In actuality, it is an even smaller fraction that holds the biggest stake in our economy, an astounding .1%. Exhibiting his case to the middle class citizens that he also writes about, Krugman presents the difference in opinion about how these ‘super-elites’ should be treated when it comes to taxation, with Democrats leaning toward the view that the elite should be helping with the ever depleting budget by contributing more of their incomes, while Republicans feel they need to decrease funding for social welfare programs in order to present these people with more cuts to the taxes they pay. Besides the argument that these people own companies that bring needed jobs into the economic landscape, there is also the notion that many of the .1% are seen as being cutting-edge or innovative, bringing forth ideas and inventions that change the way our society communicates and lives. It is admitted that some of them bring about creations to our society that are deemed viable for this sort of special treatment, but it is only a select few that are engineering or technological masterminds deserving of being called ‘Innovators”. He concludes his thoughts by asking if the middle class should hate these people, and answering “no” to his own question, he informs the audience that they should look past the hype …show more content…
I am a Psychology/Social Work major seeking to help people in need, and these programs are crucial to my aspirations. I see no reason to give this .1% even more tax breaks where they already get so many. I present an example of another tax break that this group is given, as Krugman points out, “In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 - and