Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Paul Krugman: Inequality, Dignity and Freedom
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Paul-Krugman-Inequality--in-Best_Web_OpEds-Equal_Inequality_Paul-Krugman_Workers-140214-773.html. DUE 24 Feb 2014. Read BOTH articles....(Paul Krugman and Tom Perkins) What is a Plutocrat? Discuss the argument presented by Krugman and Perkins by illustrating the plight of the Plutocrat. Does Perkins have a point? Do you believe that people with more money should get more votes?? How does Krugman contradict the point made by Perkins?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A Plutocrat is a a person whom gets their power from their wealth. In relation to a Plutocrat, it is Perkins who has said that people shouldn't vote "unless you pay a dollar in taxes", as opposed to Krugman saying how it is the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes, which in my opinion is ridiculous. There is no equality there. It is only allowing for people who are richer to have more power based off of the taxes that they are having to pay because they have the money to buy costly items. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by saying that if we provide living essentials such as health care, it can allow for a better balanced society. We need to "favor more, not fewer, entitlements" which will make us all stronger as a country and there will not be a need for changing our democracy into a "Corporation".
ReplyDeleteUsually the wealthy people are known as plutocrats passed down from inheritance. Krugman and Perkins both have opposing views. Perkins clearly states that "People with more money should get more votes." He says that "1M in taxes should get 1M in votes." However, Krugman believes that the working class is ones that earn that honor who knows their self-worth. I do not believe in Perkins ideals because if people with more money get more votes then it is unfair to the people who are working hard for their money. There will be no equality and fairness in this situation. Krugman clearly contradicts this point by talking about the idea of health care for the public which takes into regard everyone and not just the wealthy class, this can promote equality in the long run.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat whom gets their power from their wealth. It is Perkins who has said that people shouldn't vote "unless you pay a dollar in taxes", as opposed to Krugman saying how it is the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, then you indeed should be able to have millions of votes, but I think that's outrageous if people with more money get more votes then it is unfair to the people who are working hard for their money. Krugman believes that the working class is ones that earn that honor who knows their self-worth.Krugman contradicts Perkins ideals by talking about the idea of health care for the public which takes into regard everyone and not just the wealthy class.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is defined as being a person who gets his/her power from the amount of wealth they have. Like a Plutocrat, Perkins stated how people should not vote under any circumstance "unless you pay a dollar in taxes". This is a different view compared to that of Krugman who stated how it is the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes, which is quite honestly not even realistic in the slightest. With a decision like this, there is little to no equality among the people of the country. This only allows for the people who are richer to have more power based off of the taxes that they pay because they have the money to buy costly items. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by saying that “if we provide living essentials such as health care, it can allow for a better balanced society.”
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth. Krugman and Perkins does not have the same views. Krugman said that "the working class are the people that truly appreciate their wealth for their hard work. Perkins however says the opposite, he says you don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes. He also says that "you pay a million dollar in taxes, you get a million vote. Perkins does not have a point because, what about those people who doesn't have a job. I feel like everyone has the right to vote. Just because someone doesn't pay taxes, that does not mean they can't vote. I do not believe people with money should get more votes. We all are human and equal and just because someone has more money than the other, that doesn't mean they need to be treated differently. I like how it is now, you get to vote for whoever you want and we all have the right. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by talking about health care and that it is not just for the rich people, it is for everyone.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person who receives their power from their wealth passed down from inheritance. Perkins and Krugman both have different points of view. Perkins stated that you can not vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. Basically, he means that the more money you have, the more votes you can get. So if you pay 1M$, you'll earn 1M votes. His idea is unfair because that means that the rich will have more power than the lower classes. Equality and fairness won't be contributing at all. Krugman, however, wants a more balanced society by providing health care. It will focus on everyone instead of just favoring the upper class.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth. Krugman’s plight of the Plutocrat is a downward fall from that concept. He does not want anything to do with the people affiliated with such a title. Krugman is an advocate for the 99% of Americans that struggle to make ends meet and reliance of government assistance. In his article he illustrates that Inequality, Dignity and Freedom are denied with the existence and acknowledgement of these individuals who feel as if they are superior to the rest of the citizens in the USA. As citizens we are entitled to certain services if needed and that the constitution is the basic proof of those services. But to Perkins Plutocrats are the staple to this country and should be acknowledge in any circumstance. In his article he states that anyone that pays at least a dollar in taxes should have the right to vote and the more money you pay in taxes the more votes you are eligible to cast. Perkins does have a point in his article; I believe that if you do not pay taxes you should not be allowed to vote, that is common sense. How does a person get away with no paying taxes, which are a requirement, but get to voice their own opinion just because an election is taking place? Now you want to contribute to society? I do not think so. One disagreement I would have about Perkins is the amounts of votes that an individual is allowed. The population in the US is high enough and to multiple the votes, as high as they already are is ridiculous. The voting system as we know it would be modified to suit they situation and times an individual will be allowed to vote. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by trying to unite society with the establishment of healthcare.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth, they inherit it from their families. The argument presented by Krugman and Perkins by illustrating the plight of the Plutocrat is that Krugman believes that the working class, the middle class should get more votes. They have to earn their money and work hard for it so they should be given the right to make the votes. On the other hand Perkins believes that the more money you have the more votes you should have. He also states that you should not be able to vote "unless you pay a dollar in taxes". At a extend he has a point I believe that you should not be able to vote if you don't pay taxes but the amount of money you have should not determine the amount of votes you get. Therefore I don't believe that people with more money should get more votes. Krugman contradict the point made by Perkins by speaking about healthcare and how it is for everyone not just the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a wealthy person that uses their money to get the power that they have. Perkins and Krugman obviously have opposing views. Perkins has the Plutocrat view, who said that people should not vote "unless you pay a dollar in taxes". Meanwhile, Krugman states that the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. What Perkins believes is that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes. This is clearly unfair with no equality what so ever. This is only allowing for people who are rich, to have more power based on the taxes that they are having to pay. I do not believe in the system that Perkins wants, with every dollar paid in taxes deserves a vote. The system will only give the rich more power than what they already have. Although there are many Americans that pay taxes, it will not exceed in what the wealthy can pay. Krugman contradicts Perkins point by stating in what Americans should be assured to the essentials, such as health care, opportunity for their children, a minimal income.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person who gains power through wealth. Perkins believes that people should only get votes for tax dollars, which would mean the steady rise to power of the plutocrats. Krugman says the middle class is truly worthy of being heard. Perkins does not have a point, the wealthy have their money, they should just be happy with that rather than control the political arena. I do not believe people with more money should get more votes because that would make an unjust society even more unjust. Krugman promotes equality of the classes which contradicts Perkins.
ReplyDeletePlutocrat is defined as being a person who gets his/her power from the amount of wealth they have. Like a Plutocrat, Perkins stated how people should not vote under any circumstance "unless you pay a dollar in taxes". This is a different view compared to that of Krugman who stated how it is the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes, which is quite honestly not even realistic in the slightest. With a decision like this, there is little to no equality among the people of the country. This only allows for the people who are richer to have more power based off of the taxes that they pay because they have the money to buy costly items. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by saying that “if we provide living essentials such as health care, it can allow for a better balanced society.”
ReplyDeletePlutocrat is a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence by virtue of it's wealth. Perkins believes that the more money you may in taxes the more vote you can have in an elections, which means the people with more money can vote people in, but Krugman believes that the hard working american will not be heard in that case and the middle class should be heard. I don't agree with Perkins I has a American citizens has the right to vote no matter the amount of money i pay in taxes, that is just unfair Kugman contradicts when he discuss Obama care and how . it will bring equality among the class
ReplyDeleteSomeone who gains power due to their wealth is known as a Plutocrat. The argument between Krugman and Perkins is that, Krugman believes that the middle class should be able to make more votes considering they work hard for their money and deserve it basically. while Perkins thinks that the more money you have, the more votes you should make. I dont think Perkins has a point at all, the amount of money you have shouldnt determine how many votes you could make. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by discussing obamacare.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a a person whom gets their power from their wealth. In relation to a Plutocrat, it is Perkins who has said that people shouldn't vote "unless you pay a dollar in taxes", as opposed to Krugman saying how it is the working class Americans who truly appreciate their worth from their hard work. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes, which in my opinion is ridiculous. This is only allowing for people who are rich, to have more power based on the taxes that they are having to pay. I do not believe in the system that Perkins wants, with every dollar paid in taxes deserves a vote. The system will only give the rich more power than what they already have. Although there are many Americans that pay taxes, it will not exceed in what the wealthy can pay. Krugman contradicts Perkins point by stating in what Americans should be assured to the essentials, such as health care, opportunity for their children, a minimal income.
ReplyDeletePlutocrats are very wealthy people who use their wealth to gain power. The argument expressed by Perkins and Krugman is that the wealthy deserve more power as well as more votes. If you pay $1,000,000 in taxes, you should get 1,000,000 votes. I don't believe that Perkins point is valid based on the fact that these billionaires pay a lower portion of their income in taxes then poor and middle class workers. If rich people received more votes, then the voting would be unfair as the higher class would control the voting. Krugman contradicts Perkins in that equality should be given to all. Perkins believes in better rights for the higher class while Krugman believes in equality to all.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is someone who has power due to their wealth. Perkins believes that the only people who should vote are the ones that can pay for it, saying that people shouldn’t vote unless they “pay a dollar in taxes.” Krugman says the working class Americans get their worth from hard work. Perkins basically says that if you pay a million dollars in taxes, your vote should count a million times. I don’t think he has a point because that would take away the point of voting by turning it in favor of the wealthy. If the voting system worked this way, the middle and lower classes wouldn’t even bother voting because they would know they don’t stand a chance against the wealthy. Krugman contradicts this point by saying that providing better living essentials to Americans will allow for a more balanced society. If we make ourselves stronger as a country then there would be no need to give all the power to the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone who uses their wealth to gain power. Perkins believes that the wealthier people should have more votes, say they paid 1,000,000 in taxes, they should have 1,000,000 votes according to Perkins. With a decision like that, that gets rid of equality, and it is unconstitutional. That is giving the rich more power, making them Plutocrats. Krugman opposes Perkins, he believes that there should be equality among the classes. We should all have equal health care, etc.. I agree with Krugman, everybody should have equal rights. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean that they should be able to basically buy who they want to win an election just because they have the power with their money.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person who gains their money and power through family Perkins is a plutocrat who believes that you should get the vote for every tax dollar you pay. Krugman does not agree with that. He believes that there should be equality throughout all the classes. I agree with Krugman the amount if money you have shouldnt be a factor in voting for our officials.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth. Krugman says the working class get their worth from their hard work. Perkins however said that, "people shouldn't vote unless they pay a dollar in taxes. Perkins does not have a point, just because someone has more money that doesn't mean they should get more vote. I believe that people with more money should not get more votes. Krugman contradict the point made by Perkins by talking about health care, how it is for everyone, not just the wealthy people.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a Plutocrat? Discuss the argument presented by Krugman and Perkins by illustrating the plight of the Plutocrat. Does Perkins have a point? Do you believe that people with more money should get more votes?? A Plutocrat is a wealthy group of people who hold power in the government. Perkins claims that the wealthier a person is, the more votes they should receive. Basically they must buy their votes in taxes. Unlike Krugman who says that the working class gets their wealth from the hard work they put out. Perkins has no point what so ever, or at least in my opinion. I believe that people with more money, shouldn't receive more votes. Votes should not matter on whether or not you have money, but on the fact that you care for the people and what would benefit them greatly. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by saying health care should be for everyone, not just those who have money, basically giving us the idea of equality.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth. The argument between Krugman and Perkins is that, Krugman believes that the middle class should be able to make more votes considering they work hard for their money and deserve it basically. With a decision like that, that gets rid of equality, and it is unconstitutional. That is giving the rich more power, making them Plutocrats. Krugman opposes Perkins, he believes that there should be equality among the classes. We should all have equal health care. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins by saying health care should be for everyone, not just those who have money, basically giving us the idea of equality.
ReplyDeleteUsually the wealthy people are known as plutocrats passed down from inheritance.
ReplyDeletePerkins believes that the only people who should vote are the ones that can pay for it, saying that people shouldn’t vote unless they “pay a dollar in taxes.” If rich people received more votes, then the voting would be unfair as the higher class would control the voting. The rich are just thinking about whats best for them not for the lower classes. I feel that people with more money shouldn't deserve more votes because they already have money. More than enough and shouldn't have a say in what should be better for the people as a whole. Krugman contradict the point made by Perkins by talking about health care, how it is for everyone, not just the wealthy people.
Plutocrat is when a very rich person get their power their their wealth. Perkins thinks that one dollar should equals one vote. Krugman believes in the middle class and how they should get more votes. I believe money already play too big of a part in politics and that money shouldn't get to vote but people instead.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat refers to a person whose power in government derived from his/her wealth. Perkins and Krugmen have different perspective on the subject. Tom Perkins elaborate on the notion that the amount of money a person pay on taxes should define the number of votes he/she gets. In another word, the wealthier ones should entitled to have more votes. However, Krugman stated that it's not about whether the top 1% should get the most number of votes based on how much tax they pay; but the dignity that the working class Americans deserved, and not be judge on the amount of tax they pay. After all, "the rich are the rich" and "the poor are the poor" why shall they be compared? Krugman also covers the different viewpoints each specific party has. He says that the income inequality should'nt rule how much dignity one deserves. I don't believe Perkins have a point, because it goes against one of the most important thing the United States stand for which is freedom, many Americans work delligently in able to pay for their taxes, it just not fair. Eventually, the face of the United States would change giving other countries the impression that the government care more about money then their hardworking citizens dignity , especially since we've the symbol of the lady of liberty. No, I don't believe that people with more money should get more votes;simply because money should not have this role in citizens right to vote, whether they are rich are poor it schools be equal.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whom gets their power from their wealth. Perkins believes that the wealthier people should have more votes, say they paid 1,000,000 in taxes, they should have 1,000,000 votes. However, Krugman stated that it's not about whether the top 1% should get the most number of votes based on how much tax they pay; but the dignity that the working class Americans deserved, and not be judge on the amount of tax they pay. I don't believe Perkins have a point, because it goes against one of the most important thing the United States stand for which is equality. The Us already has a rep for letting down our citizens, this will only encourage other countries to refrain from investing in a mask keeping the united states from falling apart.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone who inherited wealth, like Paris Hilton. Because these people are naturally healthy, they inherit the power that comes with it. Perkins believes that the only people who should vote are the ones that can afford it. He is also saying that people shouldn’t vote unless they “pay a dollar in taxes.” If thats the case then only the rich would vote. And we all know what that means: the rich would be richer and the poor would be swalowed up by poverty. Krugman, on the other hand says the working class Americans get their worth from hard work. so clearly, Krugman values the wealth of society rather than just that of the rich. He understands that after all, we as a nation have rights and guarantees. Allowing people to vote more because they make more money would create an even more unbalanced society and might as well be a communist country. Perkins basically says that if you pay a million dollars in taxes, your vote should count a million times. That clearly goes against our constitutional ruights, our freedom as individuals and violate people's right. to people like perkins, the poor is poor because the poor doesnt try. While perkins believes in the superiority of the high class, Krugman believes in equality for all. And thats why we need to educate people so they dont become as ruthless as Perkins! That way we have a society with more Krugman to strive for a better nation.
ReplyDeleteUsually the wealthy people are known as plutocrats passed down from inheritance.
ReplyDeletePerkins believes that the only people who should vote are the ones that can pay for it, saying that people shouldn’t vote unless they “pay a dollar in taxes.” The rich are just thinking about whats best for them not for the lower classes. I feel that people with more money shouldn't deserve more votes because they already have money. More than enough and shouldn't have a say in what should be better for the people as a whole. Health care is for everyone, not just the wealthy people. Even though I don't believe in a national healthcare system..
A plutocrat is usually someone who inherits their wealth and then uses their wealth to become powerful. Perkins thinks that the more money you have, the more votes a person should get. Krugman believes that the middle class is the one who should be getting more votes because they worked hard and earned them. Perkins does sort of have a point. While some of the very wealthy people became wealthy for free, there are some people who worked their entire lives to become wealthy and their hard work should be payed off. But what I think is that everyone should just have equal votes, it shouldn't matter based on how much money that you have. Krugman counters Perkins' argument by stating that the last thing that the non-wealthy need are to feel like they don't matter. The wealthy people need to stop feeling like they are entitled to things just because they are wealthier than others.
ReplyDeletePlutocrats are people whose power comes from their wealth which is usually passed down to them. Krugman states that all members of society, especially the poor, should have access to health care. On the other hand, Perkins is saying that you don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. For every dollar that you pay, you would get a vote in Perkins' system. I disagree with Perkins because it would no longer be a democracy. The rich would only vote for laws that would guarantee their well being and not for the other members of society. Krugman contradicts this point by saying that more entitlements should be used for the public to create a more balanced society.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person who drives their power from their wealth, such as a millionaire or a billionaire. In a way Perkins does have a point because the plutocrats already have so much power over society and the economy. Giving them more votes doesn't really change much because they already have that kind of power over the country. Krugman explains that there is already so much inequality between middle class and the top 1%. It contradicts with what Perkins said because he is just making the situation even worse by giving the ticket people even more advantages and increasing the inequality even more.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone who uses their wealth for political influence and power. Perkins is evidently a supporter of a plutocracy by arguing votes should be based on ones wealth. That is absurd considering it goes against the basic fundamentals of a democracy, which our nation is founded on. Furthermore, I'm paraphrasing but in Krugman's article he states that the average American works just as hard, if not harder, than the rich. Krugman believes that every American that works deserves at least a decent living with basic coverages. I believe the media should just ignore and stop giving a voice to Perkins and his nonsensical statements and beliefs. He's an old man crying for attention.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person who drives their power from their wealth. Perkins believes that as an American, if you pay millions in taxes, you should be able to have millions of votes. Of course there is no equality in that statement. This means that people who are richer are to have more power based off of the taxes that they pay because money means "power". In my opinion this doesn't make sense. There's no equality whatsoever among the people. Krugman explains that there is already so much inequality between middle class and the top 1%. It contradicts with what Perkins said because he is just making the situation even worse by giving people the opportunity to take even more advantage and increase the inequality even more. I don't believe that people with more money should get more votes. It isn't ideal or realistic and in my opinion there is no equality displayed in that situation. There will be no balanced society.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person who gets power from their wealth. Perkins thinks that the more money the more votes you should get. While Krugman on the other hand believes that the middle class should get more voted because they are the ones who work hard for the country. Honestly even though some wealthy people worked hard for what they have, I think that everyone should should have the equal right to vote.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is an individual who gains power from his or her wealth. Perkins believes that people who are more wealthy deserve more votes then others. Krugman believes it should be the other way around (the middle class gets more votes). I believe both sides are understandable but in the end there should be no dominant power in voting. All that will do is cause problems
ReplyDelete