The majority of American citizens are seeing their share of the pie shrink more and more, while a tiny portion of the populace is gaining funds and influence in leaps and bounds. Is it fair that less than 1% of the total population controls so much of the wealth and are given special considerations when it comes to tax laws? This can be debated back and forth until our faces turn blue. The real question is why are they given these favorable circumstances? Why should they be seen as better than the rest of us? Paul Krugman suggests, “…aside from shouts of ‘class warfare!’ whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are ‘job creators’- that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy” (para 8). Krugman,
…show more content…
In actuality, it is an even smaller fraction that holds the biggest stake in our economy, an astounding .1%. Exhibiting his case to the middle class citizens that he also writes about, Krugman presents the difference in opinion about how these ‘super-elites’ should be treated when it comes to taxation, with Democrats leaning toward the view that the elite should be helping with the ever depleting budget by contributing more of their incomes, while Republicans feel they need to decrease funding for social welfare programs in order to present these people with more cuts to the taxes they pay. Besides the argument that these people own companies that bring needed jobs into the economic landscape, there is also the notion that many of the .1% are seen as being cutting-edge or innovative, bringing forth ideas and inventions that change the way our society communicates and lives. It is admitted that some of them bring about creations to our society that are deemed viable for this sort of special treatment, but it is only a select few that are engineering or technological masterminds deserving of being called ‘Innovators”. He concludes his thoughts by asking if the middle class should hate these people, and answering “no” to his own question, he informs the audience that they should look past the hype …show more content…
I am a Psychology/Social Work major seeking to help people in need, and these programs are crucial to my aspirations. I see no reason to give this .1% even more tax breaks where they already get so many. I present an example of another tax break that this group is given, as Krugman points out, “In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 - and
In actuality, it is an even smaller fraction that holds the biggest stake in our economy, an astounding .1%. Exhibiting his case to the middle class citizens that he also writes about, Krugman presents the difference in opinion about how these ‘super-elites’ should be treated when it comes to taxation, with Democrats leaning toward the view that the elite should be helping with the ever depleting budget by contributing more of their incomes, while Republicans feel they need to decrease funding for social welfare programs in order to present these people with more cuts to the taxes they pay. Besides the argument that these people own companies that bring needed jobs into the economic landscape, there is also the notion that many of the .1% are seen as being cutting-edge or innovative, bringing forth ideas and inventions that change the way our society communicates and lives. It is admitted that some of them bring about creations to our society that are deemed viable for this sort of special treatment, but it is only a select few that are engineering or technological masterminds deserving of being called ‘Innovators”. He concludes his thoughts by asking if the middle class should hate these people, and answering “no” to his own question, he informs the audience that they should look past the hype …show more content…
I am a Psychology/Social Work major seeking to help people in need, and these programs are crucial to my aspirations. I see no reason to give this .1% even more tax breaks where they already get so many. I present an example of another tax break that this group is given, as Krugman points out, “In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 - and