Americans for Democratic Action

Too Rich, Too Poor
Posted by Karen Traeger on Jul 25 2012
Blog >>

By: Mary Schaefer

America is a country where wealth is concentrated in the top 1% and people will most likely end up in the same social class as their parents. Today the medium income has decreased in the last decade, but the income of the wealthiest Americans has increased 40%. However, according to certain members of Congress it makes much more sense to cut welfare programs then to let the bush tax cuts expire for those that have been economically successful in the last couple years. Not only is the country suffering socially and economically from inequality in our society but it is suffering politically as well. The rise in poverty correlates with increased polarization in congress, which has made it almost impossible for congress to get anything done.

Is this what the American dream is supposed to be? In many states welfare programs are being cut more and more to the point where only 27% of children living in poverty receive aid from social welfare programs.

In order to restore the middle class, the government should let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for those that make $250,000 a year or more, and establish a tax on stock trading (dubbed the Robin Hood tax). By passing both tax initiatives, the government will be able to raise funds to reestablish government programs that will help people fight their way out of poverty.

If the middle class is able to thrive then there will be a larger educated public and a greater chance for democracy to thrive. Creating more equality in the system will correlate with a decrease in polarization in congress, which will cause Congress to be able to pass laws more efficiently again.

www.americanprogress.org

Back

Comments

False	By Unknown on Jul 30 2012 at 12:09 PM
Those programs show no proof that they actually help anyone fight their way out of poverty. Correlation is NOT causation- for what correlation there even is. Also, the tax cuts, etc, wouldn't raise enough revenue to support social programs on their current arc- unless they were at outlandish levels. Plus, comparing someone living at the poverty line today with someone living at the poverty line 20 years ago is like comparing apples and oranges. The quality of live for everyone has gone up. Goods and services are cheaper, etc.
	By Unknown on Jul 31 2012 at 1:58 PM
Ms Schaefer's description is correct. Moreover, she didn't say correlation equaled causation. The commenter is correct only in arguing that the tax changes she advocates are insufficient to eliminate poverty. For that we need full employment (which will increase revenue and decrease the need for many services to the unemployed), investment in infrastructure, research,and education, and positive encouragement of unions. In addition to the Robin Hood tax on stock transactions, we need to tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income, and take many steps to stop off-shoring of income and investments. States should tax services,in addition to goods, and tax internet sale of goods delivered to their citizens. MSvE
Insinuation	By Unknown on Aug 01 2012 at 10:52 AM
To not point out that there is correlation- and to insunuate causation- is practically the same as claiming causation. Particiaption in Unions has shown, in recent years, to burden the economies of union only states vs. right to work states. Full employment is an impossibility- unless we are breaking windows to fix them again... didn't Bastiat destroy that fallacy? Also, EVERYONE'S standard of living has increased- regardless of definitions of poverty. The poorest among us today have a life of luxury- due to innovations in technology, etc- that were unheard of for middle class citizens of just 30 years ago. Climate control, food preservation and refrigeration, public internet access via libraries, 30 over the air broadcast television channels, $1 movie rentals, grocery stores with a variety of inexpensive goods unheard of to even the wealthiest people in the early 20th century are commonplace and affordable to almost everyone in the early 21st. So, the argument that there is a growing divide is true- but it ignores the fact that it's a growing divide amongst two groups that are both moving in the positive direction. One is just not moving as fast as the other.

Add Comment

Too Rich, Too Poor

By: Mary Schaefer

Comments