Of all developed nations, the United States of America has the worst distribution of wealth among its citizens. This paper will serve to be an argument into how the unequal distribution not only within the United States, but internationally, could potentially be avoided. This paper will simultaneously exemplify the argument through four different sources; Mr. Robert Rich, Dr. Anne Bradley, Pope Francis, and finally Ms. Michelle Alexander. The United States tax system was implemented to help the poor, but the fact that the top four percent in this country own the majority of wealth is a significant problem that could’ve been avoided.
Mr. Robert Reich is an American political commentator, author, and professor. His esteemed career as Secretary of Labor under former President Bill Clinton’s administration landed him on Time Magazine’s “Top Ten Cabinet Members of the 20th Century” as being one of the most innovative activists a President’s cabinet has ever seen. That being said, his extensive knowledge on economic inequality came after being a Rhodes Scholar and professing at the University of California at Berkley and Harvard University. In an interview with The New York Times, he explained that "I don't believe in redistribution of wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth. But I am concerned about how we can afford to pay for what we as a nation need to do; like what we need in order to be safe and productive. I understand that taxes are a part of a cultivated society.” Reich is essentially stating that a wage supplement for lower-income people would be essential for an economy the size of the United States. By financing it with a higher marginal income tax on the top five percent, this could essentially be funded. An opposition point of view would ask about the long-term investment plan, as he is taxing the most-wealthy people. He went on to talk about how the United States could invest in education for lower-income communities by starting in early-childhood development programs and going all the way up the latter to better post-secondary education (Reich, NYT). Mr. Reich makes a compelling argument on how countries should combat economic inequality so that it is not as prevalent as it is now. In one of the many novels he wrote, Saving Capitalism, the notion that the governing body of the state should become the employer as a last resort, if and in case the private market fails to provide enough jobs to achieve full employment (Reich 45-46). Reich goes on to say that in order to generate needed revenue and boost tax fairness, reduce the rate at which high-income taxpayers can take tax deductions. The next article goes on the opposing side of this saying that one should not blame any high-income persons (Reich, film).
Dr. Anne Bradley is a professor of economics at many universities, as well as the Vice President of Economic Initiatives at the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics where she develops a systematic theology of economic freedom (Bradley, WP). Not only does Dr. Bradley provide a more of a religious standpoint, but she argues the radical form of causation of this economic inequality. She states that people are poor due to them not utilizing their “God-given” realistic approach towards succeeding in life by referring to the Old Testament of the Bible to relay the point that discerning aspects of income inequality are inherently unjust, which is necessary for creating productivity and eliminating theft and corruption. By backing this up, she brought in an old historian who testified that the global markets present today, weren’t back then (Bradley 2016). That claim is indisputable, but is not the exact approach Bradley needs in her persuasive argument. She then takes the point that one isn’t “destined” to stay poor just because they were born that way. That’s a valid point, but how does that relay any position that economic inequality is prevalent in today’s society. The whole argument refutes Mr. Reich’s point of view in that we should be looking at the higher-income individuals for those extra funds to assist those with less. In short, the writer's suggested solution to poverty (income immobility) is to have access to and adhere to the flourishing values of Western culture. This suggestion is called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Finally, Dr. Anne Bradley brings in the opposition that in order to have inhibited economic inequality to occur from the beginning, the United States should have shed more light upon whether they had opportunities to use their “God-given creativity and skills to give them income mobility” (Bradley 2016).
Pope Francis, the Sovereign of the Vatican City State, is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, a title he holds ex officio as Bishop of Rome. This is the highest office held within the Roman Catholic faith. Back in 2013, Pope Francis released a 50,000-word document that sharply criticized growing economic inequality and unregulated markets in a wide-ranging and decidedly populist-teaching that revealed how he plans to reshape the Catholic Church (Francis Sec. 49). In a paper outlining a philosophy that he says will guide his papacy, Pope Francis decries an "idolatry of money" and warns it would lead to "a new tyranny." The most famous tweet of Pope Francis’ reign came in 2013 when he tweeted “Inequality is the root of social ills.” Since then, over twelve million people have reacted to this tweet. The Pope was not short of blissful when denouncing many American economic systems that were “evil.” In regards to the former President of the United States, Ronald Regan, the Pope argued that his approach towards trickle-down economics were practically “murder” (Francis Sec. 52). The phrase has often been used derisively to describe a popular version of conservative economic philosophy that argues that allowing the wealthy to run their businesses unencumbered by regulation or taxation bears economic benefits that lead to more jobs and income for the rest of society. Pope Francis attempted to argue that trickle-down economics was one of the root of major economic inequality in the United States. The evidence brought up that just attempting to cut the major wealth in this country and their tax rate doesn’t lead to income growth, but rather economic inequality (Francis Sec. 52).
Moving towards how this economic situation is overtly biased towards those of color, Ms. Michelle Alexander is a writer and social activist that argues a discrimination among the African American community in her 2010 book, The New Jim Crow. Alexander argues within her persuasive text that there are more African American males in the detention center than any other ethnic/race. That being said, she points out that the majority of lower-income communities consist of primarily African American men/women (Alexander 105). The Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible to challenge a racial bias in the criminal justice system under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has barred litigation of such claims under federal civil rights laws as well. The United States of America has a history of inequality among minorities, and the disparity for minorities is so large not because “of a lack of work effort, but because they are more likely to be working in low-paying jobs.” According to the “Children in Poverty” website, in the United States, thirty-nine percent of African-American children and adolescents and thirty-three percent of Latino children and adolescents are living in poverty, which is more than double the fourteen percent poverty rate for non-Latino, White, and Asian children and adolescents (Alexander 107). “In a little more than a generation, racial/ethnic minorities will make up the majority of the U.S. population and labor force. Minority workers will play a critical role in keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent. But if current levels of inequality persist, younger workers and their families will not be able to move into the middle class and replace retiring baby boomers in the workforce.” The economic inequality among the minority race has been so bad, that there is a need/push for Ms. Michelle Alexander to write a best-selling novel on such topics (Alexander 110).
In summation, the war on economic inequality has not only increased among millennials in college studying why and how, but among the middle class who are beginning to suffer. It is hard to say that something actually may come of this within the next generation due to the majority race, white Americans, becoming affected by such inequality. It takes an act of discrimination and racism for people to realize the main culprit here; economic inequality. As stated in the above argument, the causation for such inequality wasn’t just a single effort, but more of collective occurrences that never were dealt with properly and just put off for another and another fiscal year. However, the changing times are becoming more and more prevalent, thus giving way for Congressmen/women to wake up and come to the realization that we all don’t live in a world with equity.
Works Cited
Alexander, Michelle. THE NEW JIM CROW. New Press, 2012.
Bradley, Anne. “Poverty, Not Income Inequality, Is Our Modern Problem.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 6 Oct. 2016, www.washingtontimes.com
Francis, Pope. “APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION EVANGELII GAUDIUM OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS.” The Vatican.VA, 2013
Reich, Robert, director. Moyers & Company: Inequality for All. Bill Moyers, 2013.
Reich, Robert. “Opinion | The Middle-Class Squeeze.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Jan. 2014, www.nytimes.com
Reich, Robert B. Saving Capitalism: for the Many, Not the Few. Icon Books Ltd., 2017.
