Feb
23
Blog Post#4 (Class 8) – Cheng Dong
February 23, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Class 8: Rich Giving Back – What’s in it For Them?
Finishing the articles, I find myself trapped between two opposing opinions in the matter. There is no doubt that the existence of the wealthy has provided benefits to all citizens, no matter rich or poor, in New York City. By handing in large amount of income tax and making charity donations, the wealthy has since given back greatly to the society on which they based their wealth on. However, in the midst of the praises that the author Nicole Gelinas of City Journal gives to the rich, I can’t help but wonder whether the wealthy are profiting from their acts of charity. If so, can we call them are doing to be doing charitable acts at all?
Though there has been concerns about the large income gap between the wealthy and the poor, there is no denying the fact that the rich has been able to benefit the society in the form of taxes and charity donations. Like Nicole described in her article, the benefit provided by the riches that is most conspicuous to the NYC population is definitely the subway system. The money gained from the wealthy made this transit system that moves millions of people everyday possible, and looking at data posted by the reading by The New Yorker, the system does benefit both wealthy and the poor across different areas. Asides from my own personal experiences on the subway riding with seemingly successful individuals, my experience as a Chinese citizen also makes me believe in the idea that having a income inequality can help the economy in general. The policy of the Chinese government in the recent years is called “making some rich first”, devoting resources to ensure that a small portion of the population wealthy first and having them turn around to upscale the economy and therefore improve life for all. These real life examples makes me agree with Nicole’s point that the income inequality can actually help improve the positions of all citizens in general.
On the other hand, I wish Nicole could explore into some issues that branches out from this issue than overly presenting an optimistic perspective regarding the wealthy. For example, I would really like for Nicole to clarify more on the issue of charitable donations made by the wealthy. As we are well aware today, the government has a tax deduction policy for ones making donations to charity to encourage such actions. The common perception is that some wealthy people only donate in order to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay, and therefore spend less money overall. If that is really the case then the validity of Nicole’s claim of the positive nature of having an income gap, at least in the sense of donations, will come under attack. After all, if more money can be raised for the public if there is no tax cut for donations, there is no reason for the public to see the charity donations as a benefit from having rich people among us. If Nicole wishes to keep her arguments of the beneficial effects of the rich people less prone to attacks, then she would need to explain the issue of tax cut for charity donations to a greater extent.
Ultimately we still have to come back to the issue whether it is better for the society as a whole to have a large income gap. Putting the issue in terms of money raised for public welfare, we would wonder whether more money will be raised if the income gap is smaller. If the income gap is to be closed, would the government receive more tax money with the wealthy paying less while the larger population is paying more? Will the people moving up into the higher income tax levels be able to make up for the decreased payments of the wealthy? While considering this question, I can help but think that closing the income gap might not be as good a idea as many believe it to be. After all, it is readily possible that public service qualities would deteriorate because of this action that lessened the funding. At least in that sense, income inequality actually benefits everyone. That is why care estimations must be made before any policies to attack the income inequality is to occur.
While not covering too much areas of the issue, the readings does provide a sense of the goods that income inequality ultimately result for the lower income brackets. While suffering from the negative consequences of income inequality, people should try to recognize that they enjoy its benefits everyday as well. This is all the more reason for people to consider carefully when they advocate for anti-income inequality policies, as they could receive more harm from such policies than benefits from raising some of their income.
