Stop Coddling the Super-Rich In "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" Warren Buffett admits that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income created by our elected officials. Nevertheless, Buffet contends that the wealthy can and should contribute more tax revenue to the federal government. In addition, Buffet offers strong statics. Furthermore, Buffet argues that higher taxes will not slow down job growth. If I had the money the Warren Buffet has, I would have the same views towards money has he does. When Buffet references that we must have “Shared Sacrifice”, this resonates with me, because if the rich paid more than the working class, then we (the government)
wouldn’t be in such debt it currently is. Furthermore, Buffet list some statics about his taxed income over the past year, as well as some vague info of his friend’s taxed income. For example, “Last year my federal tax bill--the income I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf—was $6,938,744.”(Buffet 227) This statement appalled me, because I couldn’t believe that the “Super-Rich” pay so little taxes in comparison to most taxpayers. To illustrate Buffet paid only 17.4% of his taxable income, when many of the average working class pays 36% of their taxable income. (Buffet 227) Consequently, when our government asked for “shared sacrifice” they spared the rich and the “super-rich”. Buffet even admits this in his statement “… We mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.”(227) As I previous stated, I had the wealth that Buffet has, I would definitely be paying my share of the taxes, a much higher rate than they currently pay, this in the end, I believe, would help the pay the national debt down for future generations.
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.
Rust, M. (1998, August 3). "Public Welfare for Billionaires." Insight on the News. v14 n28.
One person may see that the increase taxation on the poor and the decrease taxes on the wealthy is not an issue because the wealthy pay a lot of taxes already. However, many people don’t realize the fact that, yes, the wealthy are paying a lot of taxes because they make more money, but they can afford to pay more. Recently, in a CNN article, more than forty millionaires want their taxes to increase, which proves the fact that the wealthy have plenty of money to give back to the community. In addition, their just going to keep getting wealthier and wealthier by the
1994 is a sharp increase, but even if the growth rate for 1994 is not
Would you like to have more money in your pocket? Most people believe that there will be more money in the packet if the worker’s paycheck is larger. Some people believe the solution is found in regulating the minimum wages paid to employees. There is a good reason you are earning more money, spending more money, but retaining less for personal use. There have been eleven recessions since the decade of the Great Depression beginning in 1929. We must do something about this national financial problem before it becomes a crisis. We may not recover from the next recession. This essay describes the attributes of the “Fair Tax” system, which many informed analysts will be in the best interest of the government of this country, and the people , who live here, especially you and your family. In this essay you will discover how we can alleviate the country’s major issues in financial management, enhance enforcement of immigration laws and improve the financial support of our education system. All this is proposed with change to just one government agency.
Inequality exist and is high in America because the amount of income and wealth that is distributed through power. In America the income distribution is very inequality and the value of a person wealth is based on their income with their debts subtracted. “As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff, 2011). In contrary the poor do not get ahead and the rich get more. Americans are judged and placed in class categories through their home ownership which translates to wealth. Americans social class is often associated with their assets and wealth. “People seek to own property, to have high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs, to enjoy the finest in travel and leisure, and to live long and healthy lives” (Domhoff, 2011). Power indicates how these “values” are not distributed equally in American society. Huge gains for the rich include cuts in capital gains and dividends and when tax rates decrease for the tiny percent of Americans income is redistributed. Taxes directly affect the wealth and income of Americans every year.
One commonly cited solution for increasing the disposable income of the lower-class is rooted in the principles of trickle-down economics, implying that any gains of the wealthy “trickle down” to the remaining members of society. According to this theory, the government should offer more tax cuts and financial benefits to large businesses or investors to stimulate an overall widespread economic growth. Proponents of these trickle-down policies argue that redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to the upper class in the short-term will incentivize high earners to expand their levels of output, and thus generate more jobs and boost the overall standards of living in the long run. However, this proposal fails to recognize the important fact
F.A. Hayek does not have a very positive view on progressive tax; he believes that it is discriminatory, and agrees with John Stuart Mill’s portrayal of it as “a mild form of robbery.” Hayek says that the purpose of progressive tax is to attempt to close the gap between the two extremes, the rich, and the poor. It is to stop the rich at the top of the spectrum from furthering their wealth, Hayek says in “The Constitution of Liberty,” “But it would not produce th...
The United States debt and defecit is a major problem in our society. One thing I would propose to the President would be to tax the rich. Time. It's useful to keep in mind how the rich are different. When you are poor, you are willing to trade your time to earn money. When you are rich, you trade your money to get more time. For example, the rich hire people to clean their homes, and they don't waste time shopping for bargains. In business school I learned that when people have different preferences, you can usually find a way to engineer a deal. Gratitude. Imagine that the government arranges to provide genuine person-to-person gratitude to the rich in exchange for higher tax rates. Suppose (bad idea alert) the government makes it a condition that anyone applying for social services has to write a personal thank-you note to a nearby rich person who, according to a central database, hasn't lately received one. Gratitude goes a long way (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html).
In his speech, Gordon Gekko also says, “Greed is right, greed works.” However, one of the problems of those who argue in favor of capitalism is that they only address the second part f this phrase. Once again, substituting the free...
Tax cuts are only benefiting the richest people, and will widen the inequality gap between the rich and the poor. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service states, “as the top tax rates a...
Buffett, Warren E. "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 May 2014.
The Estate Tax, known as the ‘death tax’ as well as the ‘anti-birth tax’, has been one of the most controversial parts of the United States tax code since its introduction in 1916 (Cagetti & De Nardi, 85). The estate tax is a tax imposed upon assets transferred at the time of the estate holder’s death. Those opposed have named it the “death tax” as they claim it hurts business activity as well as job creation. However, according to those in favor, the estate tax is an effective way to tax the richest few, and redistribute their wealth, thereby narrowing the gap of inequality. For those in favor, an abolition of the estate tax would impose a “birth tax” of sorts onto the majority of Americans who have not inherited a large sum of money (Cagetti & De Nardi, 87). The controversial estate tax in the United States is often questioned by many and has been challenged time and time again. However, more emphasis has typically been put on particular aspects of the tax code where points of dispute are found.