Since there will be more high income earners in an inequitable distribution of income, and the higher the income an individual earns the greater the proportion of income will be saved, savings will increase in the economy and this will reduce Australia’s reliance upon foreign capital. Unfortunately the advantages of economic inequality are accompanied with the disadvantages. Firstly, overall utility, the satisfaction for the goods and services by the consumer is reduced in our society. This theory is based on the assumption that high income earners gain less satisfaction from an increase in their income than people who earn lower incomes. The reason being as more of a certain good is consumed, it will begin to provide less utility to the consumer.
Public debt decreased from $26 billion in 1921 to $16 billion in 1930 Quotes: 1. “The Harding-Coolidge Era led to the greatest expansion of the US Economy ever seen by contemporary eyes.” (Ronald Reagan) 2. “The Fiscal Conservatism of the 1920s pushed away the recession of 1921-22 and roared America back to the world stage.” (Glenn Beck) 3. “Wealth in the hands of the few would augment the general welfare through increased capital investment.” (Tindall and
Every one minute Australia's population increases by a new person, currently making Australia the gold medallist of growth! Our population is rising at a faster rate than any European nation, and faster than China, India and Indonesia. In 2009 record levels of overseas migration and childbirth increased our population by 480,000 people and by 2050 it's predicted Australia's population will reach 36 million. According to Dick Smith, that's a recipe for disaster. Taking into account the serious challenges of lack of water, poor soil and urban congestion, Dick believes we need to stabilise our population, not increase it.
The second generation earned 6.3 percent more than American-born workers in 2000, compared to nearly 15 percent more in 1970 and almost 18 percent more in 1940. Some of the difference in immigrant's earnings reflects the dramatic change in the economic and ethnic
Unfortunately, this disproportion has grown even bigger since the 1980s. During the 1980s, the richest ten percent controlled over 45% of the nation’s wealth. During the 1990s, that number increased to over 50%. The high levels of income inequality found in Brazilian statistics are due more to the existence of an extended upper middle class in the urban areas, benefiting from the large wage differentials that exist between the more and the less educated, than to the contrasts between the few very rich and the millions of poor, portrayed sometimes in the mass media (Schwartzman, 2000, p. 30). Because of the large inequality between people in society, this indicates a high power distance.
Childhood obesity is increasing at rates of epidemic proportion across the globe and is becoming a significant health problem. The current obesity rates in Australian children are among the highest in the developed world. ‘In 2007–08, one-quarter of all Australian children, or around 600,000 children aged 5–17 years, were overweight or obese, up four percentage points from 1995 (21%). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABOS) (2009). ‘Research indicates an annual increase of this figure of 1-1.5%, a trend that suggests half of all young Australians will be overweight by the year 2025’ (Tipping the scales: Intervention and management of childhood obesity 2007).
Rector found that in 2004 low-skilled households received about $32,138 in benefits per household on average. Rector then found that these same households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes, resulting in the average low-skill household to collect $22,449 more in benefits than paid in taxes. Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector concluded that the total deficit for such households was around $397 billion in 2004. “Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer ... is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion” (York). That’s quite a bill to pay
Why the Bush Tax Cut Is Beneficial for America Currently the US government has over a 5.6 trillion-dollar surplus, with it expected to only get bigger(Fineman and Thomas 20). This means that the government is taking in a lot more money than it is spending. What’s the primary way the government takes in money? Taxing the people. If the government is taking in more taxes than it needs, what should be done?
Many republicans say that raising the minimum wage of Americans will also cause inflation to rise, sending the country back into a recession. Kruger states that when President Bill Clinton was in office and raised the minimum wage, that it actually boosted consumer spending and the economy. There is evidence that suggests that Kruger could be correct in proposing such an action. President Obama has proposed the minimum wage be raised in an effort to stabilize the economy much like Clinton did. When Clinton raised the minimum wage it stimulated a slumping economy and had increases in the job market.
Have we ever had a middle class or poor president? It turns out we have, and some that have even gone bankrupt. After adjusting for inflation, the two wealthiest presidents in American history where George Washington and John F. Kennedy. Washington was worth over a half a billion dollars in today`s money. And his presidential salary was much higher than later presidents, totaling 2 percent of the U.S. budget for 1789.