Feb
24
Do the Rich Really Give to New York? (Alex Lam)
February 24, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The data shows it, and the majority agrees: there is a large gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor. The difference in views is only present during debates about whether or not this gap is a problem that we need to solve. The main arguments for those who see this gap as a problem and want to put resources towards closing it, argue that it will raise the quality of life for everyone. However those who do not view the income gap as a problem suggest that the existence of inequality is natural in a capitalist society and gives people incentive and motivation to work hard in order to reap the profits. Those who do not view the income gap as a problem, such as Nicole Gelinas, will also justify it by suggesting the rich are using the money they earn for the greater good. While the neither views are “correct” per se, the justification for the latter argument by Gelinas is flawed.
Gelinas argues that by allowing the rich to become richer, we are actually benefiting society as a whole. The rich are the reason New York City (NYC) has a safe and reliable public transportation system, beautiful parks, and an amazing library system. Data shows that most of the donations come from the rich. He further claims that those living in NYC are better off than those living in other more equal cities. Those living in those other cities do not have the resources available to move up the social economic ladder because they are not receiving the same tax money and donations as NYC is.
Her argument elaborates on statistics that favor her point, whiling pushing aside statistics that show the reality. She makes a valid argument about the fact that the top one percent is responsible for 45.7 percent of the city’s taxes, and responsible for 67% of the donations. However, she breezes through the fact that the one percent took in 36.5 percent of the city’s earnings. She fails to address the problems that those on the bottom face from this gap. Rather, she focuses on the positives that they and the rich are exposed to. Nice parks, ability to learn at libraries, and reliable transportation all disproportionately help the poor even though the rich pay it for. She claims this could never happen if the rich did not have the wealth they do. Yet, she does not actually bring up the scenario
A deeper analysis reveals the large flaws in Gelinas’ analysis. All these perks that the rich has given to the poor are only true in theory. In reality, how many of those who are poor, have the time to use these resources? For the most part, they are struggling to pay rent and therefore constantly working. Many have families to take care of, so how many are actually going to the park on weekends to relax, or visiting a library to learn? While some are, it is not a reflection of 99 percent. The public transportation system also does not disproportionally help the poor because it saves them money for a car. It benefits everyone the same, because let’s face it, anyone can choose to save money and not buy a car. Those who do are just shrinking their own wallet by choice.
Now let’s change the scenario a little and say that the gap is smaller. The rich are slightly poorer but everyone else is slightly richer. The rich will still be able to donate close to the amount they already do, but now, those one the lower level will be able to donate a couple dollars too. In the end, the budget could remain the same and keep the city running how it is, but more likely than not, better. Several reasons make this claim true. With higher incomes among the crime rate will naturally fall since crime has a strong relationship to poverty. People will be able to learn better lives because they will have more pocket money available to use. More people will also be able to use the benefits founds in the city and educate themselves and therefore raise the literacy rate in the city.
Suggesting that the gap needs to decrease is not equivalent to saying that taxes need to be raised for the rich. The real answer is to more efficiently handle funds in order to stop wasting money on things that don’t work, and putting them towards programs that can alleviate poverty. Education is biggest factor, as a higher education is closely linked to future economic success. The reality of this debate is that both views are correct, however the solution should be to implement programs to close the gap to a reasonable level (although “reasonable” is subjective), rather than simply taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. This is a process that takes time, but is hopefully achieved.
By: Alex L.
