Summary Of The Public Overwhelming Wants It

James Madison once stated inequality of the rich and poor predicament to be “evil” and believed that the government should avoid an “immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” (Johnston, 2016). As one of the founding fathers of our nation, James Madison had a concern about the separation between the rich and the poor. He felt the government should do what it could to avoid the separation, which one can infer that he meant for the government to tax the rich by a greater percentage, thus reducing the financial burden on the poor. A rift has always been present between the rich and the poor throughout history. Depending upon the job, the working class may or may not make enough to support a family. At this point, the

In the United States, public policy is shaped by multiple factors, from average citizens voices in elections to interest groups and organizations. In their study, “Testing theories of American politics”, scholars Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens explore the impact of average citizens, the economic elite and interest groups have on the passage of public policy. Additionally through their, Page and Gilens(2014) have found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” (Pg 535). This means that when it comes to the creation of public policies, rich people and groups

Criminologists have long tried to fight crime and they have developed many theories along the way as tools to help them understand criminals. In the process of doing so, criminologist have realized that in order to really understand why criminals are criminals, they had to first understand the interrelationship between the law and society. A clear and thorough understanding of how they relatively connect with criminal behavior is necessary. Therefore, they then created three analytical perspectives which would help them tie the dots between social order and law, the consensus, the pluralist and the conflict perspectives. Each provides a significantly different view of society as relative to the law. However, while they all aim to the same

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

Due to the need for campaign funds by both the Democratic and Republican party, representatives and party leaders are easily influenced by the alluring presence of money presented by the wealthy. Consequently, in terms of economic position, laws and policies tend to favor the privileged rather than the overall majority. For instance, beginning in the 1970s, corporate America started to invest more money and focus into politics. A large amount of corporate spending is on lobbying. In contrast, most Americans don’t have an organization to lobby for them. This being so, because the wealthy have more lobbying clout, the government tends to pay closer attention to the concerns of the very privileged.

In his article “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich”, Warren Buffett criticizes the fact that billionaires in United States actually pay less percentages of taxes than those working-classes. Buffett believes the government needs to stop protecting the “super-rich”.

It is with out a doubt that in our country the United States of America the lower and middle class have the common perception that the government and the “super rich” have some kind of unknown agreement to maintain extremely lower tax rates on the “super rich”. What do the “super rich” do with all the saved money coming from the tax cut is another unknown, perhaps some luxurious new home, car, or maybe put it to work and continue getting richer. While all this may be true to some degree, one of the “super rich” elite members has stepped fourth not only once but a few time but none compare to his current attempt to make change.

When we think about our government we think that it is fair and that since we get to choose who we want to represent us, our government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Some of us are too ignorant, like me, to see that the very way that our government is set up benefits those who are the wealthiest. Instead the American government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. I think that our government does benefit wealthy people and other powerful organizations. The reason that I say this is because there are so many policies and things in our government that mostly benefits those who are the top 1%. Lobbyist mostly stays in the legislative branch but the branches of our government can lobby each other as a way the

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

Another reason that the wealthy should pay more taxes is because they owe it to society to do so. Every person wouldn’t be where they are today without the people who helped raise them and the society they were raised in. In “The Great Gatsby”, Nick Carraway is disgusted with Tom and Daisy, “Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made” (Fitzgerald 179). Nick is repelled by how Tom and Daisy, with all of their money, would do nothing to help the society or other people. Successful people are largely successful due to the society and conditions that they were raised in. Without the better conditions that they were luckily born into, it is logical to question just how successful someone in the top one or ten percent could have been. In a recent commencement speech last summer at Princeton, author Michael Lewis stated “Recognize that if you have had success, you also have had luck—and with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky”. In a

Wealth in relation to the upper class is defined not as income, but “the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts” (Domhoff 2005). Income according to Domhoff, “is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own” (Domhoff 2011). Those who own a great deal of wealth do not derive it from income, although they may have a high income resulting from the returns on their wealth. (Domhoff 2011) As for the power the upper class wields on politics, the economy and the government, it is indirectly carried out “through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are financed and directed by those members of the upper class who have the interest and ability to involve themselves in protecting and enhancing the privileged social position of their class” (Domhoff 2005). This description of the upper class by Domhoff provides the basis for the argument that it institutionally exist - an organized, cohesive group set apart by its wealth and power.

The power elite is able to exert power over society. The power elite’s control over politics demonstrates how inequality is functional. This validates the class-domination theory of power, which is distributed based on economic power. By controlling economic resources, the power elites political influence in government shapes law and those involved in government to the power elites benefit. In today’s American society these laws have impacted both the corporate community and the elite. Furthermore, the author’s portrayal of the elite displayed how the elite have control concerning choices in government policies, elections, and laws.

Prevalent flaws within most modern democracies are evident in their social and economic systems. One such problem, in a system that advocates freedom to do whatever you please, is the consequential wealth disparity (Wong, Oct. 24 lecture, tutorial). Aristotle once said that, “democracy is the form of government in which… the free are the many and the rich are the few”. This highlights a paradox of democracy in that it attempts to be equal to all, yet often the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and an increasing wealth divide will influence governance. Constant writes (pg. 12), “wealth is a power more readily available at any moment… more