“Both the pope and Sanders recognize that we need a transformation of global capitalism that puts people at the center.” –John Gehring
It is no secret that Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders sees fault in the United States’ economic system. Believing that our government is structured in such a fashion as to take from the lower and middle classes and give to the wealthy—through loopholes and a trifling safety net—Sanders believes there is an advantageous redistribution of wealth whenever it comes to the upper class, or the one percent as some call it.
As mentioned, Sanders is an advocate for another redistribution of wealth. Only this time, he would rather see the lower 99 percent reap the benefits. There are various propositions, which can be found in the links below, which outline Sanders’ desired plans for the reallocation. One suggestion is to place taxes on both the top 0.3 percent of US citizens, as well as individuals working on Wall Street, who are to partially blame for a lot of debt and distribution of wealth issues. If these taxes were mandated, it would require individuals who inherit more than $3.5 million to pay additional taxes.
Another suggestion that is quite popular among many minimum-waged workers, is to raise the minimum wage to fifteen (15) dollars per hour by 2020. While this proposal sounds ideal on paper, individuals must be aware that because of the varying costs-of-living nationwide, the observed effects will differ. For example, one might observe more “benefits” from raising the minimum wage in, say, a small rural town in Kentucky, than they would in an urban or metropolitan city in California. While a blanket approach may be desired, blanketed, broad results are to not be expected, unfortunately.
A third proposition is to reverse some of our trade policies, such as NAFTA or PNTR. By doing this, Sanders believes that income inequalities are more likely to lessen, due to the dependence of labor transitioning from cheaper labor overseas, to domestic labor. This would both open up more job opportunities, but would also increase economic activity here in the US. However, individuals should remember that the United States, in its capitalism-based state, will not easily budge. Currently, some individuals would rather have fewer jobs here and lower employment costs because of overseas labor. With that being said, it may be difficult for Sanders to change the minds of those with capitalist-driven minds. Let’s say Sanders did succeed in reversing the trade policies, however. What would that mean in international relations terms? Would relations between the US, Mexico, and Canada become strained? Or how about the US and China? We’ve already had strained relations with China in the past, so what would reverting our trade agreements do? Just a little food for thought.
Sanders also believes that public colleges and universities should be tuition-free. According to the candidate, if individuals are willing to work hard for their education, then let them. While this sounds great in terms of equal opportunity and does not allow one group, such as the upper class, to have better access to education, it does raise a few flags. Who will pay for this tuition? The United States has over eighteen trillion dollars in national debt, which leaves little room for added educational costs, unless budget cuts were to take place. Let’s focus on budget cuts, then. The Federal Funds budget singlehandedly allocates the most money to our national military—perhaps we should cut some of this spending? I doubt the Republican-majority senate would agree, though. This leaves another solution: increases in taxes. Let’s take a look at a different country that provide their citizens with free higher education; Norway, for instance. While we might view their free education system as a blessing, Norwegian citizens may beg to differ. One of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, Norway’s personal income tax is somewhere around 55 percent. If high taxes such as this were imposed on the US, it would, no doubt, cause an uproar—we do have a tendency to whine and throw things in harbors, after all. So while Sanders’ plans to provide free education seem like a grand idea, our country must also figure out who exactly would be paying for it in the long run.
For the sake of saving time, I’ll refrain from going in-depth on Sanders’ other propositions to reduce income inequality. They do, however, include: investing billions of dollars in youth jobs and involvement, establishing a Paycheck Fairness Act, guaranteeing healthcare as a human right, and breaking up large financial institutions. It’s no secret that Sanders has a passion for helping people, even the Pope said so himself.
The US’ current situation, stricken by income inequality, can be viewed as a reverse Robin Hood situation, as Sanders has mentioned in the past. So, who can save the day? Who can aid in the inequality issue? Can the US be helped, or is our democratic system structured in such a way that help cannot reach the depths of the income inequality abyss?
As Sanders once said “I’m listening, but I don’t hear an answer.”
Sierra McGinnis
For more information on income inequality, Sanders’ stance, or the reversed Robin Hood situation, follow the links below:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-economic-inequality/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/18/bernie-sanders-says-he-pope-agree-income-inequality/32500383/
It is no secret that Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders sees fault in the United States’ economic system. Believing that our government is structured in such a fashion as to take from the lower and middle classes and give to the wealthy—through loopholes and a trifling safety net—Sanders believes there is an advantageous redistribution of wealth whenever it comes to the upper class, or the one percent as some call it.
As mentioned, Sanders is an advocate for another redistribution of wealth. Only this time, he would rather see the lower 99 percent reap the benefits. There are various propositions, which can be found in the links below, which outline Sanders’ desired plans for the reallocation. One suggestion is to place taxes on both the top 0.3 percent of US citizens, as well as individuals working on Wall Street, who are to partially blame for a lot of debt and distribution of wealth issues. If these taxes were mandated, it would require individuals who inherit more than $3.5 million to pay additional taxes.
Another suggestion that is quite popular among many minimum-waged workers, is to raise the minimum wage to fifteen (15) dollars per hour by 2020. While this proposal sounds ideal on paper, individuals must be aware that because of the varying costs-of-living nationwide, the observed effects will differ. For example, one might observe more “benefits” from raising the minimum wage in, say, a small rural town in Kentucky, than they would in an urban or metropolitan city in California. While a blanket approach may be desired, blanketed, broad results are to not be expected, unfortunately.
A third proposition is to reverse some of our trade policies, such as NAFTA or PNTR. By doing this, Sanders believes that income inequalities are more likely to lessen, due to the dependence of labor transitioning from cheaper labor overseas, to domestic labor. This would both open up more job opportunities, but would also increase economic activity here in the US. However, individuals should remember that the United States, in its capitalism-based state, will not easily budge. Currently, some individuals would rather have fewer jobs here and lower employment costs because of overseas labor. With that being said, it may be difficult for Sanders to change the minds of those with capitalist-driven minds. Let’s say Sanders did succeed in reversing the trade policies, however. What would that mean in international relations terms? Would relations between the US, Mexico, and Canada become strained? Or how about the US and China? We’ve already had strained relations with China in the past, so what would reverting our trade agreements do? Just a little food for thought.
Sanders also believes that public colleges and universities should be tuition-free. According to the candidate, if individuals are willing to work hard for their education, then let them. While this sounds great in terms of equal opportunity and does not allow one group, such as the upper class, to have better access to education, it does raise a few flags. Who will pay for this tuition? The United States has over eighteen trillion dollars in national debt, which leaves little room for added educational costs, unless budget cuts were to take place. Let’s focus on budget cuts, then. The Federal Funds budget singlehandedly allocates the most money to our national military—perhaps we should cut some of this spending? I doubt the Republican-majority senate would agree, though. This leaves another solution: increases in taxes. Let’s take a look at a different country that provide their citizens with free higher education; Norway, for instance. While we might view their free education system as a blessing, Norwegian citizens may beg to differ. One of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, Norway’s personal income tax is somewhere around 55 percent. If high taxes such as this were imposed on the US, it would, no doubt, cause an uproar—we do have a tendency to whine and throw things in harbors, after all. So while Sanders’ plans to provide free education seem like a grand idea, our country must also figure out who exactly would be paying for it in the long run.
For the sake of saving time, I’ll refrain from going in-depth on Sanders’ other propositions to reduce income inequality. They do, however, include: investing billions of dollars in youth jobs and involvement, establishing a Paycheck Fairness Act, guaranteeing healthcare as a human right, and breaking up large financial institutions. It’s no secret that Sanders has a passion for helping people, even the Pope said so himself.
The US’ current situation, stricken by income inequality, can be viewed as a reverse Robin Hood situation, as Sanders has mentioned in the past. So, who can save the day? Who can aid in the inequality issue? Can the US be helped, or is our democratic system structured in such a way that help cannot reach the depths of the income inequality abyss?
As Sanders once said “I’m listening, but I don’t hear an answer.”
Sierra McGinnis
For more information on income inequality, Sanders’ stance, or the reversed Robin Hood situation, follow the links below:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-economic-inequality/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/18/bernie-sanders-says-he-pope-agree-income-inequality/32500383/