Many political leaders think that wealth should distributed equally among the people. Pope Francis even agreed to this. He believes that humanity should be served by the wealth and no ruled by it. Other politicians agree that those that are wealthy should shared among those that are not. Once you used your wealth for the necessities, then the left over wealth should do to the philanthropies. Others believe that it is unfair for the redistribution of wealth.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/social-responsibility-weighs-heavy-on-economic-chieftains-at-davos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=international&_r=0
3 comments:
While I agree that the wealthy have some social responsibility to give back to those who are less fortunate, it is still important to remember why people some are better off than others. People who put the work in, become successful, build businesses and innovate are people who really help drive the economy. To take away from this and try and distribute income more evenly means to take away incentive. Time and time again we have heard that "people respond to incentives". To take away these incentives in order to have a more evenly distributed income would be a step backwards.
I agree with Jack's comment about wealth distribution. I believe there is a social responsibility upon the top percent of wealth carriers in the nation, but they are also wealth holders for their hard work and dedication. People respond to incentives and are amongst the top percent for their motivation and drive to succeed. In order for money to be filtered back into the economy, people should hold their responsibility to share philanthropically, but not necessarily be forced into a distribution program. If the wealth sharing is mandated, I think people would be less likely to work as hard to achieve a high rank and then be able to give back however much they deem necessary.
An article published on NPR's website today addresses the income gap and points to research that says that the rising income gap in the United States is not necessarily correlated with rising inequality in opportunity (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/26/266476565/the-income-gap-how-much-is-too-much). The study finds that although wealth has become more concentrated in the hands of the few rather than the masses, there are still opportunities for upward mobility within all income groups. However, the NPR article notes that other research has found the income gap is a self-perpetuating cycle - the wealthy are able to remain wealthy through investments and can afford good educations for their children, which puts them in a good position to become wealthy as well. It is difficult for lower- and middle-income earners to afford the rising costs of living and education, which means that their children have fewer advantages of becoming wealthy when they are older.
I think it's fair to say that allowing people to keep their money provides incentive to work hard, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the only people who work hard are the ones who earn the most money. There are plenty of CEOs who put in their time, but there are also plenty of lower-earning workers who dedicate admirable amounts of time and effort to their jobs; the reason that CEOs are paid more may be because they have rarer skills or qualities (say, analytical skills) than many other workers do (e.g. manual labor workers). Raising taxes on the wealthy or requiring redistribution of income may not shrink the income gap within the country, but if the money acquired by raising taxes on the wealthy went to school systems that educate lower- or middle-income students or programs designed to improve the skills of all workers in the economy, would that be such a bad thing? A redistribution of wealth could help the entire workforce, not just those on top, to innovate more and work harder than before.
Post a Comment