Feb
23
Income Inequality #4 by Josh Solomowitz
February 23, 2015 | 1 Comment
I remember seeing this interactive map in IDC People of NYC class – we went over various stops along the “D” train and compared the different neighborhoods. The New Yorker article didn’t surprise me at all – it’s astounding how bad the inequality in NYC is – especially if it’s compared to countries like Sierra Leone and Namibia, some of the most financially unstable countries in the world. I studied Hamilton Heights in Harlem for this project, with the median income being about $39,000, a low by itself but moderate income for upper Manhattan.
The City Journal piece went into depth (and bias) about how the wealthy basically fund the city and keep it going. I do agree with many parts of the city, but I would say governmental and state policies were also part of the huge comeback success of New York City in the 1980’s and onward. Yes, the wealthy are responsible for giving millions and millions of dollars to the city where all can benefit. But these institutions also have other ways of funding. Giving to cultural centers like museums, parks, and libraries throughout the city is very important. But education is a must too. Culture is vital for the arts and for sparking creativity, and can lead to getting out of poverty in the long run, but not as much as education.
This article failed to mention that the wealthy control most of the money generated in the city. If they didn’t give it back in some form to the city, not only would everyone suffer, but there would probably be a crumbling infrastructure, high crime rates, and riots. Money needs to come back whether it’s through taxes or donations. Either way, the poor residents would benefit by the wealthy. Raising taxes on the wealthy probably wouldn’t deter them too much from giving donations as donations can be written off their taxes. With increased taxes and stagnating (or a little lower) donations, the city would still be receiving more income regardless.
I found the CNN Money article very interesting. I had no idea that the poor class stayed the same while middle class lost ground and the rich class gained. I expected both the poor and middle class to lose their percents of the wealth. Whites control a majority of the wealth while are not on par with their population, while Blacks and Latinos do not control the wealth for their population. Asians are right on par for their population percentage — I would have expected them to have more than their population percent honestly. I like how the author poses the conclusion to raise taxes on the rich to pay for additional education for everyone and how education is the tool for social mobility, but he barely said anything at all. It seemed like he just threw those last thoughts in at the end without providing any further explanation. While I do agree that education is vital for those in the poor classes to move up, it should be provided for anyone who wants to receive it without being in debt for years to come.
Education leads to a better job and will eventually lead to more disposable income. This could bring families that were previously in a low class to move up. Without education, it is near impossible (at least in our American society) to actually get out of poverty. Low wages and long hours make it difficult for families to not only afford college, but also spend the time actually attending. Taxing the wealthier more could provide affordable education to those who need it most.
There needs to be an equilibrium between taxing the rich and receiving the most benefit for the rest of the income classes. The rich can afford higher taxes much more than the other classes — they can cover themselves. I believe that the city needs to be as efficient as possible when it comes to managing tax money. There should be a committee set up that goes through all of the different programs that are being funded and should rank which ones are the most useful and those that are wasteful. Better allocation of resources that would benefit the most people could really help solve the income inequality issue, especially if educational programs are prioritized.
