Economic Inequality Harms(ANSWERED)

QUESTION

Write a project Argument Research essay using this  closed research theme: TED Talk:Richard Wilkinson, “How Economic inequality Harms Societies”, TED Talk: Rutger Bergman, “poverty isn’t a Lack of Character;It’s a Lack of Cash” and Joseph E. Stiglitz , “A Tax System stacked against the 99 Percent”

ANSWER

Joseph E. Stiglitz , “A Tax System stacked against the 99 Percent”

Joseph Stiglitz states that the taxation system in America is unfair. He says this because the system allows individuals with high earnings to pay minimal tax compared to those with little income. The author continues that it is unfair to the low-income earners as nobody does anything to help them. Unfortunately for them, the government that should protect them sets and makes rules that mainly favour the rich people. They have focused more on the economy becoming better, forgetting how necessary fairness is. He believes that the tax system of the US is becoming more and more unprogressive, and somebody needs to do something about it. The US is one of the wealthiest countries worldwide, and the author is aware of this. It is for this reason that he compares it to countries like Denmark and Germany. According to him, the taxation rate of Denmark citizens is very high, approximately 60% (Stiglitz 3). However, unlike the US, this taxation percentage is only applicable to individuals who make more than 54900 dollars. It is different from the United States because, even though the US has a taxation rate of 39.6%, the tax is only applicable to those with incomes of 400000-450000 dollars.

I can agree with the author that what the United States is doing is unfair. It would be fair o impose fair taxes on the citizens. They can charge the Pay As You Earn taxation system to ensure every citizen pays their taxes in a fair and just way. It does not feel right that the least earning citizens pay the highest taxes to the government while the richest and highest-earning ones fail to deliver. The Denmark policy is okay, but the most suitable and favourable for every citizen in the US will be the PAYE system. The PAYE system is different and will provide equality to every member. It will do this because it will promote fair taxation of citizens depending on what they earn from their work. The country will remain one of the richest, and their taxes will increase. At the same time, they will be promoting equity and fairness.

Yes, the author does a good job comparing the taxation systems of these countries to show the unfairness in the United States’ taxation system. However, the author fails to use incredible sources to support his arguments. He states facts and figures but fails to help them with various references. The statement he pinpoints is quite logical and makes sense. However, it will be necessary for him to provide sources, but he needs to provide reliable sources. When he compares the taxation system of the US to that of Denmark, the unfairness in the United States is evident. It makes one wonder how the government can be that unfair to tax the poorest and leave the wealthy individuals. His arguments are based on various research works, and it is recommended that he supports every bit of it. His ideas will be more accurate and credible to the students and his readers when this is done.

TED Talk: Rutger Bergman, “poverty isn’t a Lack of Character;It’s a Lack of Cash”

According to Bergman, he believes that poverty is a lack of cash and not character. He argues that in most cases, the poorest in society make the worst decisions in life. For example, they smoke more, save less and eat unhealthy, to mention a few. The rich people, on the other hand, are the exact opposite of these individuals. However, he realized everything he believed he knew and understood about poverty as wrong as time went by. His opinion changed when he read research on the lives of sugarcane farmers. It was so because, according to this article, sugarcane farmers acquired 60% of their annual income in one harvest. It meant that these individuals were poor in one part of the year and rich in the other.

According to the speaker, one leading thing can be done to prevent a lack of cash. The one thing he believes can solve this problem is granting individual’s a monthly income. This income should pay the basic needs of an individual like education, food and shelter. It is essential to note that the basic needs of human beings are a right and not a favor (Rudger, 2017). If a person can be guaranteed this every month, then their poverty rate will be minimal. He uses the example of Canada. In his explanation, he uses a small town Dauphin that ensured every citizen had basic needs. The government confirmed that every individual had basic needs, and no one was living below the poverty line. Therefore as time went by, it became one of the wealthiest towns. People in the town became more prosperous, more hardworking and intelligent. In the schools, the student’s performances substantially improved, and the hospitalization rate was also significantly reduced. Also, the mental health of these people and domestic violence rates were reduced. People started staying more at their jobs as they were not looking for more money to sustain their families.

Similar experiments done in countries like China and the US have indicated similar results. The method has proven to produce positive results in many countries, but the leading question is how a government can ensure this and provide the citizens with these needs. He answers this with what was done in Dauphin. In this small town, the project was financed with a negative taxable income. Whereby individual’s payments were topped up the moment they fell below the poverty line. It is essential to note that citizens having basic income are more than a policy; but it is a rethink of something that can work if practiced. The speaker is credible in his explanations and arguments. He explains his maximum points and points out references from other scientists and economists like Milton Friedman. His statements are reliable, and they make sense. Most people often work hard to get their basic needs. Therefore, where there is constant monthly income, and they can get these needs, individuals are likely to be more productive. When things are scarce, most people are often scared, and their reasoning, like IQ, may be impacted. Therefore, applying the basic income guarantee can prevent poverty.

Richard Wilkinson, “How Economic inequality Harms Societies

According to Wilkinson’s Ted talk, economic inequality impacts the lives of individuals and society as a whole. It is so because individuals are always looking at various factors like social status and incomes, to mention a few. The speaker argues that when there are economic inequalities, societies suffer from multiple challenges (How Economic Inequality Harms Societies). These challenges may include harsher sentencing, lack of trust and both mental and physical illnesses. Harsher sentencing has been applicable, especially in cases where the rules are stricter to minorities and other groups than on American origins. For example, in the last few decades, the lives of black people have been impacted by police brutality. Police officers have often murdered many black Americans, and nothing has been done to find justice. The cases are usually in courts for a long, yet nothing is ever done. We can both agree that it would not be the same if the tables were turned. Similarly, the sentencing of individuals is often affected by their race or ethnic groups. When it comes to mental and physical wellbeing, the rates are higher in minority groups. It is so because these individuals are often worried or pressure to watch their backs. They are constantly worried about whether they will be the subsequent case of police brutality or not.

The author, however, encourages societies to be equal and fair to one another. He states that organizations with equal income distribution have excellent health, fewer social problems like drug abuse, teenage pregnancies and obesity, to mention a few. Like the previous speaker Bergman, when a country is equal and fair to its citizens, it will prosper. When people work towards achieving their goals and not worrying about social stresses, they are likely to be more productive and offer more to a country than most understand.

Generally, all three talks argue that a country with more equality and stability is likely to be wealthier and productive in various ways. A perfect example is how Dauphin, a small town in Canada, changed after the citizens received constant income. Their lives strategically changed. It was notable that the health of citizens changed, and school performances of kids went higher. The domestic violence rates are reduced, and the town becomes richer. Therefore, for a country to prosper, it would be best if many countries considered these strategies to improve the productivity of their economy and society.

References

Bregman, Rutger. “Poverty Isn’t A Lack Of Character; It’s A Lack Of Cash”. Ted.Com, 2017, https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash?language=en.

“Joseph E. Stiglitz: A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent | History News Network”. Historynewsnetwork.Org, 2021, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151561.

TED. How Economic Inequality Harms Societies | Richard Wilkinson. 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw. Accessed 1 Oct 2021.