Income inequality in America - Essay Example

Income inequality in America Income inequality is the unfair distribution of wealth and economic resources between various groups of people, different societies, or individuals within a state. Equity is equality, and where equity fails, inequality must stand. The wide gap between the poor and the rich is brought up by inequality in wealth distribution, life opportunities, and exploitation of resources by the rich at the expense of the poor, corruption among other reasons. Where income inequality is high, there is a slow economic growth of such a country. Income inequality is not necessary to be within a state. It can also be the imbalance in wealth or economic advancement among states internationally. This is evident in the powerful states whose technology is a bit advanced. They may use that opportunity at the expense of the third world countries to exploit their natural resources (Reich 34). America, for example, due to its advanced technology may exploit third world countries that are rich in natural resources but lack the expertise of exploiting them. Genetic resources in third world countries when exploited and taken to states with advanced technology make chemicals and drugs that are returned to be sold to the developing countries at a higher cost. Consequently, industrialized countries like Japan get raw materials from the third world countries to make their finished products, later sold to developing countries. The imbalance in wealth comes in where the profits got from such exploits of resources from developing countries by powerful states are not equally shared. Income inequality is far much as well in the United States where industrial revolution has been the key to such a disparity. Karl Marx, an economist, argues this gap to be the reason for failing democracy and free distribution of resources and wealth in most nations in the United States as well as other parts of the world. The wealth inequality has led to divisions of people in various social classes, where the society is made of the wealthy, middle class and the poor (Noah and Catherine 61). Income inequality has greatly influenced the nature of government in most parts of the world. Power has always been closed linked to the amount of wealth owned by an individual. It is only those who are rich and have the means regarding wealth, remain leading the country. Elections unfortunately in most countries are done favoring those said to “own such a nation” concerning wealth. It is also evident that inequality has great impact on the health of the population. Eberstadt and Sally argue that, “health is the most sensitive indicators of the social costs of inequality (5).” Further, inequality causes people to see others differently. For instance, “ inequality causes people to perceive their neighbors as more alien or less trustworthy (Eberstadt and Sally 2).” The notion by many that power goes hand in hand with the financial stability of an individual is totally against the principles of democracy and free human rights and freedoms. Like Robert Reich would state, “leaders are born and not determined by social status (Reich 30).” the discrepancy amid the rich and the poor has been a great hindrance to mature politics in any given state. The United States over the 1920s centuries ago, after industrialization, several prominent individuals have worked hard to bring about the mature politics and free democracy at present. Political games of elections conduct regarding wealth factors, is a big blow to the promotion of democracy that has been the target for most countries (Eberstadt and Sally 59). Wealth and social class of an aspiring politician should not be the leeway to their successful elections in government. The nature of governments currently, almost all, are made up of the rich and the first class citizens. The neglect of the middle class and the poor in top government positions and various dockets amounts to a bad and unfair leadership of a nation, which can be against morals. When these rich leaders get to the government, they easily forget about the welfare of the citizens who are now the middle class and the poor. Ironically, the will power and sovereignty of a nation belongs to the people, who are the same people electing leaders, but neglected when it comes to distribution of economic resources. General elections should no longer be conducted in considering the shocking issue the “haves”, the “have-nots.” the nature of government responsible for leading a nation must be elected or appointed fairly, and democratically accommodating all individuals (Noah). The government of the United States has ever since worked hard to solve the problem of income inequality especially the imbalance between wealth and poverty. According to Noah, “inequality is increasing almost everywhere in the industrialized and postindustrial world.” Many can argue that income inequality is not a governmental obligation, but contrary, the individuals in power and leadership are better positioned to address this disparity. Because, the government is in control of various systems in the country and determine how to run them. Inequality has caused a, “widened gap between the top and the middle class (Noah).” Therefore, government should be run in a democratic way, considering the poor. The government is obligated to oversee fair distribution and exploitation of natural resources to different communities (Reich 32). The passing of laws and policies by the government that allow progressive rights to minority groups like women has lead to an affirmative action that has tried to solve the imbalance in employment opportunities. In the past, gender and sex discrimination were on the rise making most women less privileged in job provisions. Today, most women can own businesses, as well as work in parastatals. Women, like independent contractors also perform government contracts. Formation of business groups and associations by the physically challenged and the training done to workers with lesser skills is another way in which the government solves the inequality in wealth. This leads to rapid growth of the countrys economy (Noah). The government makes policies to moderate the taxing system that is a progressive step towards fighting income inequality. The norm has been that, those with higher pay or income, the tax rates are relatively higher compared to those earning lesser incomes. Wealthier individuals, therefore, end up paying more tax depending on their higher income. Taxing is one way by which the government gains its revenue to run the country. For example in the United States, the rates in taxing began with 15 percent to 39 percent approximately in the year 2001. Although, countries try to show equality by giving policies of uniform taxation methods when it comes to food, drugs, among other regulations. This mode of taxation is considered by most citizens to be fair (Reich 36). Other policies legislated by the government regarding programs like the social security fund, insurance, and pension schemes benefits, have relatively tried to solve the income imbalance in a country. Employees who retire, or become incapable of working any longer, enjoy such kind of benefits to sustain their standard of living even after they become unemployment. Medical insurance cover programs introduced have greatly “helped to foresee the equality to all regarding health, despite income, of a household of an employee, even if not working (Reich 35).” The United States, for example, have also passed policies to provide full employment opportunities that economically boost the poor and the rich as well. This policy benefits all, and enables the middle class, and the poor get wages for their sustainability. The policy targets to curtail the problem of unemployment, which also be on the rise in most countries leading to poverty (Noah). Policies also passed by the government to offer childcare to all children, and especially those from poor backgrounds have been another move targeted to do away with poverty, associated with income inequality. The government responsibility is to ensure the rights and welfare of all children are reserved and protected. Basic needs to such children from low-income families, are ensured by the government that they are provided (Reich 34). In conclusion, income inequality should not be used as the dividing line between the rich and the poor, or the government and the citizens, but rather as the leeway to promote free democracy to all regardless of their status financially. Democracy and income are no way in relation. Democracy comes with the protection of the rights and fundamental freedoms of all while income comes by way of earnings. The disparity in earnings is not counted as part of human rights and freedoms. Even though, employment is part of human rights. The governmental role is in promoting democracy and respect for all people rights and freedoms regardless of the wealth imbalance are vital. Works cited Reich, Robert B. Aftershock: The Next Economy and Americas Future. New York: Vintage Books, 2013. Accesed from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00346764.2011.592339 Noah, Timothy, The Great Divergence, Minding the gap. New York: Bloomsbury, 2012. Accessed http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/books/review/the-great-divergence-by-timothy- noah.html?_r=0 Eberstadt, Nick, and Sally L. Satel. The Income Inequality Hypothesis: A Doctrine in Search of Data. Washington, D.C: AEI Press, 2004. Print. Accessed https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=HgTEhuWFmV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Incom e+Inequality+Hypothesis:+A+Doctrine+in+Search+of+Data.&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=on epage&q=The%20Income%20Inequality%20Hypothesis%3A%20A%20Doctrine%20in%20Se arch%20of%20Data.&f=false Read More