You are on page 1of 5

Youkhanna 1

Linda Marie Youkhanna Professor Altman English 115 November 19, 2013 Simple Solutions America is a capitalist country. Ignoring even the negative connotation to that truth, what else does being a capitalist country mean? Beyond definition, it means some people struggle to survive, while others thrive. It means some people eat dinner in their main dining room with personalized atmospheric conditions while many other people starve on cold allies of dangerous cities with countless unimaginable threats. Why is this scenario the case in this world? Why is it that so many people are struggling to survive while a fortunate few are being constantly pampered? Maybe it has a little something to do with the ridiculous cash flow of a very minor percent of the population compared to the equal and opposite ridiculous lack of cash flow of a much larger percent of the population. So how can we change the cash flow from being mostly held by the folks on the end of the silver spoon to folks fighting against the grain with mere pennies to their names? Heres a modest proposal; we execute a redistribution of wealth by heavily taxing the rich to donate to the poor and to conduct programs to aid the poor on rising in socioeconomic status. If we create an income tax of 30% from wealthy folks to donate to the poor, the distribution of income would begin to even out. We can name this new tax Robin Hood. In our capitalistic economy, the group at the top of the pyramid, the minority, is of the group who

Youkhanna 2

has all the money. Those at the bottom, the majority, have the least at global poverty lines between one dollar per day to two and a half dollars per day (Minoiu). As given in the article Household Debt and Income Distribution published in Journal of Economic Issues, The income received by the top one percent in the United States is at its highest level since the 1920s.Conversely, median household income has been nearly flat over the past few decades (Scott). Beyond the growth of income in the already absurdly rich top one percent, the lack of growth of median household income is alarming. Ideally, both would grow proportionally so that no group falls terribly behind financially. If we were to reverse these facts, the majority would be much better off rather than simply the top one percent of our capitalistic nation. The top percent would still be able to function in society with more ease than necessary due to their abundance of cash they have had all the while. In which case, donating money to the poor jobs that the top one percent have been holding will begin to even out the division of income among the population and reduce the amount of people in poverty. Adding another income tax of 50% from the wealthy to invest into the creation programs for the poor would allow the poor to get on their feet and infuse their own income. In order for the underprivileged to grow out of the stature of being impoverished, they must make more of an income than they are currently making. In order for the income to flow, there must be a place from which the money is coming from, otherwise known as a place of employment. Placing them into programs that aid them in acquiring skills, knowledge, and job experience would make it much easier for them to find employment. As explained in the scholarly article Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Poverty published in Journal of Business Venturing, entrepreneurship would reverse the poverty:

Youkhanna 3

This population [those in poverty] has been recognized by scholars and business organizations as a large potential market for selling a variety of goods and services. Herein, we adopt a different perspective arguing that entrepreneurship offers a means through which people have an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty (Burton). Just adding this large group of people into the business world of employment solves the issue of poverty. If theyre making the money a working person would, they would be able to provide themselves with the things they need and potentially more. At that rate, that group would not be considered poor anymore; that population would, without doubt, reduce. The investment of creating programs would in turn better the economy by allowing the division of income among the population to become more even. One may argue that putting so much money into aiding the poverished would be counterproductive because they may not use the money for its intended purposes, however, this is no draw back. The fifty percent income tax would directly be employed by the government to run programs. This would not be a problem because it would be used only for what it is intended for. The Robin Hood income tax designated to donation does not necessarily have to be received as a cash allowance, so it will also have assurance of being used properly. Instead, of being a cash allowance it can be expressed in another form that can be used for various essentials. These essentials can include food, water, toiletries, housing, health care, and clothing. In this way, those who cannot yet provide for themselves will still have what they need to survive a good quality life. When they no longer have to worry about where they are sleeping or what they will consume for their next meal, they can spend time being a productive member of society. They may enter the field of labor and contribute to the division of labor, which is a concept that our country is functioning on. If they are functioning members of society and receiving a decent

Youkhanna 4

income, they will no longer struggle as much as what the poverty lines project. Therefore, the population of those in poverty would inevitably decline. A redistribution of wealth by taxing the wealthy to employ programs and donations to those in poverty would begin to reduce the immense percent of the population currently poverished. Executing two separate taxes on the top one percent, one of thirty percent income and the other to be fifty percent, would dramatically improve the current situations of a skewed distribution of wealth. Allowing the poverished to have money to take care of all the essentials of life will allow for them to look toward other things as well. The programs that would be opened with the latter tax would allow that new time to be transformed into something productive. In order for the poor to change that status, they need to make money. In order to make money, they must have a decent job. However, in order to have a decent paying job, one must have the skills and knowledge required to perform the job. As we are in a capitalist economy, we currently struggle with the debts that our nation holds. In order to have a healthy economy, more money needs to flow in the system. As long as we have more and more people making money, more and more people will spend money. This is how money circulates in our economy, and this is how we keep it healthy. We cannot simply allow a pause in our system. If blood is not flowing, the body dies. If money is not flowing, our economy dies. Now, thirty percent and fifty percent sound reasonable, correct? It is only eighty percent of one persons income. That should not be so hard to manage, right? However, I suppose the bigger the pay check, the bigger the bills. So, maybe it is not too reasonable. Maybe it is a little absurd? Many would agree that eighty percent of even a wealthy mans income being taken away to provide for the poor is not okay. Many would complain, riot, or find a way to absolutely refuse it. However, absurd is also the global poverty line, absurd is the percentage of people in poverty, absurd is our lack of solution.

Youkhanna 5

Works Cited Bruton, Garry D, David J Ketchen, and R. Duane Ireland. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28.6 (2013): 683-689 Minoiu, Camelia, and Shatakshee Dhongde. Global Poverty Estimates: A Sensitivity Analysis. World Development, 44 (2013): 1-13. Scott, Robert, and Steven Pressman. Household Debt and Income Distribution. Journal of Economic Issues, 47.2 (2013): 323-332.