problem-solution

Last Name 1

First and Last Name

Professor Cizek

EGL 1010

21 November 2019

Problem-Solution Essay Part II: Unequal Wealth Distribution

IV. Your Proposed Solution

To decrease income inequality, the government should increase taxes for the

wealthy, or high-upper class. Currently, the upper class is defined as adults whose

household income is more than double the national median. This depends on the size

of the household. In 2016, the median household income of a three-person household

was about 67,793 United States Dollars (USD), meaning that in order for adults living

in a three-person household to be considered upper class, they would need to make at

least 135,586 USD. To be considered a part of the upper-upper class, a three-person

household’s income must be above 203,379 USD. Currently, middle-class families

pay about 15 percent federal and state taxes and high-upper class people pay about 24

percent.

The federal government should also increase the income required to qualify for

benefits, broadening the reach of existing governmental programs. In order to qualify

for SNAP benefits, for example, an adult’s household income must be below the

Last Name 2

poverty line. As of 2018, for a three-person household to be considered below the

poverty line, the household income must be less than or equal to 20,780 USD.

V. Objections

Many people who are fiscally conservative claim that the rich are already over-

taxed, so they should not be taxed more. However, the richest one percent pay an

effective federal income tax rate of 24.7 percent. That is a little more than the 19.3

percent rate paid by someone making an average of 75,000 USD. And 1 out of 5

millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making 50,000 to 100,000 USD. these

tax rates are similarly proportionate to the rates of taxpayers in all other tax brackets.

Also, when people have more money than they could ever use in their lifetime, it

would be morally corrupt for them to keep it for themselves knowing that they could

help so many people. And when that wealth is accumulated off the backs of workers

who do not even make a living wage, it is dishonest to say that they earned that

money fairly and that they owe it to no one to give back to their respective

communities. For example, Jeff Bezos is currently the richest man in America

because of his business, amazon, but according to the article “Why some Amazon

workers are going on strike on Prime Day,” his factory workers are being forced to do

back-breaking work at an unrealistic pace purely to increase business revenue all

while being paid only 15 USD per hour (Meyersohn and Trafecante). This shows that

capitalism is a huge contributor to income inequality and that the wealthy become

wealthy by being ungenerous.

Last Name 3

An objection to widening the reach of government assistance is that people will

take advantage of government assistance. There is a misperception that all the people

receiving government assistance enjoy being in that situation. However, many people

do not like the stigma associated with receiving government assistance as they have

been publicly shamed when using things like food stamps, or EBT cards. For

example, in the article “Have electronic benefits cards improved food access for food

stamp recipients,” it is found that “ … fully 36 percent of those that confirm food

insecurity do not report receiving food stamps. … many who receive food stamps do

not admit to receiving benefits as it is potentially shameful” (Lovett and Xue 972).

This shows that a lot of people associate being on government assistance with

something negative, and because of that, those who do receive government assistance

do not want to be associated with it, so they would most likely do their best to come

out of that situation.

VI. Benefits of your Solution

Increasing taxes for the wealthy will provide more money for the government to

use to help those in need. It would also provide some relief to families who are

already struggling to make ends meet. Decreasing unethical lobbying can help that

money go where they are most needed and most wanted by the public rather than

going where the most powerful people want it to go. Outlawing these unethical tactics

may mean that instead of bending to the will of lobbying from groups like the NRA

or the corporations like Walmart and Exxon, government officials may have more

willpower to do what is right for the public rather than their pockets.

Last Name 4

Increasing income required to qualify for benefits can broaden the reach of

existing governmental programs, thus helping more people and give more leeway to

people receiving assistance. In order for a family of three to qualify for SNAP

benefits, their gross monthly income must be less than or equal to 2,069 USD, which

about 24,828 USD annually. According to an article on the importance of a living

wage, “… single workers need at least $30,000 a year to meet the required cost of

living. … the U.S. minimum wage is currently at $7.25 per hour, working 40 h per

week for the entire year grosses $15,080 annually which is far below the amount that

even single workers require for the basic necessities” (Devinatz 126). Because of this,

the people who are not living comfortably, but are also not eligible for these benefits

are a great disadvantage, so increasing the maximum income for SNAP benefits to

something closer to the estimated living wage would lessen that disadvantage and

allow for more upward mobility and help while people are getting on their feet.

VII. Conclusion

In conclusion, more money for the government to use means more people getting

help. This can be achieved by increasing tax rates for extremely wealthy people. This

money can be used to fund more government programs for low-income families,

which can mean more programs or more inclusive programs. Making government

assistance more inclusive of people who fall closer to a middle-income level than a

low-income level. This will provide more leeway for people receiving government

assistance. More leeway in government assistance means more upward mobility

because it gives people a chance to get to a point where they can make a livable wage

Last Name 5

before can no longer receive help. At what point will the United States government

care enough about the lower class to want them to live comfortably?

Last Name 6

Works Cited

Devinatz, Victor G. "The Significance of the Living Wage for US Workers in the Early Twenty-

First Century." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, vol. 25, no. 2, 2013, pp.

125-134. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.pgcc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/docview/1347644295?accountid=13315,

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/10.1007/s10672-013-9219-9.

Lovett, Nicholas, and Yuhan Xue. "Have Electronic Benefits Cards Improved Food Access for

Food Stamp Recipients?" Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 44, no. 6, 2017, pp. 958-975.

ProQuest, https://ezproxy.pgcc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/docview/1957774639?accountid=13315,

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/10.1108/JES-10-2016-0193.

Meyersohn, Nathaniel, and Kate Trafecante. "Why some Amazon Workers are Going on Strike

on Prime Day." CNN Wire Service, Jul 15, 2019. ProQuest,

https://ezproxy.pgcc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/

docview/2257752069?accountid=13315.