Although wealth disparity has been a problem for decades in America, it is continuing to cause an increasing amount of division within the country. Division can be seen clearly from the social, economic and educational aspects of the lives of Americans who are in the top quintile vs everyone else. Wealth disparity is the vast difference in wealth that individuals and families have which is different and more of an issue than income inequality. The effects of wealth disparity are “threatening the very underpinnings of our society” (Jones II), because with such division between Americans it will cause catastrophic events to occur to fix the issue. To measure the inequality the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) looked at “marketable wealth, which are assets that are easily traded and have value after someone’s death. From those assets it subtracted nonmortgage debt (credit cards, student loans, etc)” (Sahadi). Much debate can also arise when speaking about measuring inequality because measuring before or after taxes can make huge differences. Although this issue is not fully understood or accepted, the effects of wealth disparity are all-inclusive and ill-fated because wealth disparity’s trend has been on the rise separating the top and bottom significantly since the 1980s.  Politicians across the nation should recognize that the effects of wealth disparity as the current trend shows will only exacerbate the livelihood of all Americans. 

 Conservatives have a reputation of declaring that inequality does not exist or putting forth disdainful comments in response to the issue. In the past two years there has been increased conversation on this topic due to polling, the election cycle and an increasing lack of confidence from the American people to our government. “Some of the world's top researchers on income inequality — who presented a new paper on the topic Tuesday — say American economic anxiety and the growing gap between the rich and poor helped put President-elect Donald Trump on a path to the White House. Those same economists now warn that Trump will likely make the problem worse.” (Dennin). The current president of the United States, Donald Trump, believes in a trickle down, regressive approach to the economy although it will boost inequality. An older outlook from the GOP platform believed that big tax cuts and a trickle-down economy would encourage wealthy individuals to pour money back into the economy, but researchers of the Reagan administration disagreed. The president’s initiatives will get millionaires and wealthy individuals almost half the tax cut benefits. His approach will significantly behoove those who are already wealthy, while leaving the bottom half of Americans disproportionately disadvantaged. From the perspective of conservatives or others, rises in inequality will not affect the American society or economic growth. Republicans have concluded that they need to reach the middle-class voters because of issues like wage stagnation, the minimum wage, taxes and for their votes. Without their support, it could and will become increasingly hard for the Republican party to be elected to office. In the past three elections cycles it has been very important to find the demographic that feels ‘left behind’ because that demographic is large and has had faith in their votes, although in the future that may change. It could change because people feel that the affluent, corporations and politicians are the ones deciding the election instead of the people of the United States. “The only possible reason Republicans ever talk about inequality is if their polling is telling them they are vulnerable on that issue,” said Bruce Bartlett, a former senior policy analyst for Reagan who has since grown highly critical of the GOP. He argued that Republicans generally don't fret about inequality. “Concern for inequality leads to redistribution, which all Republicans believe is evil” (Kupar). Conservatives feel as though capitalism is being stripped and that wealth redistribution is absurd no matter the reason of why the other half of Americans are living the way they are. Affluent individuals feel that the economy is being supported through class warfare at the expense of their punishment through ‘high’ taxation. Capitalism is a great tool when used correctly and has benefited us with many of the innovations and luxuries that we may take for granted today. Conservatives think that solving inequality will take away capitalism and hinder innovative, entrepreneurial ventures in the future.  Those who work ‘harder’ should make more money is the belief that Republicans often have. Although a common solution from those of the Republican party is to push for job creation which is an important factor in our economy. Although with more people today working that have acquired a higher education than in the past, why hasn’t inequality decreased? Politicians from far leaning left and right wing conservatives have varied views due to their personal beliefs, constituency among other factors that they represent. “In a poll by Gallup in January, 69 percent of Americans describe themselves as dissatisfied with the “way wealth and income are distributed in the U.S.” (Brody). Conservatives have not always and arguably do not even mention inequality, let alone push forth policy to fix it. Polling does increase conversation regardless of party affiliation about certain issues to reach different demographics. Such polling has been mentioned to have caused the Republican party to start to change rhetoric to include their believed solutions to inequality such as job creation and proposals of new tax plans. All the tax plans of major candidates of the Republican party in the 2016 presidential election including our newly elected president feature big tax breaks for affluent individuals.

It is completely reasonable to understand why some conservatives and affluent individuals do not support fixing wealth inequality. Although, conservatives’ views are rarely supported with little to no support from economists or reputable sources. President Trump’s regressive policies of corporate tax reform could be like Reaganomics, leaving many Americans behind while businesses and affluent individuals thrive. He has shown to be very unpredictable which has yet to prove to be good for Americans, rich or poor. Although he has not mentioned how his economic policies will help reduce income inequality which is not a good sign for millennials such as myself who are joining the workforce and looking for jobs after graduation. After working ‘hard’ and receiving a higher education you would like to receive all the earnings that your effort has provided you, which I do agree with. Taking away the earnings that such effort and giving it to others who have not worked and been educated as much as you may not seem morally correct. Whether through higher taxes on corporations or other federal taxes the top tier earners of America feel as though they are being punished, which could be argued. A good question that opposing politicians and Americans a part of the top 1% should ask themselves is whether they think others who have taken the same steps of going to college, earning degrees and who work just as ‘hard’ have any minute shot at leaving their economic class to decrease inequality? If they do feel that there is an equal opportunity and resources, then it would be reasonable to oppose higher taxes and redistribution so that those people take advantage of their resources and earn their living. If they do not feel that there is an equal opportunity for those of lower income and wealth to make it out of their socioeconomic status then that leaves them to be inconsiderate, unaware or blatantly unnerved towards the challenges that other Americans face. The best way to come up with new ideas for businesses is to have a wide array of ideas which requires diversity in every way. Entrepreneurial ventures could be lessened by income inequality just as much as if it inequality continued to thrive. Entrepreneurial risks may be affected if inequality decreases, but it would be debatable if this would stop innovation in America. Creating jobs will help those who are not in a desirable job because of whatever their reason is and those who are unemployed, but conservatives should indisputably know that getting a job does not equal cutting out inequality. Job creation is not a valid solution to fix inequality because the percentage of unemployed Americans has been on the down trend since 2010 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics and inequality has continued. Most conservatives do not mention justifiable solutions, but no other politicians have united to solve the issue either. This collectively needs to change for our country to carry on and to thrive.

The causes of inequality are very complex even for reputable economists, nonetheless the effects are present all around. Renown researchers Wilkinson and Pickett have found that inequality not only in America, but around the world can be correlated to social, health and human capital. Such issues like literacy, infant mortality, social mobility, obesity, trust, life expectancy and education to name a few. “The problem in America today is therefore not wealth but rather persistent poverty. And the right way to deal with income inequality is not by punishing the rich, but by doing more to help the poor become richer, chiefly by increasing their social capital. This means not simply strengthening the bonds of trust and mutual respect among citizens, but also equipping Americans—especially the poor—with the skills, values, and habits that will allow them to succeed” (Wehner). This quote was written in a Wehner’s book and he is a conservative. I am sure that most politicians and people know that inequality is a problem, but whether they will admit and act to fix the situation is where people differ. I do agree with Wehner although we could differ on the interpretation of what he means. Poverty has always been around and more than likely always will be in a democratic, capitalistic country for various reasons. In contrast, this does not mean that those born in poverty should have little to no chance at achieving ‘the American dream’. Paul Tudor Jones, a hedge fund manager, even agrees that inequality is a problem that could be fixed through the justness of corporate behavior. Justness of corporate behavior does not have a worldly definition, but simply means bring back some humanity into corporations and not being strictly about profits. If corporations fail to do so, he claims inequality will fix itself through revolution, higher taxes, or war. These are all horrible solutions for America, yet the opposition does not seem to think that this could happen because of the inequality and division. Making a perfectly equal society and economy is not the goal of my opinion of fixing wealth disparity. Instead giving all Americans the opportunity to be healthy, educated, increase social mobility and decrease in the social dysfunction that is present in our media daily. Capitalism’s founding father Adam Smith said “If [justice] is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which to raise and support seems in this world if I may say so has the peculiar and darling care of Nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms”. Essentially, I interpret this to mean that as humans we should still incorporate some form or fashion of justice in everything we do. I believe this to be true because if things are done incorrectly at some point there is bound to be a catastrophe, it could be much easier if we did the right thing from the start. Acting with integrity is something that should be looked down upon in corporate society, it also should use it and face the consequences if it fails to do so. 

 With the American economy, already at a high level of inequality, at a certain point with the current trend of inequality it will become unstable. Per the Equality of Opportunity Project, researchers say that millennials born in the 1980s have a 50% chance of earning more than their parents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, educational attainment has been on the uptrend since the 1940s and adults now still have a lesser chance of earning more than their parents who may or may not have received a higher education. Since the 1980s the top 1% have been on the uptrend of earning more and more of the percentage of national income. Top economists Piketty, Saez and Zucman say that the top 1% also make 81 times more than the bottom 50% of Americans. It does not take much to conclude that something is wrong with this amount of inequality. Regressive policy from politicians will only worsen millennials and future generations’ chances more. “Though economic conditions have changed such that ordinary Americans are taking home fewer real wages for higher productivity, the fundamental tenets of Republican economic orthodoxy have not changed—taxes on upper earners should be cut, rules on business activity should be lifted, and national economic growth trumps targeted efforts at assisting those getting left behind” (Kupar). The upper levels in corporations are taking away wages from workers on the lower rungs of companies, and not paying them fairly. This sort of injustice is hardly ever mentioned, but only causes someone to wonder where else ordinary Americans are being shorted if their wages are. This detracts from the conservative view of ‘hard’ work and proves just how unjust and unequal our country is. This quote also speaks to the justness of corporate behavior that Mr. Jones mentioned in his TED talk. If this trend of inequality continues who knows what will be the result, but we can be sure it will not be positive. Improving inequality will support our capitalist, free market economy and should take us to new heights across the board. 

Wealth inequality will continue to divide America if it is not taken seriously by our society and government. The divide can be seen, has been spoken of, and exists in millions of American lives although plans have hardly been implemented by any politicians. Conservatives still try to debate its existence, whether it is because of greed, morality, or any other reason. Inequality should not be a topic because of polls, election, or due to research alone. The benefits of fixing inequality briefly include the social, health, educational, entrepreneurship and just corporate behavior. These benefits affect citizens, corporations and our government which could go on to help our nation to improve for future generations. Inequality being fixed won’t mean that America is a utopia, but putting forth effort to provide basic rights and opportunity to Americans is a moral issue. It would be a shame for Paul Tudor Jones II to be right and revolution, war or higher taxes to have to occur instead of integrity being the easier fix to inequality. Politicians should unite and push to make the country better for its constituents as time goes on because progress is the goal, not regression. Wouldn’t you like your children to have the chance to have the chance to live a better life than you, regardless of your ability to help them?
