At a very early age, society teaches us that proper education is the key to success. We are stressed to receive good grades throughout our high school experiences in order to get a higher education in an attempt to slingshot ourselves to the top of the occupational pyramid. Here, at the top, we can easily provide for our families. What this assignment taught me was that education is in fact important to our future, but not the only influence on it. Many of the scenarios we were given included a college education, but this did not mean that we could easily support our families. Even with a college education and having a median income, managing the distribution of money for basic needs was much more difficult than I would previously have thought. This difficulty was only compounded by the fact that I was a widower. This meant that a college education means nothing when you are abandoned and alone by your loved ones. What I am able to take a way from this is the idea that, although education is an undeniable necessity in the real world, it is not the only variable in determining our future.
After researching the distribution of wealth in America, I also realized that what politicians call the "middle class" isn't equivelant to an economists definition of the "middle class". Although the actual, statistical middle class (as determined by a 20% quintle where 40% receive a higher and 40% of peolpe recieve a lower income,) ranges from $38,000 to $60,000 dollars, the political or "Baucus" middle class ranges anywhere from $20,000 to $97,000. (
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) What this means is that politicians, in an attempt to support an opinion or idea, are able to manipulate data an terms to thier advantage. In other words, a politician hoping to increase popularity among the masses during a campaign can appeal to the "middle class" by repealing the "alternative minimum tax (AMT), an overwhelmingly upper-income tax."This would in fact increase the taxes of the statistical middle class, but would greatly benefit the much larger and generalized Baucus class. (
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22600.html).
When combining my brief experience as a single widowed mother and my research into wealth distribution, I have come to the conclusion that our current tax system in general is flawed. This is due to the fact that economic statistics can be manipulated by governmental policy makers in order to influence the population. I believe that the tax system and the government (policy makers) should be separated, much like church and state. This way, taxes may be distributed fairly, dependent on your income and current economic scenarios. This would increase welfare while also increasing a tax on the rich. This socialist approach may have flaws, such as deterring the rich to stimulate the economy, but it would also create a larger middle class, meaning more of the wealth would be evenly distributed to the whole population. Also, policy makers would be less likely to manipulate the tax system in order to manipulate popular opinion.
