One current United States national
government issue is whether to raise taxes on the rich to reduce interest rates
on student loans. This is not a good idea, since the people who have become
rich have worked hard to do so for themselves and their families. People who
are now wealthy were not necessarily always so. Many Americans who are well off
now, started out in the middle class or even poverty before they went through
the process of college and student loans themselves.
Although it sounds nice now for us
students to be able to have smaller interest rates, it is unfair to the people
who have already gone through the same process we are currently going through
of college and student loans. Even though it may sound nice to students in the
short term, it does not make sense for the long term, since we will not want to
pay the increased taxes. Instead, we should use the wealthy people as a source
of inspiration to continue to work hard on our education to improve our
knowledge, earn a stable job, and work our way to wealth.
The tax rates on the rich should
not be increased to lower interest rates on student loans, since it is not the
responsibility of the wealthy to pay for the opportunity of students. It would
be unfair to take their money that they earned by going through the process
themselves away from them. If the rich want to donate their money, they can of
course still do so without being required to pay through taxes.
2 comments:
In an editorial posted by Let’s Talk Politics, author Michael addresses his concerns with the proposed plan of raising taxes on the rich in order to reduce interest rates on student loans. He strongly disagrees with this plan, suggesting that the wealthy are hardworking and do not deserve to be taxed.
Michael’s primary argument is that the wealthy already paid their way through college and therefore do not deserve to be heavily taxed to help others pay for college. He specifically states that many Americans who are wealthy now, once started off in the middle or lower classes. After reading this claim, it seems to me that he is talking about the exception, and not the norm, as for the most part, a person’s economic class does not change over his or her lifetime. Using “exceptions” as evidence is not very supportive or convincing in an argument. If he cited statistics that support this claim, then his argument would be stronger. I agree with him that raising taxes on the rich is not as simple as it seems, and a lot of times after analyzed, plans to do start to fall apart. There are many failed attempts that could have been referred to, as well as mathematical evidence and economic theories describing why this idea would not work. Lastly, Michael could have been more descriptive as to what the current proposed plan of taxing the rich is. For example, who exactly is determined to be “rich” and how much of their income would be taxed.
Michael ends his argument by discussing how the many people who are wealthy donate to charity. This strengthens his claim as it shows that rich people are doing their part to help lower classes. Michael’s argument could be stronger by being more descriptive and using outside reliable resources to support his claims.
In the blog Let's Talk Politics, the author argues that the government should not raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the interest on student loans. I agree with your post that the United States government should not tax the wealthy. If the United States government were to tax the wealthy, it would not bring that much money to the government. Therefore, it would not help alleviate the debt that the U.S. government has accumulated. I also agree that student loans should not be reduced by taxing the rich because there will not be enough funds to help all the students. Overall, the author effectively proves their argument that raising taxes on the rich will not decrease interest on student loans.
Post a Comment