You and your friends play the game of who can build the most houses in a set amount of time. The rules are simple: everyone starts with the same amount of money. With this money you can buy materials to build a house. However, imagine if one of your friends starts with more money or supplies than the rest of you. Who do you think will have the easiest time winning? Normally, all players will start with the same amount of money and supplies to take away any advantages that could be gained from winning. However, just like this situation in this game, some people have a greater advantage in life. These examples could be either being born into a wealthy family or simply being born into a situation in which life becomes easier for you. Some people in this world start with advantages and are thus automatically born into a life of greater opportunity. It is therefore possible that there is a gap between the rich and the poor. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The United States economy is curved such that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Just like the player who will start with an unfair advantage in winning the game, people from wealthier families will have an unfair advantage in succeeding in life than people from poorer backgrounds. So, for the less advantaged to achieve the same goal as the advantaged, they would have to work harder and harder in order to achieve the same results, for which the advantaged would not have to work as much. It wasn't difficult to find yourself in this kind of privileged environment. The least advantaged have not chosen to live in a disadvantaged society either. Nobody has a choice. The phrase “self-made man,” coined by Henry Clay, has prevailed throughout American history, the idea that if you work hard enough, you will get what you work for. Essentially, “what you sow, that you reap.” However, over the years, the rich have enjoyed a greater advantage in life. Whether it’s getting a better education or avoiding paying taxes. In this society, having money means having an easier life. So, although "working hard" is seen as the solution for all, equality of resources and income-based taxes may be the only way to solve the problem of closing the gap between rich and poor , and to determine how the rich gain a greater income advantage. Income-based tax is the idea that people who earn more should pay more taxes. However, some may argue that raising tax rates on the richest might be a bad idea since they are the ones creating jobs for the poor. Others also argue that the higher rate is unfair to the wealthy since it makes them pay fines for their success, which can make success seem negative. There are three possible solutions to this problem: There are three types of taxes. The progressive tax, which the United States currently uses, the flat tax and the fair tax. Progressive tax is the type of tax that the United States currently uses. This is when “the tax rate increases as income…increases.” Essentially, the more money you receive, the higher your tax will be. The advantages of this type of tax method would be that it would create a fair systemin which the people who pay taxes would be those who can actually afford to pay taxes, and those who cannot and are struggling could benefit from an easier tax. them. This would essentially “encourage the distribution of wealth”. The downside of this tax, however, is that it separates the rich from the poor. Some believe that the fact that the rich have to pay more “penalizes them for their success.” This goes against the idea that everyone is equal and essentially discourages success and makes success seem negative. Therefore, some will say that the 2nd type of tax method is fairer; the flat-rate tax. Flat tax is when everyone pays the same tax rate, and how much you earn, your job, your financial situation, all of that doesn't matter. This would be “a consistent tax rate applied to all tax brackets. Countries like Russia use this type of tax method. The advantages of this type of tax method, as mentioned above, would be that everyone pays the same tax rate, thus making everyone equal. However, the downside of this type of tax method would be that it would affect the middle class more than the wealthy class. "Simply put, the rich can afford to pay more taxes, so they should. Most millionaires wouldn't even realize it if their taxes increased by the 5.6% rate proposed by Democrats of Congress". This basically means that if a person with $100 had to pay $10 versus a person with $1,000 had to pay the same $10, that wouldn't be fair. Those $10 would be more valuable and more expensive for the person who owns the $100. Plus, it's not like the price of basic living expenses will match the tax. These prices will remain the same. Thus, “if basic expenses like food and fuel are relatively inelastic, while a flat tax may be proportionate, the effect of the tax may be disproportionate.” So, fair tax can be another good option. Fair tax is when taxes based on income are abolished. Instead, you would be taxed based on your purchases, “a 30% tax on purchases of new goods and services.” The benefit of this would be that it would “essentially eliminate payroll and income taxes,” and since you can control the items you purchase, it would be more controllable. This would also bring fairness to the status of the taxpayer, since people with lower incomes will be inclined to buy less, while richer people will be inclined to spend more. The disadvantages of this method of paying taxes, however, are that it has never been used before. This method of paying taxes could therefore be risky. It would also put a strain on business as people would start buying fewer things. Another argument that the other side could make is that this argument is bad since instead of focusing on the need for the rich to pay more, we need to find a solution by creating new jobs to give money to the poor. Instead of devaluing the rich, focus on uplifting the poor. However, this is one of the ways we can support the poor. To get taxes and funding for them. Where do we find this money? Rich people. Additionally, in 2001 and 2003, the wealthy received large tax cuts, but this did not lead to prosperity for everyone as previously thought. According to President Obama, “At the start of the last decade, the richest Americans benefited from two huge tax cuts: in 2001 and 2003. During that time, insurance companies and financial institutions were all allowed to write their own rules or to find oneself there. rules. We were told the same thing we're being told now: it's going to lead to faster job growth. This will lead to greater prosperity for everyone. Guess what, that's not the case. Yes, the rich have become much richer. Companies made big profits. But we also experienced the slowest job growth in half a century. The typical American family actually saw its income fall about 6 percent even though the economy was growing, because more and more of that growth was going to just a few, and the American average middle class person didn't see it in his salary. Health care premiums have skyrocketed. Financial institutions began to gamble recklessly with other people's money. And then our entire financial system almost collapsed. Do you remember it? Not that long ago. I know you're young, but it was pretty recent” (Obama). This proves that lowering taxes for the rich has not actually helped the economy or narrowed the gap between rich and poor. So tax rates should go up because if you're really rich, taxes don't really take much money away from you. When taxes are high, people spend less on unimportant things. However, when taxes are low, the government does not have enough money, which increases the national debt. Even the idea of ​​fines is not fair between rich and poor. The concept of a fine may be different between the rich and the poor. The poor may try to obey the laws more than the rich in order to avoid paying fines. But the rich may view the fine as just a price to pay for doing something. Perhaps their mentality is that they can break the law just because they can pay the fine. This is why the rich can get by more easily than the poor. In other issues as well, the rich can easily pay a fine while the poor may even have to serve a prison sentence. In order to truly eliminate segregation between the rich and the poor, there needs to be equality in education. What is success in life? By society's standards, being successful in life means being able to get a decent job, make a decent amount of money, and even being able to do the things you love in life. But what do you need to achieve these goals? Let's work backwards. To do what you love, you need to get hired in a job you want. And to get hired in a job you want, you'll need to attend a good college. In order to get accepted into that good college, you need to have the right grades and experiences that the college wants. In order to get good grades and experiences, some may need access to tutors, extracurriculars, or even internships. What do all these have in common? The answer is money. All of these require a lot of money to access. So, having a higher education means you are more likely to get a good job, which means you are more likely to succeed in life. However, for the disadvantaged, their parents probably do not have enough money to send their children to school. elite private schools. Thus, children must attend free public schools,.