The paper "The Argument for the Rich to Receive a Tax Increase" is a forceful example of an article on finance & accounting. In this New York Times Editorial, the particular author gives his or her view on the rumor that the wealthiest people on earth are petitioning their respective governments about raising taxes for the rich. Warren Buffett is the highest-profile American to speak out about this issue, although there have been many wealthy European individuals who have been campaigning about this issue for a number of years.
The author of this editorial argues that the discussion of this particular issue is due to the self-interest of those who are proposing the idea. Everyone is affected by the weakened economy, including those at the very top. Social rage is inevitable if someone does not do something about it; the rich have “ volunteered” their wealth to help the struggling economy. The social imbalance in America (Wealthiest 1% own more than 20% of the nation’ s wealth) may cause the economy to plunge even further. Overall, the rich should be contributing more to the struggling economy because they are the ones who can afford it and who will also suffer the consequences of another recession.
The author of this editorial implicitly states his or her opinion without ever really alluding to the fact. To further back up their argument, the author highlighted social unrest in Berlin and the London riots as consequences of a failing economy. Furthermore, the author makes the point that the generations to come will feel the effects of a lack of economic growth. In order to back up their argument, the author mentions that unemployment in America is over 9 percent, poverty rates are rising, and tax cuts are being implemented.
He or she concluded that all these factors may lead to social unrest in America. However, the author offers no explanation that poverty rates are going up and also shows no evidence of how tax cuts have affected the economy. In order to validate their argument, the author could have researched some very basic statistics about these factors and show how they have changed over a long period of time.
This would have made the author’ s argument seem more believable because otherwise it can be simply interpreted as the opinion only. The majority of people will find it easier to believe an argument if there are facts and figures to support it. Even though the author’ s argument is compelling, it could have further been strengthened through the use of government statistics because these figures are on the whole accepted as trustworthy. Also, the author of this editorial may not have looked at the consequences of raising the tax rate for the wealthy.
The general view is that this is a good thing, although it may not necessarily be so. What if more and more wealthy people decided to move to another country such as Monaco or Qatar? The tax laws in these countries are not very strict and are thus an attractive proposition for those with wealth looking for someone to store their cash. Raising the tax rate for the wealthy in America may have the opposite effect than was maybe intended. It doesn’ t matter how much the wealthy are taxed if they choose to live abroad.
The author of this editorial seems to be focusing on trying to reach those people who would be most affected by these proposed tax changes: the rich. The only way that these changes can ever be implemented is if the rich actually endorse these laws themselves. Thus, the author does not look to communicate with the average man on the street. Instead, the author makes a plea to the reader about why these tax laws should be brought in.
There would be no point in writing to an audience who would not be affected; therefore, the author is attempting to reach out directly to the wealthy. Finally, the author makes a plea to Republicans to consider raising the tax rate for the highest earners because it will ultimately benefit the entire country. The wealthy already pay more than other income earners, but the reasoning behind raising the tax rate for the very wealthy is that these are people who can afford to pay. It is not really fair to expect the lower classes to contribute towards propping up the government when they are struggling as it is.
This is a well-thought-out argument and the author makes a lot of sense in their reasoning. It remains to be seen if these measures will be implemented.