By Katherine Yaremko, Columnist
With tax cuts for the richest citizens scheduled to expire at the end of this year, an inevitable battle between President Obama House of Representatives is already underway. As a result of the November elections, the House is largely Republican. Given America's current economic status, Republicans are continuing their line of argument that tax cuts would serve as a means to stimulate a downtrodden economy.
No one excitedly anticipates having to pay taxes. However, in light of the growing inequality apparent in this country, continuing to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of citizens would have less-than-beneficial results. At the least, it would probably not do much to improve economic conditions. Nicholas Kristof covers this conundrum in his New York Times article, "Our Banana Republic."
Individuals who fall within the middle-class income brackets can give away approximately forty percent of their salaries in taxes. That percentage makes a huge difference in the amount an individual actually ends up taking home from their job after satisfying the IRS. The groans that accompany taxation are legitimate. Most middle-class individuals encounter a noticeable decrease in their ability to make certain purchases, and not necessarily just luxury ones.
But due to their financial standing, significantly affluent Americans can afford to pay higher taxes. This is not unfair or unpatriotic. It is simply a fact. Kristof notes that the economic prosperity of a nation affects its political stability. As the economy is not solely determined by those who hold the most power and wealth, we should not ignore this fact.
We are a country that continues to let those who have the greatest capability of providing monetary aid blissfully glide by. This is doing serious damage to those citizens not fortunate enough to earn as much as others. These decisions do not merely affect the affluent; they have implications for the struggling and the unemployed.
Some have suggested cutting taxes for the wealthiest of Americans as a means to stimulate the economy. This is merely to attack the problem from a narrow perspective. Those with the most wealth remain a minority. If they are asking for tax cuts, how likely are they to spend their extra money in ways that will promote widespread economic recovery and growth?
Kristof advocates other means that might prove more effective in stimulating the economy. He suggests further promotion of insurance benefits for the unemployed, and the creation of jobs programs. Focusing on initiatives like these is likely to be far more beneficial in regards to the economy, and far more compassionate to citizens most in need of assistance.