The high level of income disparity in the United States and its depressing effect on prosperity and mobility needs to be tackled as soon as possible. The entrenchment of inequality and immobility and how they replicate in the country’s system are the critical concerns at the present time (Kelly and Enns 855-869).
It often happens in the United States through the political preferences of the rich, where the stream of the cash into politics continues rising (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 51-60). The high attention on economic wealth and improved contact of the resources from the wealthy with the political structure in the United States are the two aspects that increase this danger.
Rich Americans are more concerned about the national budget deficit compared to the rest of the United States residents. An economic survey of the political positions of rich Americans shows that one percent of the United States wealth-owners, those owning over $7 million in net worth, lay more emphasis on minimizing budget deficits and reducing prerogative spending compared to other Americans.
The majority of wealthy Americans claim that the budget deficit is a critical challenge encountering the United States, ranking deficits among the leading impending problems (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 51-54). Approximately thirty percent of the wealthy Americans declare deficit and extreme government spending as the major vital setbacks encountering the United States. On the contrary, just six percent of the common public state deficit and the federal debt are the most significant issue facing the United States while sixty percent mention the economy and employment.
Furthermore, the wealthy are inclined towards reducing instead of expanding the national government plans such as national security and healthcare that common residents want to enlarge or maintain. In my opinion, economic selfishness is the easiest justification for the wealthy to fight tax increases on high incomes and support minimizing the budget deficit by reducing the entitlement plans, whereas most Americans oppose. The entitlement plans are of modest personal benefit of the rich people. Nevertheless, because rich Americans pay high taxes, they are conscious of their expenditures.
The majority of Americans resist reductions in healthcare and support its expansion. Additionally, similar contrasts between the attitudes of the rich and those of the public surface in preferences concerning numerous certain programs, particularly employment and income projects such as the minimum payment, medical cover, and government prerequisite of employment for the unemployed.
Common citizens are better placed to sustain government aid with public schools and college fees, and support more governance of big companies and income taxes. The government intends to lessen income disparities and excessive taxes on the wealthy to restructure wealth (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 54-58). A keen examination of the reason why wealthy Americans move to politics is that, as facts progressively confirm, rich people exercise more political influence as opposed to the ordinary citizens.
Wealthy Americans in the highest rank of the income allocation are socially more open-minded, but economically more conformist compared to others with respect to essential policies pertaining to taxation, economic guidelines, and social well-being plans. However, there has been no methodical proof regarding the affluent, for instance, the top one percent of United States wealth-owners. I propose that these characteristic policy preferences assist in explaining the reason behind particular public strategies in the country seeming to diverge from what most of the American residents demand the government to do.
It is pleasing to observe that some other minor differences, particularly concerning necessities and a respectable living standard for the jobless have been emphasized by the wealthy. One explanation of these disparities is that the rich may be comfortable with assisting the poor and facing hardships, but reluctant to what they consider as tampering with a private sector task of job formation. For instance, most of the rich people are ready to give more taxes for early childhood education in pre-school institutions.
This is irrespective of the budget deficit proving to be a bigger concern to the rich compared to the public in general (presenting another instance of what is deforming the current discussions). However, the affluent unduly sway of policymakers in the United States (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 58-65). The broader issue is that the rich control the critical financial and economic matters. Their preferences indicate less enthusiasm to spend on public education, jobs, and social assurance.
In a nutshell, the majority of these preferences of the affluent will strengthen unfairness/immobility thus stimulating strategies and hampering answers, which make significant opinion study worth monitoring. Affluent Americans are more concerned about the national budget deficit compared to the rest of the United States residents (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 65-70).
I distrust the adjustment of the opinions of wealthy Americans as they are embedded in selfishness that is prevalent to human nature. Economic self-interest is the easiest justification for the wealthy to fight tax increases on high incomes and support decreasing the deficit by minimizing the entitlement plans. Therefore, the goal for democracy becomes their unbalanced impact, and that results in the huge flow of cash into politics and voting rights.
Kelly, Nathan, and Peter Enns. “Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: The self‐reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 54.4 (2010): 855-870.
Page, Benjamin, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright. “Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans.” Perspectives on Politics 11.1 (2013): 51-70.