the economist reports that the share of the national income going to the top 1 percent of americans has doubled since 1980 from 10 percent to 20 percent. In december 2013, for example, president obama called rising income inequality ldquo the defining challenge of our time rdquo and suggested that the growing wealth of those at the top is what is preventing those at the bottom from improving their standard of living: ldquo greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations, rdquo he said. As a result, the president continued, ldquo a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility hellip has jeopardized middle class america rsquo s basic bargain mdash that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead. Rdquo to reduce the income gap, president obama supports hiking the federal minimum wage, increasing tax rates on the highest earners, and instituting various federal programs. But while these methods of government intervention will redistribute wealth, will they actually alleviate poverty or get the lower and middle classes moving again? these questions are certain to be at the center of this fall rsquo s election cycle, and christians ought to be informed about them.

At summit, we teach students to apply a biblical worldview to difficult issues by moving beyond political party slogans to ask hard questions about the proper role of the government, the church, and the family, and how to help people truly flourish. Some assume that because the bible condemns greed and commands that we help the poor, we ought to support government programs such as those president obama suggests. But good public policy demands that we move beyond good intentions and face the facts about what does mdash and does not mdash help lower income families succeed. income inequality is not the problem the income gap is not what is stopping poor people from getting ahead: a recent study by a group of harvard economists led by raj chetty directly contradicts the president rsquo s claim that greater income inequality hampers economic mobility.

Ldquo t he top 1 percent share of wealth is uncorrelated with relative mobility, rdquo chetty writes. Katz admits that, despite the growth in inequality, ldquo it is not true that mobility itself is getting lower. Rdquo ultimately, children today have the same likelihood of moving to a higher income bracket as they did 50 years ago. The rich getting richer does not make the poor poorer: the evidence shows that recent economic growth has made everyone better off. A congressional budget office report from 2011 showed that income grew by 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households, 65 percent for the next 19 percent, just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Academic Writers Account

When wealth is created, both peter and paul tend to benefit, even though those benefits do not accrue equally. The poor are getting richer too: a study published in the national tax journal showed that ldquo more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there in 1996. Thomas sowell writes, ldquo b etween 1996 and 2005, the income of individuals who had been in the bottom 20 percent of income tax filers in 1996 had increased by 91 percent by 2005, and the income of those individuals who were in the top 1 percent in 1996 had fallen by 26 percent. Hellip whatever the relationship between one income bracket and another, that is not necessarily the relationship between people, because people are moving from one bracket to another as time goes on. Rdquo according to a pew report on economic mobility, ldquo the vast majority of americans have higher family incomes than their parents did. Rdquo additionally, as the heritage foundation indicates, a majority of poor households have refrigerators, televisions, air conditioning, microwaves, televisions, cars, and cellular phones, which signals an amazing rise in the standard of living in this country over the last several decades.

Funny Persuasive Essay Topics for High School

Gary burtless, an economist from the brookings institution, writes that both the poor and the middle class got richer between 1979 and 2010. government intervention is not the solution federal anti poverty programs are not the solution: the track record of federal programs to help the poor is not good. A recent house budget committee report states: ldquo today, the poverty rate is stuck at 15 percent mdash the highest in a generation. Rdquo fifty years ago, president lyndon johnson began the war on poverty, which was initially designed to help people achieve financial independence. Trillions of dollars in government spending and efforts at redistribution have hardly improved the situation of the most destitute. A higher minimum wage is not the solution: the congressional budget office predicts that a $10.10 minimum wage would result in the reduction of about 500,0 jobs.

The income for each of those 500,0 people would fall from $7.25 per hour to the true minimum wage: zero. An increase in the federal minimum wage will not reduce poverty because over half of all employees earning minimum wage are teenagers or young adults who are not heads of a household. In actuality, 66 percent of minimum wage workers live in families with incomes above the poverty line. Studies indicate that over 50 percent of americans start their careers making close to minimum wage, but quickly begin earning more as they gain additional experience.

Higher taxes are not the solution: in national review, michael barone notes, ldquo if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit. Robert sirico, president of the acton institute, reveals the chimera of taxing the rich in order to equalize wealth: ldquo if we confiscated all of the wealth of the world rsquo s richest 1 percent mdash every last penny mdash we could distribute about $13,0 to every person on the planet mdash one time. Hellip h ow much good would that do for the average poor person in the long term? rdquo

what really works in alleviating poverty

christians are concerned about the well being of the poor, which is exactly why we must turn our attention away from income inequality a false problem and the redistribution of wealth a false solution , toward the real causes of poverty and the best means by which to ease the plight of the poor.

These approaches feed envy and resentment, which keeps us from rejoicing in our neighbor rsquo s good and prevents us from appreciating the goods we do have. Poverty is a real issue, and, although upward mobility hasn rsquo t declined in the last 50 years, it is still too difficult for people to advance to a higher income bracket during their lifetimes. Pew reports that ldquo 43 percent of americans raised in the bottom quintile remain stuck in the bottom as adults.

Academic Writing Linking Paragraphs

Hellip and only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom quintile make it all the way to the top as adults. Rdquo according to the national center for children in poverty, 32.3 million kids 45 percent live in low income families. So what should be done? in their widely discussed report on economic opportunity, raj chetty and his fellow economists point out that the best way to alleviate poverty is not to reduce income inequality but to remove barriers to upward mobility. These barriers include: family breakdown, low religiosity, low civic engagement, lack of education, and unemployment. Promoting strong families growing up in a two parent home is the surest way to avoid poverty. Unfortunately, the number of homes in which kids are raised by a single mother has doubled since the 1980s. Raj chetty writes, ldquo t he strongest predictors of upward mobility are measures of family structure such as the fraction of single parents in the area.