategy would be, the wealthy class would never agree to pay higher taxes, because it is too big of a sacrifice for them to make. Anshul also mentions the idea of tightening student loan requirements, which certainly would help, because if college tuitions were lowered, more people would be able to attend a college other than a community college. This would alleviate some of the pressure to raise funding for community colleges, and would also allow people to spend more of their income on other things in the economy, rather than paying for a college tuition.
DeleteI agree with Jake, Taxing the wealth only is too idealistic and will create anger among the wealthy and spite towards the government. Obviously, if tuitions were lowered than more people could attend college but it's easier said than done. Students can receive scholarships through various ways but cutting down college tuition would be the loss for the college, who care more about making money than education.
DeleteIn regard to Sneha's comment, I feel that taxing the wealthy would also be a too idealistic approach. However, I do believe that it is a very plausible idea to lower the cost of tuition in most colleges and universities. These schools profit off of tuition that is highly inflated for the students, and this must be stopped. on another note, I believe our higher level educational system is steered toward the wealthy which widens the gap between the wealthy and poor. As more wealthy people become educated they are thus able to receive better jobs and opportunities than lower class people, and the income gap is widened.
DeleteI agree with Sarah and believe that Obama's plan makes sense. However, I also acknowledge the fact that the rich worked hard to be where they are (mostly) and are usually not willing to give up a substantially larger percentage of their hard earned money. But, if these initiatives are put into place, raising taxes for the rich is the first thing to look at. While this is not a bad idea, it may cause anger among the rich because they keep having to pay more taxes. Overall, I think this plan can be beneficial in the long run for starting these initiatives.
DeleteIn reference to question 1, capitalism is a system that allows for either a great gain of a great fall. Everyone is born differently and has a unique social situation that places them in different odds against one another. However, for people to get the most out of a capitalist society all players must play fairly with one another. Adam Smith’s economic views bank on the fact that people have share the desire for a robust economy. While they may compete against one another, this mutual desire keeps things in balance. Therefore, Smith wouldn’t approve of the practices of Wall Street and outsourcing. It would seem to him as a form of cheating. The practices of Wall Street create a giant wage gap and outsourcing hurts our economy by placing manufacturing jobs outside the U.S. and leads to oppression within the countries the out sourcing takes place in (not the same regulations for safety, age, wages, etc.). If anything, these practices show the selfish side that capitalism brings out and it’s failure to meet the promise of hard work/innovative thinking equaling economic success.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline. In capitalism, the rules may seem to be pretty fair where if you are determined enough, you can gain wealth. However, capitalism fails to acknowledge people who are born into poverty, born with disabilities, or have a different race. These people usually tend to struggle to obtain the same kind of opportunities that a well-off middle to high class citizen has. It is easy for a person born from a wealthy family to live wealthy if they already have the money and did not have to work for it. However, some citizens have to work several jobs for minimum wage just to live pay-check to pay-check. Obviously, this is not fair and a glaring issue with Capitalism.
DeleteI agree with the both of you. Capitalism is certainly an ideal social system on paper. But in reality it is far from it because of all the variables that really go into how much success someone will have the opportunity of achieving. That being said, it is not a broken system. There just needs to be tighter laws that crack down on tax evasions and the practices that allow the wealthy just to become wealthier while there are many in the middle to lower class that work hard without as much affluence.
DeleteI feel like capitalism is not getting the credit it deserves. After all, it is what inspires people to work hard and take risks (we need risk takers because they fuel our economy). Without capitalism we wouldn’t be the creative, innovative nation we are today. Opponents may argue that capitalism fails to acknowledge the people who are born into poverty. People have suggested that the wealthy should be taxed more and the poor should be taxed less. However, simply redistributing taxes so that the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor pay less will not solve anything because there is no guarantee that the poor will contribute to the economy. Instead of spoon-feeding the poor, we must provide them with opportunities to succeed (which can be established through any kind of stable social institution) so that they will, on their own, become productive and prosperous members of society. I agree with you guys when you say that there are some problems like tax evasion. I don’t think Adam Smith would approve of this because it is not a true representation of what capitalism is supposed to stand for. Despite this, Capitalism is still the best economic model for the world.
DeleteI agree with Caroline. The outsourcing of jobs ultimately did lead to a decline in our economy. Steel mill workers and other manufacturing jobs that were moved out caused a large portion of our economic production to decrease, since many people held manufacturing jobs. However, I do not think that Adam Smith would have disagreed because he was for the action of private owners with their businesses rather than the government controlling them.
DeleteI agree with Caroline. The outsourcing of jobs ultimately did lead to a decline in our economy. Steel mill workers and other manufacturing jobs that were moved out caused a large portion of our economic production to decrease, since many people held manufacturing jobs. However, I do not think that Adam Smith would have disagreed because he was for the action of private owners with their businesses rather than the government controlling them.
DeleteThe problem with what you are saying Anshul is that in order to create these stable social institutions, money is needed. and since the poor are going to these institutions to gain wealth, they do not have the resources to help fund them. as a result the upper class must put money towards helping the poor establish themselves economically. If this money is put to use correctly and the lower classes are educated properly than they themselves will be able to contribute to the larger economy and in turn help more of the lower class rise to a higher econmic class. I realize that this isnt exactly capitalism, but i believe that it is the best way to stimulate the economy and get more individuals involved.
DeleteI agree with Sam in that Capitalism hypothetically is the best approach to the economic system as it gives people opportunity and chance to succeed in life. However, this is not always the case. There are too many things that can go wrong for someone that isn't accounted for, therefore this makes Capitalism have its disadvantages as well. Also, it's downfall is that it gives the wealthy a better chance to succeed, compared to the people who are just born into poverty who have to fight their way out. Overall, Capitalism although it may have its disadvantages it is still the best approach to an economic system.
DeleteAddressing number 3, it is definitely not fair that the higher classes make all the money and the lower classes struggle. This issue could be helped by easier taxes on the poor and harsher taxes on the rich. A poor citizen will never become rich if taxes are taking away huge sums of their money. However, if they ever do progress in class, they will be able to contribute more to the economy since they will have more money. In addition, it is important for the government to look more carefully at the upper class for tax fraud/evasion. This is a huge issue that happens in America and often the rich simply get off with a warning or go to a low-security prison as a slap on the wrist. The government should make sure the rich pay exactly what they have to pay and try not to cheat the system. That is how wealth equality can be aided.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David in that the higher classes have an easier time making more money and the lower classes have a harder time. However, I believe that David’s proposal is more complex than it may seem. Currently the rich and the poor pay different taxes. If the rich pay even more and the poor pay less, people of the upper classes might get angry. What we may define as “rich” and “poor” may not be the same as what the government defines as “rich” or “poor.” This issue becomes more apparent in the middle class. People living in the middle class make good money, but not extra. People of the middle class may not be able to pay the extra taxes. The government could define the upper middle class as Rich, and therefore tax these people the same as if they were making $300,000+ more a year. The upper middle class could have to pay too much money if these taxes were imposed. David’s theory could work, but only if the taxes were applied based on what people could actually pay, versus what the government thinks they could pay.
DeleteI partially agree with David. Yes it is true that the way taxes are now leads to a circuitous cycle of the poor staying poor and the rich staying rich. And as any fair-minded individual would think, the rich should be taxed more than the poor simply to alleviate some of the burden. However, I feel like this contradicts how Smith believe a capitalist society would work. He intended that all branches of society would work together equally to benefit the country's overall economy. But if we suddenly changed the ratio of taxing drastically, doesn't that lead to inequality? Is it beneficial that we are breaking from the mold that founded our country's economy?
DeleteI have to disagree with David here. How is taxing one person more than another, regardless of income, in any way fair? Granted, there are poor families who struggle from personal problems and events, and need the financial aid of fewer taxes, but there can be special cases for special situations. Requiring fewer taxes from all of those who are "poor" is not a solution though. Have the rich, who generally work hard to achieve that money, not earned the right to keep it and pay the same taxes everyone else should pay? Why should they be punished with more taxes for working harder? On the reverse, wouldn't requiring less taxes from the poor be an incentive for them to not make more than what would be considered "rich" in order to not pay those extra taxes? Joe brings up an interesting point when he mentions what income is considered the point to be "rich" enough to pay the extra taxes. People shouldn't want to not reach their full potential because of how they will be taxed. In an equal country everyone should be taxed equally.
DeleteThere is corruption and greed, but we shouldn't discredit the poor so much. They sometimes are capable of gaining better lives... I mean my dad, he grew up very poor. Type of poor where you decide to work in restaurants because that was a sure source of food.
DeleteHe worked hard though, and got away from that. He doesn't have to work at restaurants anymore to ensure that he has a sufficient food supply.
There is inequality, and greed, corruption, etc. I am not denying that. I also believe the poor need help. We cannot ignore that. But we also can't ignore that taking from the rich will not solve the problem entirely. One, we are getting a group of people potentially really mad, which isn't good. Two, eventually the rich run out of money. We tax them and take from them too much as time goes on, then eventually we won't have many people to help others anymore. We won't have a source of money if we act too harshly on the rich. We need them there to give jobs too. Plus "rich" also affects people that aren't quite millionaires, for example the upper middle class. And the upper middle class, they don't have so much money to spare. They would not be positively affected much at all.
I agree with David. I read a stat yesterday that said in 2015 the richest 1% of America will make more than the other 99%. This inequality needs to be fixed. I think the way of fixing this is taxing the rich more. This money could be used for free or reduced education which will help decrease poverty. I also agree with the point that david made about the poor putting money into the economy. The only way to stimulate economic growth is to spend money. If the poor get more money, they will spend it and the overall effect will be a flourishing economy. Without providing the poor with resources, the economy will stay the same or worsen.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDavid I partially agree and partially disagree with you. I agree that making sure that all people, especially the rich pay their taxes is very important and should be taken more seriously when violated. However, I don't think harsher taxes on the rich and easier taxes on the poor are the answer. Why would someone who was born into poverty and is poor want to try and gain more money if that would just mean that they lose more of it? It would take a long time for them to get to a place where they can live comfortably if the taxes are higher for those who make more. Especially because when someone does start to make more money they need the money for things that they couldn't afford before, like a heater for example. Someone who is poor and then progresses in class will not be able to contribute more to society for a long time. They would either have to be given tax breaks as they "move up in class" which is impossible to determine and easy for people to scheme into receiving tax breaks when they are not needed. Or you keep taxes the same for each teir of income. If I were in that position I would get to the highest salary I could in one teir and then not make anymore so I would not have to pay more taxes that the next teir has to pay and would essentially not be giving enough taxes. I think equality can only be aided by giving people a motivation to move up in class. Having to pay more taxes is not very motivating for me and although you would still be making more money, how much more after taxes? How much money can one really make if we try and get all of those who are poor to move up in class? We have to have a lower class or our society will turn virtually communist, and I don't think anyone wants that.
Delete(Cont) Our society has to be set up with income gaps, no it is not fair but we have put ourselves in an economic position where any attempt to get out of it will most likely lead to a communist society. If people in the lower class want to reduce the income gap then they should get an education. If they can't pay for an education then should save up until they can. Community college is meant for the community, for everyone, a degree from a community college is still a college degree and that means more money. If people in the upper class want to reduce the gap then business leaders should figure out ways to employ more people, and others should give money to schools to make them more affordable. The rich should not give money to the government through taxes, education is the key in decreasing the income gap.
DeleteI have to disagree with you David and Jared. Taxing the rich harshly is not the way to go. The rich pay a majority of the income taxes collected by the government already.
Deletehttp://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data
Also, if you taxed the rich more, then you limit the amount of money that can be invested back into the economy. While in theory giving the poor more money seems to be a good idea, they still would not have enough to invest in things like the stock market. Thus, by taxing the rich more than they already are, you will not actually stimulate the economy, but actually hurt it.
I agree with Bryn, it is unfair to tax a higher percentage on the wealthy to support programs that won't benefit them. David, not everybody can be rich or make equal pay, however I understand it is necessary to support the populations general needs. However, it isn't an obligation of the U.S. to present the opportunity for a poor person to become wealthy, that is the responsibility of the individual.
DeleteDavid, I must completely disagree with you. Addressing the issue that wealthy people make more money than poor people…the wealthy class makes more money because of one simple fact: they deserve more money. In today’s society more than ever, education is a giant contributor to how much money a person makes. Therefore, if a person decides to drop out of school or study to be in a profession that does not pay well, they have brought their poverty on themselves. Yes, I understand there are exceptions, such as not being able to afford school, but since public education is free, this exuse does not go very far. Addressing the issue of the wealthy class’ rates increasing faster than the poor…wealthy people’s salaries continue to grow at a faster rate than poor peoples’ salaries because of the same reason as before: they deserve to have their rates of increase rise. The wealthy are getting exponentially richer because the high-end jobs are growing in demand. If the demand for your profession is increasing, then yes, you should make more money. That’s just simple economics. All of that being said, I do not think the wealthy class should get so much money as to become so powerful they can control everyone else. There is a reason this is only 5% of the country. It’s a small number. The middle and poor classes should still be strong, just not get as much money as the rich, simply because they do not deserve to get paid as much as the rich: this is capitalism. You get more money if you work harder. It is how our economy works. These issues directly tie into Adam Smith’s vision of an economic system. Capitalism allows the drive to do better to control the economy. When people are driven to do better and make more money, they have a choice: either they can do better and make more money, or they can get left behind in the dust.
DeleteI think it’s fair to tax the wealthier members of society more heavily than the poor are taxed because the livelihoods of the wealthy are not jeopardized by some additional taxation. While the lower classes are struggling to make ends meet, the wealthy taxpayer can afford to give proportionately a little bit more money in order to improve the nation we live in and to assist the less fortunate. When given the opportunity to help people who genuinely need assistance financially, it would be selfish to withhold, especially when one has the means to do so without considerable economic blowback.
DeleteIn response to question 4, I believe that the health care system will always involve high costs due to the utter atrocious quality of many American's eating habits. 34.9% (78 million adults) were reported to be obese. The health costs for those who were obese are $147 billion dollars in 2008. So by now the costs have most likely risen as obesity becomes a growing problem. The numerous diseases caused by obesity have allowed for health care companies to raise prices due to high demand of treatments that people need to survive. A healthier America is the easiest solution to health care, however, this is clearly not going to happen any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt that obesity is a huge problem in America that does not help the issue of health care. However, I believe this is not the only problem that causes the rise in the cost of health care. Since this problem will also not improve any time soon, the easiest solution may lie elsewhere in improving other problems that contribute.
DeleteObamacare needs a lot of work and needs to be remodeled altogether. While I agree that obesity is an enormous issue in America, there are still many other problems out there besides obesity. America is no longer the fattest country in the world according to CBS News, as Mexico is now number one. So as you can see we are making progress. If we had a healthcare plan that not only aided sick people but prevented people from getting sick in the first place, that would be much more cost effective. I'm saying that we need a nationwide campaign to promote healthy habits; there are many people in the country who are uneducated about healthy eating. Many kids don't even know what a carrot looks like or from where it grows. Michelle Obama has done a lot to help spread awareness. If we incorporate something like that into a healthcare plan, it could be very beneficial.
DeleteOf course you can't instantly solve obesity, but does that mean that the Affordable Care Act shouldn't be in place? Honestly in my opinion Obama's health care policy is good in theory, but it must be carried out properly which I do not believe it has been so far. To address your comment Matt, I honestly believe that people who have conditions such as obesity (specifically obesity not caused by medical conditions) or perhaps even smoking should have to pay more for health insurance
DeleteHaldeman, I agree that the health care system will always involve high costs, but I have other reasons for its decline. First and foremost, the unnecessary use of medical procedures in order to generate profit for corporations, hospitals, and physicians prove to be inefficient.. For example, around 80% of MRIs that are ordered are not needed. They are performed to generate profit, and not necessarily to benefit the true needs of the individual. In order to fix this, i would propose that the government enacts stricter laws preventing corporations and independent phyisicans from obtaining profits from these unnecessary tests.
DeleteThere are many other factors that contribute to the Affordable Care Act's high costs besides obesity. One of these is the employer mandate, which requires businesses with over 50 full-time employees to provide coverage. The issue here is that some businesses have cut employee hours in order to escape the mandate. As a result, some employees are left without coverage, and with less hours (and less pay), health care is much more expensive for them. This situation is directly contrary to what the Act is meant to achieve. A solution to this problem could be to amend the employer mandate, requiring companies to help their employees afford health care while not fully paying for it.
DeleteHaldeman, I agree with Matt and Sam in that there are numerous other factors to this health plan besides obesity. In fact, the Affordable Care Act has tremendous upsides as I am sure you are more than aware of. Of course a healthier America is the easiest solution to health care, and what is better than free health aid for more than just those who can afford it. This program not only makes it easier for lower class families to achieve health care but also helps hospitals and other health providers the ability to effectively make a profit instead of having to retrieve the money from the people that can't afford it in a different way. For example, many hospitals actually end up suing the customers that can't afford it. As a result of the Act, hospitals have seen their profit rate go up. All in all, I believe that the health care system is a crucial improvement in order to create a more healthy, stabilized America.
DeleteYeah I agree with Josie, Sam, ect. I agree that some lifestyle choices can reduce the risk of disease, but there are also many Americans with preexisting conditions or unavoidable illnesses who would greatly benefit from the Affordable Care Act. Obesity may be preventable through diet and exercise, but what about the American with cystic fibrosis that can’t afford treatment? Should we just allow that person to die? Personally, I think we can help lower the cost of healthcare by trying to increase competition between companies that sell medical supplies to healthcare workers. If those prices decrease, then the overall cost of healthcare will decrease as well.
DeleteHealthcare in other countries are "free", such as Canada. Their healthcare system is paid off is paid off by higher taxation which includes basic services such as ER and regular doctor visits (this however excludes "luxury services" such as chiropractors and dentists). Due to the overall health of America, as Haldeman pointed to obesity as one problem, the reconstruction of American healthcare, through any form will be difficult. However, I believe if taxation, like that in Canada, is raised to fuel the costs of healthcare, it can be provided for everyone. It also needs the involvement of those willing to step up as benefactors and to contribute to the funding of such a project. Obesity is not the only problem, as other health issues like Alzheimer's (with a death rate of 24.8% in America), should be a catalyst for the upstart and push to create a stable working healthcare system available for all classes.
DeleteI agree with Matt on regards to healthcare. He brings up some good solutions to solving the free healthcare problems, such as taxation and donation. However, I feel that due to Republican majority in Congress the possibility of taxes on wealthier people is less likely. However, I do feel that a better solution would be for the government to set aside a portion of money each year to consistantly lower the cost of healthcare in the United States.I agree with Obama's healthcare plan, but feel that he could have unrolled it in a slower more effectual way such as over a 3 year period. It was too abrupt and this led to some public reaction that was irrational and ignorant.
DeleteBryan, although I agree with your idea about obamas too-quick health care plan, I have one concern with your post. You say that a better solution would be for the government to set aside a portion of money each year to lower health care. However, the money that the government will set aside will still be taxpayer's money, and the money that is set aside will most likely take away from another government funded project/organization, which will either reduce a necessary benefit for Americans, or maybe lead to higher taxes. The idea of setting aside money could work, but I think you should specify where this money is coming from.
Deletemith did not want government intervention in the economy. He also sounded like he didn't like economic abuses like monopolies, ridiculous taxes...
ReplyDeleteIf we tax the rich too much, we are not helping. Why? Because rich people employ many people sometimes, so eliminate the rich mostly, and who will be left to hire in large numbers? If you tax the rich too much and take too much from them, what happens when they are no longer exactly rich? Who's money do you take then? And if in the end there is a big fine basically for being rich, that does not motivate people, because their hard earned money won't even be worth it. What's the point of trying when it is taken from you?
Sure there is income inequality. It sucks, I know. I know people economically disadvantaged. There is corruption, greed... but you also have to realize the crucial role that the rich play in our society. And also that income inequality has ALWAYS existed and NEVER will go away. The trend's been happening for 1,000's of years. Why do we think it will ever end? There will always be someone with more. We can help people and help to stop certain corruption, but let's face it. It is never going away.
*Smith
DeleteMine is for 2 and 3
DeleteI somewhat agree with Erin’s reasons for not taxing the rich too much, but I believe that it is necessary to do this to some extent. All of their money wouldn’t be taken to the point where no one has motivation to even become wealthy. They would simply be paying more than the middle and lower class which makes sense because they have the money to afford these costs. It’s more unfair to make people who struggle economically pay a lot of tax money while the rich are left with money to spare.
Deleteyeah I see where you come from... and I meant that if the trend of "take from the rich" continues on and progresses... if we do too much to them, we won't be helping. However, taxes are important. Maybe there should be some small difference in paying, but nothing so drastic. I think that maybe motivation could be lost if we keep adding things that the rich should fund. Because I mean even the upper middle class will be getting some of that taxing against them. So it doesn't just affect millionaires... but also people that are better off than others, but not to the same amount. I guess I mean that if this idea progresses, of how unfair it is to have more money, we could in theory end up with some bad results. Right now, it is not the worst. But if we keep adding on, and keep going at it, it will get worse.
DeleteI completely agree with you, Erin. The solution is simple Trickle Down Economics in which wealthy business owners create more jobs, thus increasing the wealth of the employees. This solution is ideal in order to keep the rich from being taxed too heavily; the rich will not need to be taxed to supply more money to the lower classes because they would be doing so by paying their employees. It is understandable why this concept may not be practical, but taxing the rich will have the same result.
DeleteI completely agree with Erin and Sam. Trickle Down Economics is crucial to creating a stable economy. Like Erin said, of course there is economic inequality, but that is inevitable and it will not go away. No, the economy is not perfect, but Obama's plans will create new problems, not create a perfect society. Wealthy business owners provide jobs to many people and if their wealth is taken away, many people may lose their job in response to shrinking businesses as Erin said. While I agree with Nikki that it is unfair for the less wealthy to be taxed, the wealthy should not be "punished" for their success.
DeleteSam, I think that no solution in “simple” when it comes to economics. While I do agree that Trickle Down Economics will help solve this problem, it is likely to make more problems. If the rich are taxed less, the poor must be taxed more. Yet that would increase the problems that Obama is trying to overcome with his new plan. The poor need money, and the rich won’t give theirs away. This is a dilemma that all leaders of all nations have experienced throughout time. I believe that no new plan proposed will fully alleviate the US of its economic problems. The only way to help the economy is only to try to lessen the effects of the problems, rather than fix them completely.
DeleteI’m not arguing against the merits of trickle-down economics, but I still think that making the rich pay more taxes and closing the gap among the classes in terms of economic resilience and benefits could be beneficial. Mainly, I think we should focus on getting the lower class on their feet so that they can increase overall productivity. Free community college, paid sick/maternity/paternity leave, and requirement for companies to pay workers a living wage could all accomplish this. Sure, companies may lose money at first (although studies conducted in New York and Los Angeles have shown that requiring a living wage only costs 1-2% extra income for companies and number of employees do not decrease), but helping the poor earn more and tax less will allow them to better the economy in multiple ways. If the poor get chances to be educated, they can also open up business to provide more jobs. In addition, if they get good jobs and are able to get a higher salary, that will in turn decrease the need for the government aid programs, which will ultimately lower taxes anyway.
DeleteErin, I completely agree with your reasoning. Why should the wealthy 1% have their money taken away because other people have less money than them? Look at North Korea, where there is economic equality. Everyone there is suffering as a result of the communist government. We live in a country certainly where there is equal opportunity, but some might have to work harder to get benefits from it. Why should the rich have to pay just because someone doesn’t have as much money as them? The wealthy 1% are generally wealthy because they or someone in their family worked hard for their money… If people want to see income equality and a society where everyone is financially equal, then they might as well support a communist society.
DeleteElissa, I see your point, but i have to disagree. I do not believe that someone should have such a big economic advantage over others simply because their family members worked hard. In addition, many lower class people also work hard, but are not provided with the same resources. If they were, there would likely be more businesses and jobs. And yes, communism does not work. Communism is too extreme, but the idea that the rich should just pay 3-4% more in taxes to benefit the economy is not.
DeleteElissa, I disagree with your specific point that "We live in a country certainly where there is equal opportunity." Even ignoring biases that help certain people get ahead (ex: racial and gender stereotypes,) it can be significantly more difficult for people born in different situations to acquire the education and resources needed to advance in the traditional way. For example, funding to public education (K-12): “[School] Districts in the top 20 percent of average resident income are budgeted to spend slightly more than $4,000 more per student this year than the poorest 20 percent of districts”**. People who grew up in districts with wealthier families not only receive a generally better education, but they also can afford the resources needed to help their child succeed in standardized ways and improve their resume for college (SAT prep books and tutors, subject tutors, school supplies, AP Test books…). Though academically-driven students still have to work extremely hard to succeed in their academic endeavors, I do not see it as equal to the demands put on children and teenagers in poorer areas that cannot afford so many educational resources and that put more pressure on the kids to help their family financially. Of course, there is and will always be exceptions. People who have lower income because they are lazy and do not push with the same drive as people in higher classes. People enjoy the benefits of wealth sometimes because they worked with extraordinary drive towards their goals, sometimes because they were born into a position that gave them the resources to pursue more lucrative positions, and sometimes for both reasons. If generally equal opportunity is something you value, it would be more beneficial to provide the kickstart for people in difficult situations than to blame people in low social positions solely on their work ethic.
DeleteMelody, I disagree with you. I do not think it is fair for one person whose family members worked harder to have a great economic advantage over others, but this income inequality helps our nation’s economy because of Trickle Down Economics (which Sam pointed out earlier). Focusing on getting the lower class on their feet would be ideal, but that is exactly my point- such a solution may be more fair, but also rather idealistic. Would the rich actually allow for this to happen? Some rich people, even if the number is very small, evade taxes or try to pay the minimum now, so they would be able to do the same if taxes are raised, as you suggest. Also, I stated this in a different post, but the wealthy have money and therefore power to ensure that they do not pay a significantly greater tax than the middle and lower classes.
Delete(posting on behalf of Ethan Cook) I would like to discuss the topic of our healthcare. While I do agree that we need to fix our healthcare system, I don't believe that removing Obamacare is the solution. What I believe some of the problems are that we have people who choose to abuse the system and others people money for them to not to change their position. To solve this problem I would propose the idea of limiting the amount of care given until the people have definite proof that they are actively trying to fix their situation, and not wasting the money of the people who actually work for it.
ReplyDeleteEthan, I disagree, I think that the first step to improving the healthcare system would be to remove Obamacare. One of the defining factors of Obamacare is that everyone is required to buy health insurance. From what I can tell, you're saying that those who put forth less effort deserve less healthcare. If people put in no effort at all, they should not receive healthcare. This contradicts one of the central planks of Obamacare. Also, how can you tell who is actively trying to fix his situation and who is not? Obamacare is the main problem with the healthcare system, and should be the first to go.
DeleteEthan, I agree. You are right, there are abusers of the system... I know people that do not deserve to be in the system, they lied about needing help, and they don't try to actively work for themselves to improve their lives. And they have been doing this for years. We do need people to provide concrete proof of actually needing help and of them trying to work harder to make their lives better. The sooner we do, the sooner costs go down, and the sooner people who actually need help more readily get help. Because people who leech the system, they don't only hurt taxpayers, but they also really hurt people who really DO need the help. I don't like Obamacare either... has made costs go up. I hear people complaining about it. It was meant to help people that are in worse conditions, but I one time had a friend, who comes from a type of home that Obamacare would be trying to help, complaining about Obamacare and how it was actually costing his family more.
DeleteAnother problem with Obamacare is its demand to buy certain parts of health care when one has a private health insurer such as maternal care and birth control. It restricts the private insurers of having an a-la-carte system that gives the buyer the choice. This healthcare act for free health care and all is a nice decision and its very helpful to many Americans. But we have always allowed people to choose what they want to protect their medical expenses and items, why now are we forced to have certain items on our plans. This plan forces people who have private health insurance plans to spend money they could use to help their community, and/or, help local extracurriculars at school, and/or keep the earth clean. etc. I know I focused on the effects obamacare has on private insurers instead of problems of the plan internally, but this is still going to be a problem that may get it repealed in the future if a very conservative president and congress get together.
DeleteEthan, I agree with what you were saying in the sense that yes, Obamacare provided healthcare to all people, even those who could not afford it themselves. This was Obamacare's goal, however, the resulting ramifications are great and may outweigh this benefit. This system as mentioned by Joey, results in healthcare being more expensive for those who already have it and results in unneeded and unwanted "benefits" being forced upon them. Additionally, I am in agreement with Michelle- how can it be determined who is working towards not needing government-provided healthcare? And how can you deny people healthcare using a system that is trying to provide everyone with healthcare. Obamacare has become a fiscal drain on all members of the country to provide for few who may or may not be trying to be able to support themselves without the government.
DeleteIn response to question to 3, I believe that the system of the income margin become greater is unfair. Although it could be stated that the rich have worked for their money just as much as the poor, the varying economic responses from both classes identifies an issue with the economics of the U.S. This has not occurred by chance. The privaleges of the few should be distributed to the few. Perhaps through means of increased taxation this gap could be reduced. The plans implemented by the government to increase taxes of the richer in our country are justified and this will help to reduce the income margin in this country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Arthur's comment. Although the rich may have worked hard for their success not everyone is born on an equal playing field. Hence opportunities may have been hard to come by. Therefore I think that the current system is unfair and therefore I believe that this issue should be mended. I would agree that increased taxation on the rich would help close this gap.
DeleteI agree with both Arthur and Saura, I believe that the rich have an obligation to give some of their profits to the society which housed their growth. Although some have worked hard for their money, it is essential for opportunity to exist among the lower classes. It is impossible for the lower classes to have such opportunities with such an economic gap. This topic, of the margin between rich and poor, also applies to the topics of taxation, in that the rich need to give back to society by means of sharing the opportunities that were given to them. In this process, society can advance much faster.
DeleteI agree with most of the statements made above, but I have to say I disagree with Matt's statement saying that the rich have an obligation to give their profits to society. They're not obliged or expected to do anything because they too have worked their way up to the top and although the economic gap seems unfair, it is partially society's fault for creating such a gap in the first place. Increased taxation on the rich seems reasonable, but I believe that plans of increasing job opportunities and creating educational facilities for lower and middle classes to earn money and become more knowledgeable may be more beneficial in the long run.
DeleteI agree with Sarah in that the rich do not have an obligation to give up their profits to society. The basic idea of capitalism is that each individual in society pursues his or her own self interest. If this individual's service is needed by society, then this individual will earn profits. Like it or not, the rich stay rich by working hard and providing a service that society needs. In a society of economic freedom, they should be allowed to control the fruits of their labor.
DeleteI definitely agree with Sarah. Instead of pushing against the rich by taxing them, the country should instead work with the poor by increasing the amount of job opportunities available. That way, the option for the poor to have a better job is there; so then it is solely up to the person to decide what they want to do with their life. This way, the rich won’t be upset or rebel because the government is not “punishing” them, but is instead just working with the poor to open up opportunities.
DeleteI must disagree with Sarah, Sophia, and Hannah. It is easy to just tell the poor to work harder and make a better life for themselves, but often times these people are not even given the right resources to make this happen. Also I think it is irresponsible for us as privileged citizens to sit back and pretend to ignore the dire situations in poorer, more violent areas. This is the easy way out. It is very difficult to give back, and I think that is what we must do now to create the best America possible. I agree that the rich have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but maybe they can cut down on the extravagance and understand the bigger picture. The rich are the minority in America, so we should be more concerned with a rebellion from the lower classes. We want the poor to increase their standard of living, but the rich must contribute to this cause. Logically, they must pay increased taxes to help set up social programs that will help the underprivileged advance.
DeleteArthur, why should the rich be obligated to give money to the poor? The rich are oftentimes the people who are providing job opportunities for people who might be less financially secure. In this way, they are supporting the economy and giving poorer people jobs. If they are already helping society, why should they be forced by the government to do even more? The top 1% work hard to earn their money, so why should they in turn be required to give it away to people who are less motivated? I think it should be a choice. The wealthy have often created businesses because they have they take risks and have the motivation to improve their lives and the lives of others. If their funds are taken from them, how will their businesses continue to support other people and to provide society with so many other benefits?
DeleteI agree with Elissa. The 1% worked hard to be the 1%. They studied hard and worked hard for the lifestyle they live. In every society, there will be the rich and poor. It is only natural. If the poor want to be the 1%, then they should stop whining and educated their kids so their kids can work hard in school and become the 1%. The only way the poor can rise from poverty is through education and this could take years and generations. The rich are not obligated to help the poor.
DeleteI do agree that the rich are not obligated to help the poor, but I think they should pay more in taxes. I believe an equal percentage tax would be fair so that the more you make the more you give. However, the upper class should definitely not be taxed excessively. The ability to accumulate large amounts of wealth or become dirt poor is fundamental to capitalism, so people who have worked to be successful should not be punished for it, they should be encouraged. Upward mobility and striving drives the economy and American society. It also gives people the ability to make their own future.
DeleteIn response to a lot of the objection, i must agree that the rich do give a lot to society. However, the poor are not given the same opporunities as they should be. In approximately 20 years, 2/3 of jobs will need a higher education other than a high school degree. If the future of society is not given the opportunity fo succeed, then our future is hopeless. The rich, although they have worked hard o earn their money, should aid in this unfair process of not fueling our future generations by educating them. It is the moral thing to do. We cannot live in a selfish society when we know that future generations will be under the most pressure ever seen to act on pressing issues.
DeleteI absolutely agree with some of Arthur's points. Although many people take "going to college" as a given, it is simply not an option for a vast amount of people in our country. If a huge portion of our jobs require a college degree, how will the members of the lower class of society ever successfully be able to escape this cycle? It sounds easier to do than it actually is.
DeleteI think that the rich do not have an obligation to hep the poor, but it should be something that is highly recommended to them instead. I understand that there is a huge rising issue with the increasing income gap; however, it is not something that this 1% of the nation should be forced to help with. I feel that instead, there should be more awareness given to this situation aimed specifically to the wealthy so that they will at least know about this rising crisis and decide on whether or not they would like to help the cause. It's not like everyone that is wealthy is selfish and will refuse to give some money to help the nation. Obviously, there will be some kind, giving individuals who will help out the cause. However, just because there is a crisis in the nation does not mean that people's individual rights should be given up against their will for the betterment of society. Only until this problem comes to a terrible point where it is necessary for strict action to be taken should the wealthy be forced to pay higher taxes.
DeleteIn response to question 2, I fully support President Obama’s recent series of initiatives, specifically the steps he’s taken towards providing tuition-free community colleges for impoverished areas. The only way to break the cycle of poverty in urban centers is to create a stronger and more valuable workforce, which can only be accomplished by providing the region’s youth with a more extensive education. Though the wealthier taxpayers will have to pay more, I believe that this system is necessary and not very intrusive. To say that the people living in impoverished communities don’t deserve a chance to build a better life for not only themselves, but their families as well is heartless. As American citizens in the upper-middle class, it would be selfish for us not to be taxed more heavily. We have the means to make a positive contribution to society; a contribution that lower-income citizens realistically can’t make. To put it simply, we are the only ones who can help so either we do something and rise to the occasion or nothing will ever improve.
ReplyDeleteBen you are absolutely correct. Education and jobs are necessary to breaking the poverty cycle. But I think you need to add more emphasis to Obama closing loopholes. The upper classes can be taxed and taxed but if the unfair institutions for sustaining wealth are not broken there will never be a long term solution. The wealth cycle must no longer be perpetuated, which I believe lies in closing those loopholes Obama spoke.
DeleteI agree in the emotional sense that community college for everyone is very important, but eventually that will not be enough. Competition is always around and previously just a high school diploma could get you a job. As time continued a college degree became more needed, then now for many jobs even more education than that, like a masters can be needed. So i totally agree that a higher education with specified degrees is beneficial to impoverished societies, but i also believe it will not make as big of a change in the long run, and the economic effects and taxes raises would be too drastic.
DeleteSince our course is the study of history we see that societies prosper when the class system is set up as distinct levels that have the rich not have such a higher percentage of their pay compared to the lower classes. Capitalism is the way to run because of what we have become. First is started in Greece and Rome where the desire for many objects was the desire of man, but only in the wealthiest of people. Then the renaissance of which people started to want art, fashion, silks, medicine, knowledge, the need for power as well. Then middle classes like merchants and craft workers make money and are able to afford these fine items. In times of Kings and Queens the peasants start to desire things like gold silver, and spices. This materialism spreads further and further, until the 1950's where all hell breaks loose. People can buy he finest of goods for cheaper prices, and continue to buy new versions every time they come out. We are more materialistic than we have ever been before, but the more the economy is controlled, the worse the economy gets. Corporations are so well developed that small businesses are only effective in certain areas, but we have no right to deny the corporations right to sell. Some of the rich today are corrupt such as CEOS who complain about taxes and how their corporation is failing. This is their fault and they should fail. Their should be no government support because these corrupt individuals who more about their money than their business should fail. Yes they may be economically conservative, but it is hypocritical in their and my viewpoint if they disobey trickle down economics. But without trickling down the money to new equipment jobs are saved. Those millionaires could spend money on manufacturing items mostly built by machines. So in one we have self promotion saving jobs and the other advancing technology, but losing many blue-collar jobs.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to question two, I believe that Obama’s initiative is very plausible. The only way to open more opportunities for the poor and create less of a gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor is to give them the option of college. With that being said, although many of the rich will be upset with it, the only real way to fund this is to tax the rich. The rich will definitely say that they don’t deserve to be taxed more, but when it really comes down to it, it won’t affect them in a drastic way. Whether they are taxed or not, they will still be rich.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Hannah that Obama’s initiatives are plausible, and I also agree that the rich will most definitely be opposed to his initiatives. While it does make sense for the rich to pay more as they won’t be drastically affected, I think that Obama proposes an unfair way (at least in the eyes of the rich) to fund these initiatives. I do see that free community college, paid sick leave, and paid maternity/paternity leave would help those in need economically, but I also feel that everyone but the rich would benefit from Obama’s initiative. (I know, the rich already enjoy so many benefits, but we need to think about whether the initiatives will be put into action. If the rich were very against this, they would definitely have the power- the money- to fight it.) It would be one thing if everyone paid a little for something that the middle and lower classes could utilize, but it is different because the rich are paying more for something they most likely do not need. I think it would be great for Obama’s initiatives to be put into action because they would surely promote education and aid the greatly disadvantaged and less fortunate, but I do not believe they will be put into action (at least, not in the near future- if I am proved wrong, I would be happy about it).
DeleteI very much so agree with what both Hannah and Rachel said regarding free community college and where to get the money to fund it. However, we must consider the possible questions that would come our way if this was to be put in action. Hypothetically if this were to happen and the rich were the main people that were taxed to fund impoverished people's education, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't be rich anymore because so much of their money would be taken away? Then would the middle class become the new rich, and then they would begin being taxed? Will this become a continuous cycle?
DeleteI agree with Hannah's opening sentences. While I can see the obvious uproar that comes along with any rise in taxes, I think that it is very important that everyone receive a college education should they want to. However, I disagree that taxing the rich is the only way to provide less wealthy people with an education. A variety of organizations in place currently can help provide the financial aid that many of these people need. That being said, I do think that taxing the rich to a certain extent to fund this is entirely okay. It is for a worthy cause. I think that it isn't entirely fair that the rich should have to pay excessive amounts of money for something that they will never benefit from, but to a point it is fair.
DeleteI disagree with Hannah's comments. Why is taxing the rich the only way to provide education for lower class kids? There are other ways to provide education. One of these ways is through student loans. If you claim that giving these kids the ability to go to college will help society and their social classes, then why can't that student take out loans to go to school and pay it off with the money that they should be able to make after finishing their education? I think that it is ridiculous that once again the rich are getting called upon to do another "social deed" to others who may not have worked as hard as the rich have worked in their lives.
DeleteJackson, I disagree that increased dependence on student loans would be more beneficial. http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2014/02/21/1-trillion-student-loan-problem-keeps-getting-worse/
DeleteJackson, i agree that we should not tax the rich in order to provide education for lower class children. In my opinion, cutting government spending is the best way to go. However, I have to agree with Madeleine here. For years, children throughout the nation have taken out student loans to pay for college. Unfortunately, the amount of money students take out each year is increasing at a large rate. From 2007-2012, the average student loan size went up by 58%. If the salaries that students received coming out of college also went up by 58% in this time period, then there would not be much of a problem. However, this is not practical in the society we live in. Due to the increase in debt, students will not be able to save as much money for the future. These people will not have the ability to save money for their children when they go to college. Their children will have to take out loans, and this problem will continue to extend. We must find an alternative, more practical solution for these lower class citizens.
DeleteI agree with Hannah's statement that free community college would be beneficial to society as a whole. While the rich may protest against Obama's policies, I believe that it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that in order to build a strong economy, we must first create a strong workforce. With the national student debt rising to absurd levels, we must consider the future impact it may have on the economy and take any steps necessary to stave off the negative impact.
DeleteIn response to the question about the funding for Obama's proposed initiatives being fair or not, I believe it is not fair to make the rich pay more. Those who are rich have worked to get where they are monetarily and it is not fair to cut taxes for middle and lower classes and then make the rich pay more. I am not saying that all classes should pay the same, people should pay taxes based on their pay and that tax rate should increase or decrease for members of all classes at the same rate. However, taxing one class more than the other only creates social and political tension.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i agree with you P-schwartz about taxation based on certain criteria, i do believe that you are a tad incorrect when you say "those who are rich have worked to get where they are." There are many Americans who abuse the economic freedom that comes along with capitalism, and i believe that harsher penalties for economic crimes should be imposed in order to discourage people from committing such acts. Appropriate taxation seems to be the best option for our economy because it allows for rewards for hard work, and economic opportunities for those who may be held back by their current economic status. Also, you say that people should pay taxes based on their income and such, but then you say that taxing one class more would create tension. Not everyone in America has the same income, so this system would end up taxing some more than others. Explain that bruhhhhhhhh
DeleteAs much as this hurts me to say, Pat I agree with ya. The american dream is focused on social mobility and without help, some in america currently don't have a prayer of coming anywhere close to the middle class. However I do not think the solution is harsher economic regulations. I think that the solution lies in simplifying and solidifying laws that are being exploited by the wealthy to perpetuate their class. In taking away assurance of leisure, the rich will be more compelled to participate in the economy. That participation is what causes market fluidity and reinstates the hope of social mobility for those under the poverty line
DeleteAdding on to what Patrick said, it does not make sense when you Preston said that it is not fair to make the rich pay more, yet people should pay taxes based on their pay. Those 2 statements are exact opposites. If the rich shouldn't pay more, then every person in America will be paying the same taxes. However, if people are taxed based on their income, everyone pays a different amount based on what each person can afford. If every person in America had to pay the exact same amount for their taxes, people with less money would have huge amounts of debt and would be struggling, which very wealthy people would barely have a dent in their bank accounts.
DeleteI'm agree with Pat and Jack on this point. Many people simply don't have the necessary resources to achieve a better life for themselves. It isn't feasible for us to just sit back and tell the lower classes to "work harder" when they are stuck in an environment that puts them at odds with success. I think while the rich could be taxed a little more heavily (they will still enjoy being richer than the majority of the American population), the capitalist system is often taken advantage of to keep income inequality gap as large as it currently is. Wall Street and even the practice of offshoring are both massive money-making/saving corporations and practices. These just keep the wealthy above everyone else, and I doubt this is really the intent of capitalism. While yes, there are winners and losers, economic crimes are committed regularly to essentially negate the actual purpose of capitalism. I agree with both Pat and Jack that there should be harsher punishments and a real review of economic laws that will ensure a more active economy.
DeleteI too agree with Rohan. People should be taxed based on their income. How can you expect the poor to achieve financial success or growth if they are constantly in debt due to a struggle to pay taxes?
DeleteI agree with Pat and Jack. While to a degree it disgusts me that 99% of the population shares the wealth of America equally with 1%, I believe that IDEALLY taxes should not be increased on the wealthy. The wealthy have become so through hard work in one way or another, inherited or not, someone worked for the money that they have. It's unfair to take the wealthy's money simply because they are wealthy. Taking money from the wealthy or upper middle class inevitably removes the desire for people to work hard to earn money since for their success they are rewarded by having their earnings ripped away from them. However, due to America's certainly unideal national economy as resulting from stagflation that is leaving many without money or work to earn it, there has to be some sort of reprieve for the less wealthy people. Moreover, tax cuts for the less wealthy and tax increases for the overly wealthy based on income seem to be the most reasonable way to provide this.
DeleteInstead of just focusing on taxing the rich through a lot of tax money to help battle income inequality, why don't we cut unnecessary spending, so taxes won't be needed as badly, and therefore lowered? This country wastes so much, and our government spends too much too. We cut spending and wasting, then we won't need to be taxing as much. That is one way to also help. Also, we focus so much on the role the rich should play for society. Yet most of us won't see immediate action, and we can't directly change the tax systems ourselves. So we may have opinions about how things should be done in the US but the reality is, these things are out of reach to an extent. If we want to start seeing changes faster, and in a way that is not controversial, we should all take an active role in each of our communities to help those in need in our communities. Why wait around for a change in the system and for the money of the rich? That will take awhile, and may get messy. We could all be volunteering our time to help the poor. If more people went and joined a volunteering organization, we would see faster results. We would see communities become better if the members of the community help out their neighbors and surrounding areas more. If we all started helping instead of waiting for the government and the rich, the results could be amazing and life changing to some. As well as discussing ways to help the unfortunate, we should simultaneously be helping the unfortunate around us. Because there would be faster results there. We all want to help diminish inequality? Then let's stop waiting around and focusing most of our time on debating on how to diminish inequality and start getting out there and joining volunteering organizations. Because that is a sure way to begin diminishing inequality.
ReplyDeleteIf each little town/community focused on their community and helping out the people in their own areas, and towns/communities nationwide started doing this, then we could see faster results. We cannot expect change and income equality to happen in such a large way. It has to happen in bits and pieces. Humans work better in smaller numbers. I'm not saying towns and communities should become isolated from each other. I am saying that if the people of each town/community look after and care for and help their area, and multiple towns/communities do this, we could see a more effective and faster result of help to the unfortunate. Because it wouldn't be as hard for people if they had to focus on helping a smaller area. And if multiple areas were now being helped more effectively... then add them all together and you might have a better situation.
DeleteIt all just depends on people's willing to take action and help out.
I think that different economic systems carry with them different pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is very good in that it leads to innovation and progress (due to the competition between businesses), but it inherently carries with it inequality.
As another economic system, communism also has pros and cons: it provides equality among people, but does not account for the vices of human nature, and often leads to corruption of some of its core ideals.
In my opinion, communism is a better system in theory, while capitalism is better in practice.
Adam Smith supported laissez-faire economic policies and was a proponent for capitalism. He would therefore choose capitalism over communism any day of the week. However, recent Wall Street practices are different than the capitalism that Smith envisioned and therefore the economy in modern times may be something that Smith would not support.
I agree with Reno in saying communism is better in theory, but capitalism is better in practice. Communism in theory provides equality and if all people listen to the government and continue to do all they can to improve all inventions and technology the society will still thrive. Capitalism is easier and better in practice, but nearly impossible to find in a completely pure form. Without any intervention monopolies and trusts form that limit the amount of competition that can occur.
DeleteI think that it is CRAZY to say that communism is a better concept in any situation, in theory or in practice. First of all, if its proven to be a failure, then HOW can you call in better in theory? If it is not good in practice, that means its not good in theory either. Making everyone equal is impossible, so therefore it really is not a better theory. Capitalism does lead to innovation and competition as you said, and you have to work hard in order to succeed. Communism leads to evil, social mayhem, and close to no innovation and progress. Adam Smith would not support the fact that the government is continuously gaming more influence within our economy and society. At this point in history, Smith would definitely tell the Obama administration to keep their hands out of the economy and to rely on trickle-down economics.
Delete*gaining more influence
DeleteIt is not CRAZY to think that a utopia sounds nice in theory. We all agree that its not practical and proven to not work so that's all that matters. However, a true capitalist society does not work all that well in practice either. Just as communism brings out the natural laziness in people, capitalism brings out our natural greed. Yes innovation and competition are great until those ideas are overridden by monopolies that control everything. Basically, unless you are someone like the Koch brothers, you don't want true capitalism. Instead, capitalism combined with some governmental regulations provides the opportunity for more people to compete which leads to more competition and more need for innovation.
DeleteI agree with James here. I believe because of America's history with communism, we become ignorant and totally discredit the communist system. Communism would make everyone equal, but because we humans are selfish we don't like this idea at all. We want to be able to do better than other people and try to be different than everyone else. So I don't think communism is such an "evil" and we should really take more time to analyze instead of immediately discrediting an idea. Capitalism has been better in practice, but obviously comes with its own flaws. The government has to play a role in regulating capitalism so that the class gap isn't as large as it is.
DeleteWhat about the merits of European style socialism?
DeleteWhat about the merits of European style socialism?
DeleteEuropean style socialism is awesome because it is almost always in the favor of the people. It is neither as extreme as capitalism nor communism, but instead a happy medium that involves. Countries that use this form of socialism utilize welfare states to fund public health care or pay for maternity leaves among other benefits. Even though it's a concept closer to communism than capitalism, the European style of socialism works and it makes sense.
Deletehttp://theweek.com/articles/451187/conservatives-should-embrace-socialist-europeanstyle-economics
And Jackson, just because communism doesn't work doesn't mean its a good theory. A society in which nobody has to suffer from being less wealthy or having less opportunity sounds pretty good to me. The problem is the execution of it and it doesn't seem like any country will be able to do that successfully in the foreseeable future.
Regarding the way our country has handled social inequalities in the past, I think anything is possible, but it will certainly take time. Change takes time, and it is very plausible to strengthen the middle class. Furthermore, things have been done in history that were not thought possible. Going back to the late 1700s up until the Civil Rights Movements, nobody thought blacks would receive equal treatment as the whites. However, the two groups eventually became more equal. So, anything can be done, but how long it will take cannot be known.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah. However, the blacks are still not equal to the whites. There is still a large pay gap between blacks and white. Blacks have been achieving more equality overtime, but I still think that complete equality is a long time away.
DeleteI agree with some of the points that both Hannah and Eric have made, but I think that Eric has brought up something that we should all think about. Although I support equality between blacks and whites, I do not think that anybody can say “complete equality” exists. Hannah is absolutely right that the two groups have become more equal since the Civil Rights Movements, but more equal doesn’t necessarily mean that we are exact. Like Eric has mentioned, there is still a large pay gap between blacks and whites which is just one of many reasons why both groups are not completely equal. Overtime, things have gotten better, but there is still a lot more to improve on. While I continue to encourage equality between blacks and whites, I too agree that complete equality is a long time away.
DeleteI agree with Hannah and Eric in that an issue like this must take time to resolve. Historically, the policies of the American government have always favored the rich. The increasing income gap between the rich and the poor in modern times is similar to that of the 1920's, which is not an economic era we would wish to emulate. One example of this favoritism towards the rich is the constant adversity towards the estate tax in government. While many citizens are aware of the inequalities regarding the rich and the poor, the support for the abolishment of a tax that only applies to the unbelievably wealthy only shows the advantage that the wealthy have over the lower class. One reason for this inherent inequality may simply be the optimism that American citizens possess, a belief that American only consists of people who have already made it and people who have yet to work hard to achieve their dreams. This optimism may further perpetuate the systematic inequalities inherent in this country.
DeleteFollow up question: There is absolutely such thing as systematic inequality. Sure, there are the typical lazy people who don't work hard and that's why they're poor. But there are also many hard-working individuals who are basically stuck because of the situation that they are put in. Americans are supposed to work for the common goal of betterment of the country as a whole, but the more recent trend is that of working solely in self-interest. Of course you should benefit from working hard, but the upper class needs to realize that it is their duty to assist those individuals who suffer from systematic inequality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Noah. I think one of the methods for dealing with historic inequality is affirmative action. Giving minorities an advantage when applying for a job or college is a fair thing to do. Many of the poor people are minorities as a result of the inequality they or their family members endured. Many poor people work hard, but are unable to break the cycle of poverty. Many poor people cannot afford an education, and therefore they cannot get good jobs. Most of the lowest paying jobs do not require an education.
Deletei agree that systematic inequality exists, but i do not know if affirmative action is necessarily the best way to fix it. It will be very difficult to fix these inequalities but the way it should be fixed must be based on merit. It is true, as Eric stated, that many of the poor people are minorities and do not have the chance to rise up the economic ladder because the situation they were born in. it is also unfair that other individuals, who are not necessarily brighter or more skilled, get the added advantage of wealth, however, with all this in mind, the best way to fix past inequality is more inequality. instead of affirmative action i would like to see the higher classes fund more programs for the those less fortunate, if this means more taxes for them, or everyone in society for that matter, than so be it.
DeleteNoah, i completely agree with you that there is systematic inequality. There is a huge difference between individuals who are too lazy to work and those individuals who work hard but are put in a tough situation. The wealthy upper class in this society have opened up so many opportunities for these people as well. The amount of jobs that have been created due to the determination from these wealthy individuals cannot be ignored. With that being said, I have to put the government on the spot here, not the wealthy.I believe that the government has to make more of an effort to cut unnecessary spending from its budget. This would make more of an impact than raising taxes from the wealthy. Besides, many Americans have the perception that their tax money is not being put to good use. In a recent study, Americans believe that the government wastes 51 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes. That is over half the money Americans give to the government. The government has to be held more accountable for this systematic inequality.
Deletehttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/eliminating-waste-and-controlling-government-spending. (This is the link to the study.)
I will try not to be repetitive here but Noah and Eric make excellent points. Systemic inequality is definitely rooted within our society. However, I do think that in reference to college admissions that there can be debates over where it is taken too far. I would also like to make it clear that diversity is absolutely essential within a learning environment in order to allow ideas to reach maximum potential with such differing perspectives. But say there is one caucasian guy and one African American guy applying to the same school, both currently enrolled in the same high school. Both families of the students have the same income per year. If both students have the same exact credentials and merits then should the African American guy be accepted solely so a college can be seen as having diversity? There is certainly a degree of reverse discrimination here that applies directly to this topic. How do we make a fine line between being accepting of others but at the same time treating those with differing ethnicities as you would any other person as seen with the example of college admissions?
DeleteI think Matt brings up a good point here with the idea of reverse discrimination, specifically regarding admissions in college, work, etc. I do believe that this exists in many occupations and educational systems today. I do not think this is a fair way of promoting diversity and equal opportunity because in a way it gives the same affect to the majority group instead of the minority. However, this "fine" line between accepting others along with being equitable in doing so is very tough to abolish because it is how we have built our modern world. I think this is why we see this reverse discrimination becoming more and more common.
DeleteAffirmative Action has been proven to not be a threat the the average middle class student in regards to college admission. International students have displaced far more white middle class students than black americans have.
DeleteThis goes well beyond race, although race is conflated with class. Since all the cuts to education, mostly under Corbett's governance, the achievement gap between poor and rich schools grew exponentially, showing how important state and federal funding is to balancing out the opportunities the different classes have access to.
One of the leading causes of crime and violence is poverty, does it or does it not help middle and upper class Americans to support programs (financially or otherwise) that give poor Americans better opportunities?
I'm not sure if by supporting affirmative action that I'll be directly benefited in some way, but American society will definitely benefit from these programs that help impoverished people. By educating the poor and preparing them for the work for, we not only help these individuals have a successful life, but also help rid of crime and violence. Also, even though it seems unfair for someone who's poor to get into a school instead of you just because of their situation, the same thing happens all the time in reverse. If you have every credential that you need to get into a school but someone's family donates a ton of money to the school, that kid will get accepted ahead of you every single time.
DeleteI agree and disagree with you Noah. I am in agreement that there are types of people who do not put in the effort to get a job and live with the title of "unemployed" to get the benefits from the government and that there are hard working people who are simply unable to retain a well paying job. I disagree when you state that the wealthy should give more to those less fortunate simply for the betterment of the country. We live in a time where there are distinct social classes based mainly on how much money you make and that creates even more selfishness when it comes to giving away money. But we also know that although it wouldn't hurt the wealthy to give more money, whatever they did give wouldn't actually go directly into the pockets of those who don't have as much. Overall the ideology to only work to make money for just yourself is not going to go away as long as the distinct social classes remain based on your salary.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete