paper needs to be redone. Needs an hour or two worth your time.

The misconception about wealthy people is that they do not pay taxes, that they are greed filled creatures who take advantage of the everyday working class man. Is this really true? Upon further investigation of the matter, it is unclear to the masses but certain to the ones who know that making it to the top, making not the first million but even one thousand requires a lot of effort , a lot of tiring nights of working around the clock to find someone to replace your (no second person) employee who suddenly left, while working his or her shift, to further add to the matter handling negative impacts on your business from a health point of view. It is very common for heart attacks or brain strokes to show their signs and suddenly jump on businessmen whose business suddenly has to shut down because of a health hazard. Long story short, the bigger the profit the bigger the risk, the bigger the effort required. I don’t know what this has to do with whether capitalism is controlling democracy.

“Mark Zuckerberg has a net worth 71 billion,; what does he do with all that money” Run-on sentence. well the answer to that is most of that money is owned in the form of stocks and he needs those to have a majority vote to run his company, Run-on sentencethis feels like a topic that is an apple fallen far away from the tree cliche, however it ties up to the topic at hand perfectly. Where is the research?What will a higher tax on this 1% percent do? The cream of the crop, cliché not much than decrease the money of spendable income they have, which as mentioned don’t repeat yourself might not be much as most of their wealth is in the form of stocks. There is zero research to substantiate any of your claims.

Now the point of whether liquidizing their stocks to pay more income should be a form of government control to implement is arguable and off topic, but to elaborate on it a bit. This entire paper is off topic. You are SUPPOSED to be using sources to examine this issue. How is determining someone more qualified to handle the operations of running a multinational company going to be achieved and is it ethically right to take someone out of his a chair that he has put years of effort, blood and sweat into the crafting of the chair? Who is saying this should happen?

On first glance it is very easy to say that these people have a lot of money then an understanding of the fact that these individuals do not own that much disposable income as first conceived tells us the fact that, it is these companies a non-living identity, a brand name that actually owns all this money so what do we do? Tax these companies more money? But then that is going to get in the way of their plans of expansion. Is that really how an economy will grow? Instead of helping a tree grow, cutting its branches off to make it look better isn't the long term solution. You are completely rambling at this point.

More regulations is bad business and thus will simply just deter companies from setting up there and so has been observed in virgin cola trying to enter the soda market. More regulations were put on them and they had to pull out of the market. The opportunity to get more jobs out there was avoided. Whilst in some places government support is provided for setting up that is provided from tax havens however these tax havens come in with strings attached such as setting up in a place with an economic downturn of fall in employment. Rotating the flow of money the government got in order to make more jobs, with the help of a foreign factor that molds the clay given by the government. Of course this foreign factor must take something for itself and that entirely depends on how hard this person or company work in order to achieve that.

Which raises the point of whether it is fair for someone who works harder than others to be taxed more than what someone working less than him is? Would there be any incentive to work harder at all then? Taking away the chance for future jobs to be made definitely is not the most logical approach, instead labor laws should be changed if they aren’t sufficient enough to protect the rights of the everyday working man.

Further on the topic of taxes, looking at a more relevant and relatable example. After the recent american elections. A hot topic of the debates that swayed most of the voters was the tax cut missions. Republicans were hoping to see tax cuts on the richer, whilst democrats wanted tax cuts on the middle class, both different parties with a different set of interests.

Experts what experts? speculate that taxing the rich could potentially achieve a lot, if that tax money is used properly. With all the money that is being made by the rich people, a tax-the-rich idea would collect a lot of money for different programs nation-wide, such as scholarship grants would still allow the rich to keep most of the money they made, whilst still aligning public interests, contributing to the economy in the long run and rewarding them for whatever they keep. It may be misleading to think that these big corporate companies actually pay a lot of taxes if they pay them at all. Corporate dinosaurs such as apple and microsoft give out donations to charities of their choice, what or where it goes after it is in this charity foundation is vague but some speculate it is done so in order to avoid taxes. Dr. Atkins, a well renowned economist who teaches at London school of economics states “An external auditing body who is able to analyze the difference between these donations and expected tax, must determine whether tax should or should not be paid”(Cite); , the point he was trying to make is how essential it is to evaluate the output of money they put towards the host economy.

Lawrence H. Summers, a person whose credentials are numerous: Harvard president, and chief economist of the world bank states in his book (1989) “in other cases governments mandate that employers provide benefits to workers or that person obtains benefits directly themselves” (p.177) require Countries with high tax rates such as Germany, Denmark and so on are observed to have these benefits so desired by the american community. Nationwide health benefits, education paid for up to college, paid leaves, retirement benefits and the list goes on.What is your point?

“Why not do what they do?” other than obvious implications of assessing how and where the money would put… college for example, something most millennials crave but are unable to afford, would be very complicated to provide for. There are over a 4000 different colleges across the states, with prices that range from 5000 dollars to 60000 dollars. Finish the sentence.

Suppose some intellectual people are gathered and methodical solution is proposed. A policy such as this would be a big transfer from certain cultural aspects of american culture of keeping what you make where as cultures in these countries is to be content with most of what they have. Dr. Roy Bahl. who attended kentucky university for his Ph.D. and specialises in public finance hypothesis is (1999) :

Perhaps economic conditions have not been right for countries to adopt comprehensive decentralization schemes, perhaps political freedoms were too new in some cases, and perhaps the idea just takes some getting used to. Whatever the reason, there are signs that some countries are now more ready to move forward, and the next decade may see as much implementation as rhetoric. (p. 2)

Another point worthy of mention is how the gap between the 1% percent and lower classes continues to rise,; however, with these high tax countries the gap is closer in comparison.

The truth of capitalism controlling democracy is a complicated matter that cannot be generalised as Chris Hedges talks about it,; simplifying the matter only emphasizes certain aspects. It doesn't shadeshed light on the fact that these 1% are approached by the nominees for voting; if certain people weren’t elected due to their lack of funding then perhaps the objective of elections should be to find financial backers to win that first election chris hedges explains. The reason this topic has been given a spotlight might be tied to the fact of the current president nominees being richer than the other ones. Whether what chris hedges says is true or not doesn’t matter, in long run it is not a new thing to the public that government policies are imperfect. Take more taxes and spend them on weaponry or for political reasons, the spotlight of our debates should be the government policies and how to implement them. How do we make sure we give all nominees a fair chance? How do we assess and implement a higher tax rate whilst? Who will be negatively affected by these and what is better for the economy.

Abdulrahman: There is no way you will earn an A in this class. If you had sought to have me give this ONE look before handing it in, you should have thought of that last week. There are simply too many things wrong with this paper, to fix it now.

First, you have NO documentation to back up any of the claims you make until the bottom of page 4 (of 6). MOST of the paper should consist of sources—academic and expert economic sources—whose pro and con you are presenting, defending, refuting. I’m guessing you didn’t use the textbook in laying out this research, and you certainly didn’t follow an outline, or rely on much besides your opinion on the topic. You are in college to learn how to examine both sides of an issue and learn from the best, not ignore most of the Phase III assignment.

Summers, L. H. (1989). Some simple economics of mandated benefits. The American Economic Review, 79(2), 177-183.

Bahl, R. (1999). Implementation rules for fiscal decentralization. International Studies Program Working Paper, 30.

One or two more citations will be added.