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:
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.
Post a Comment