Friday, August 10, 2012

Equality?

The United States has an incredibly high degree of income inequality, one of the worst in the world, and the gap is constantly increasing. This is a serious problem, if the Occupy protesters are to be believed. The average income of the top 20% is 8.5 times larger than the income of the bottom 20%. Things start to get uglier for us when you start to look at inequality by state. Texas is ranked with the 2nd highest level of income inequality in the nation; the wealthiest 5% make 13.8 times as much as the bottom 20%. Our level of inequality is much more severe than that of the country, which itself is already one of the worst. All this data begs the question, does it even matter? Isn't this just the natural order of things - the rich are rich because they worked hard for their money, and the poor are poor because they lacked the ambition of the wealthy?

As it turns out, income inequality does matter, a lot. High levels of income inequality have been shown to have many adverse effects. Countries with higher levels of inequality, like the U.S., have been shown to have higher drug abuse rates, infant mortality rates, levels of obesity, homicide rates, incarceration rates, percentage of the population with some metal illness, and teenage birth rates, as well as lower child well-being (measured by UNICEF), foreign aid spending, trust in others in the community, and socio-economic mobility.  This last part is rather shocking. Socio-economic mobility refers to the relative ease or difficulty associated with moving up in class or status. Low mobility means that people are essentially stuck in the class they're born into, with little chance of moving up in life. The American Dream no longer exists (in America, anyway).

While most of the data observed is international and compares countries, the trends still hold true for the states. Dropout rates tend to be higher in more unequal states, including Texas. Recalling that we're the 2nd most unequal state in the nation, it may be expected that we rank rather poorly in these categories. This is certainly true. Texas has the 2nd highest number of pregnancies in all age ranges of women under 20, as well as the highest number of births in the same age groups (besides 18-19, which we're second by a very small margin). We've also got the 4th highest incarceration rate in the country, as well as the 12th highest percentage of obesity. The list goes on and on, as Texas is continuously ranked poorly in numerous social and economic areas. 

Clearly, the severe degree of inequality within Texas (and in a broader view the United States) is an issue, but can it be fixed? As many already know, Texas has a highly regressive tax system. In fact, a study shows that we've got the 5th most regressive system, which really is not a huge surprise. In Texas, the bottom 20% must pay 12.2% of their income on taxes, while the top 1% only has to pay 3.3%. This is clearly unfair, and it's easy to see how it contributes to our state's level of inequality. If we were to adopt a more progressive tax system, taxing the wealthiest Texans a much higher percentage than the paltry 3% they currently pay, while reducing the disproportionate tax burden on the poor, the benefits would be endless. While regressive taxes certainly contribute a large amount to income inequality, they are not the only  factor, and much more would need to be done to completely fix the issue. Sadly, the state, as well as the country, will continue in its growing inequality, with very little chance of significant reform or correction to the system, because any change to make people more equal would be socialism and socialism is evil.

1 comment:

Jess Steflik said...

A regressive tax system is defined by a tax level which increases as the wealth or ability of an individual or business to pay decreases. This mere definition sounds biased to favor the wealthy within a population. I completely agree with David when he states, "If we were to adopt a more progressive tax system, taxing the wealthiest Texans a much higher percentage than the paltry 3% they currently pay, while reducing the disproportionate tax burden on the poor, the benefits would be endless."

Texas is depending on regressive taxes, such as property taxes and a one-cent sales tax, along with fees to provide a great portion of funding for important state functions. When we look at inequality as David talks about it seems obvious to me that we are taking money from the poor to provide for the poor and likewise money from the rich goes right back to the rich. This money gap causes the issue David addresses of poor socio-economic mobility. If only there was a tax which could solve this problem; perhaps an income tax? Texas is one of only seven states which do not impose an income tax.

An article on WiseGeek breaks down basic advantages income taxes would have over consumption tax including a progressive system which would adjust to individual incomes, consumption rates, and deduction qualifications. Income taxes would better measure an equal and fair amount of taxes each individual could be expected to pay. An income tax could also be used to distribute the wealth evenly so that districts or state functions which currently do not receive sufficient funding could be on the right path to receiving a more even disbursement of funds. Texas is currently attempting to solve funding issues but we are not looking into all of our options, especially those which seem more fair and beneficial.