CNN Article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/07/election/2012/congress-payroll-tax-cut/index.html
Taxes are one of the most conversional and debated topics in our country and political system. Should the rich be taxed more than the poor? Is that fair and if not, is it still the duty of the rich to pay more to assist the poor? These questions are ubiquitously argued between Democrats, Republicans, and all Americans that are affected by it. Our country currently uses a marginal income tax rate depending on a person’s income and other factors such as their marital status. The article attached discusses Obama’s policy and the possibility of a nation-wide payroll tax cut, particularly for people making over $1 million dollars yearly. That group of people are the upper echelon of society and some of them make up the 1% that is currently being protested on Wall Street. The basic question that I pose to the readers of this blog is should the rich be taxed at higher percentages than the poor and lower class? If so, why is that fair to the higher class who earned their money though hard work?
I do not support one decision necessarily but as I was debating it in my mind I thought about what Burke would think about this purposed tax cut. Burke, does not support change and rather vehemently rejects anything that disrupts the normal flow of society. He believed things were working very well during his time but this may have been due to the fact that he was living very comfortably himself. If he was in the lower class, would his feelings and writings have been different? Also, if Burke were here now would he support the tax cuts or prefer the rich to be taxed at a higher bracket? I believe that he would probably argue against the higher tax brackets for the rich simply because he would probably be part of the rich or aristocracy himself. However, Burke supported the American Revolution so would he support the Occupy Wall-Street protest? This question is posed to all readers but I believe he would still not support it. The reason behind Burke’s support of the American Revolution was because it was hurting Britain to have America colonized anyway. Occupy Wall-Street is not affecting anything previously negative or anything that is already hurting the US. In contrast, it is disrupting the norm and changing society, particularly the financial district of NYC, and this would only frustrate Burke. Although Burke may not have been as rich as the 1% being protested, the lack of a centralized argument would cause him to reject this movement, in my view.
Burke prefers sticking simply to the fundamentals of society. This works in a perfect world when the fundamentals of society are working perfectly without any problem. However, our country is coming out of a horrible recession that destroyed many American lives and their financial position; change may be necessary and vital in order to regain our strength as a country. If Burke were alive, he may argue that we should still stick to the old fundamentals of our country that have worked in the past and will work again. Is it worth taking that risk or is change the only way to regain economic power as a country? This question has no correct answer but its results and implications are massively important.