Should The Rich Pay Higher Taxes?

          In the article "Should The Rich Pay Higher Taxes?", the opinions from two men are taken, and both are meant to persuade the reader one way or the other. On this issue of taxes for or not for the rich, Robert B. Reich, U.S. Secretary of Labor (1993-1997) feels that the rich should pay higher taxes. "The government isn't collecting enough money to pay for everything we want it to do. If the rich don't pay more, the rest of us will have to. Otherwise, we'll have to do without good schools, roads, bridges, national defense, and everything else we expect from our government." Reich wants the reader to know that the government needs money. The government needs money, and the only way to get enough is to tax the rich. Without it, we will lose many national necessities. "The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together." For Reich, it is a clear choice-- yes!
          On the other side of the argument, John Lott, economist and commentator, feels differently. "One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that incentives matter. The higher the wages, the harder most people work. And lower taxes let people keep more of each dollar they earn and make them want to work more." Increasing the taxes on the wealthy would mean that a lot of the money they earned would go to the government. If that were the case, they might see their actual paycheck and think, 'What's the point? Why should I work so hard when I barely get any of the money I'm earning?' Lott says that the wealthy should be rewarded for their hard work. Lott also says, "The U.S. has a higher income tax rate than most countries. On top of that, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, 40 percent.... Tax rates have been falling around the world for decades, and the countries with the lowest tax rates--like Chile and Singapore-- have had the fastest economic growth." For Lott, it's a clear no!
          Overall, whoever put this article together wants the reader to see that there were two plausible, reasonable sides to this relevant debate. Both of the educated, well-informed men providing the sides of the argument get their points across with convincing facts and numbers, as well as responses to the counter-claims/reasons people are against their points of view. In response to the "yes" side of the argument, Lott says, "Our tax system is already unfair. Americans' taxes increase sharply with income," and then gives an example. He feels that the tax system the way it is now is unfair, and increasing it would make it even worse. He also regards the national debt, which is the major reason for this tax debate, "Our $16 trillion dollar national debt is a huge problem, but it's the result of spending too much, not taxing too little." In response to the "no" side of the argument, Reich says, "Raising taxes would not slow the economy.... Nor are the rich especially good "job creators". Jobs are created when companies need more employees to handle increasing sales. But so much wealth has been going to the top that the rest of us don't have money to buy what companies could sell with more employees." Both sides effectively get their points across, and make sure that they address the counterclaims while using factual and persuasive evidence.
          Personally, I think that we should increase taxes on the rich. I agree with Lott, I'm sure that low-tax economies like Chile and Singapore are highly functioning, and I would love to have low taxes here too, but unfortunately, at this moment, we really can't afford it. Maybe we did get our debt by spending too much, but at this moment, we need to tax the rich. Right now, our main focus is getting ourselves out of this trillions of dollars of debt, and I'm afraid keeping taxes the way they are right now isn't going to be of much help in that situation. I also agree with Reich; the rich aren't especially good "job creators". What is often referred to as the "trickle down" effect has not worked, and something needs to be changed. Really, it's all a big cycle; the middle and lower classes purchase things from the upper class, or help their businesses grow and thrive, and in turn, the upper classes employ middle and lower class, and lower prices. Whether you think that cycle starts with the middle class benefiting or the upper class benefiting, our current economic strategy (favoring the upper class) has not been improving our economy, and it's definitely time for a change. It's time for the upper class to carry some of the economic weight that has been for the most part, leaning on the lower and middle classes.