It is proven that economic inequality in the United States exists. Nevertheless, the disparity in our wealth can and will end. In fact, David Leonhardt believes that rising inequality is a natural occurrence throughout history. In “Inequality Has Been Going on Forever . . .” he argues, “To say that something is likely, or even natural, is not to say that it is inevitable” (543). Even though economic inequality has been occurring throughout human history, it is not everlasting, especially if swift action is made in response. I agree with Leonhardt’s view that economic inequality is not inevitable, and that the rising inequality of today needs to be stopped before it’s too late.
The largest obstacle in the fight for economic equality seems to …show more content…
Leonhardt believes that “When income or wealth is taxed at high rates, the rich are not able t for people with incomes over two hundred thousand dollars would be worth about $140 billion a year starting in 2012” (570). With that massive amount of money, universal health care could be implo save and accumulate as much” (545). Therefore, if only a small percent of the people hold most of the country’s wealth, then what else can be done other than to tax them. In fact, Paul Krugman states that “The nonpartisan Urban Brookings Joint Tax Policy Center estimates that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people with incomes over two hundred thousand dollars would be worth about $140 billion a year starting in 2012” (570). With that massive amount of money, universal health care could be implemented, funding for education could be increased, or infrastructure could be improved. With money that comes from reducing tax cuts, it could have a huge difference on the lives of millions of Americans for the better. That is, if the government spends it for the benefit of society, which is why so many corporations and the wealthy are so hesitant about taxes. However, I believe that “A true attack on inequality would require the country to move the issue to the center of every political debate” (Leonhardt 547). Meaning if the American people put this issue on the forefront of politics, then the government must
The largest obstacle in the fight for economic equality seems to …show more content…
Leonhardt believes that “When income or wealth is taxed at high rates, the rich are not able t for people with incomes over two hundred thousand dollars would be worth about $140 billion a year starting in 2012” (570). With that massive amount of money, universal health care could be implo save and accumulate as much” (545). Therefore, if only a small percent of the people hold most of the country’s wealth, then what else can be done other than to tax them. In fact, Paul Krugman states that “The nonpartisan Urban Brookings Joint Tax Policy Center estimates that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people with incomes over two hundred thousand dollars would be worth about $140 billion a year starting in 2012” (570). With that massive amount of money, universal health care could be implemented, funding for education could be increased, or infrastructure could be improved. With money that comes from reducing tax cuts, it could have a huge difference on the lives of millions of Americans for the better. That is, if the government spends it for the benefit of society, which is why so many corporations and the wealthy are so hesitant about taxes. However, I believe that “A true attack on inequality would require the country to move the issue to the center of every political debate” (Leonhardt 547). Meaning if the American people put this issue on the forefront of politics, then the government must