Resolved: The United States ought to

adopt a wealth tax.

Introduction

Position
Western affirms.

Definitions and Plan

Western defines wealth tax as,
A 'wealth tax' affects a laundry list of assets and more.

[Michelle P. Scott, "Wealth Tax: Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons", 05/19/2024,
Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth-tax.asp ]
//isegora
A wealth tax, also called capital tax or equity tax, is imposed on the wealth possessed by individuals. The tax usually applies to
a person’s net worth, which is assets minus liabilities. These assets include (but are not limited to)
cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, personal cars, real property, pension plans, money funds, owner-occupied housing, and trusts.

Western’s plan is to implement Senator Warren’s wealth tax plan

Warren’s plan requires a tax on households making more than $50 million
The Warren Campaign states,

[“Ultra-Millionaire Tax | Elizabeth Warren.” Elizabethwarren.com, 2019,

elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax. ]

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir
with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income
next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

It applies only to households

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans.

with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households,
or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth
above $50 million and a 6% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is
so concentrated, this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $3.75 trillion in

revenue over a ten-year period.

Value and Criterion
Western’s value for this debate is democracy. Our criterion is maximizing societal
welfare. Western’s weighing standard ought to be considered superior because
democracy is the only government system that accounts for all individuals and
the welfare of the general populace.

Observations

O1: Lack of democracy is inherent when there is a significant

wealth gap
Policies supported by economic elites became law between 60 and 70 percent of the
time. Policies supported by business lobbies also became law 60 to 70 percent of the
time. Policy changes favored by a majority of all voters were enacted just 30 percent
of the time.
Eric Black was a longtime reporter for the Minnesota Star Tribune newspaper, and has also been a Twin Cities blogger. He is currently a columnist for online
newspaper MinnPost, primarily writing about politics and the historical background of current issues.
Black 2015,

[Black, Eric. “Disturbing Data: The Rich and Powerful Get Their Policies Adopted, Even If Opposed by
Most Voters.” MinnPost, The Minnesota Post, 8 May 2015,
www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-data-rich-and-powerful-get-their-policies-adop
ted-even-if-opposed/. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.]

You won’t be shocked to learn that wealthy people get the policies they want from government more often than those of low or moderate means. Nor will you
be surprised that organized special interests — the kinds of groups that send lobbyists to Washington to advance pro-business agendas — have an impact. But, at
least if you’ve been watching your old Frank Capra movies, you might think these tendencies can be overcome, or at least partially offset, by the power of the
people, the ordinary voter, without whose support no one can reach high office in America.

Even a legislator who sympathizes with or has sold his political soul to the rich and powerful (you might think) has to take into account the policy preferences of
the ordinary voter.

according to research by an eminent political scientist presented at the

You might think that, but

University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School, you would be wrong.

Whether or not a proposed change in government policy is favored by the majority of Americans “matters not a whit” in leading to the adoption of such policy
changes, Princeton professor Martin Gilens has concluded. On the other hand, the support of a proposed policy change by wealthy Americans, or by organized
lobbies, matters quite a few whits.

Gilens and co-author Benjamin Page have written a paper detailing these results. You can see the paper summarized here. You can see the two professors discuss
it with Jon Stewart on the “Daily Show” here. You can read Paul Krugman discussing their findings here. Or you can just allow your humble and obedient and
ink-stained wretch to summarize what Gilens told an audience at a Thursday forum of the Humphrey School’s Center for the Study of Politics and Government.

Gilens searched three decades worth of survey data (the decades with the 1980s, the 1990s and the 2000-aughts) to identify about 1,800 poll questions that
revealed whether a particular policy change before Congress was supported by average Americans, by wealthy Americans and by any organized lobbies. Many of

policies supported by economic elites became law

the proposals never became law. But Gilens and Page found that

between 60 and 70 percent of the time. Policies support by business lobbies also became law 60 to 70 percent of the time.
(Often these were the same policies.) But policy changes favored by a majority of all voters were enacted
just 30 percent of the time.
The policies that
Wait a minute (you may be thinking), 30 percent isn’t nothing; what about that “not a whit” stuff? But here’s the kicker.

became law, that had the support of the majority of Americans, in all cases also had
the support of the economic elite or of powerful lobbies or both.
There were plenty of cases in which policies supported by the wealthy or the big lobbies became law even though they were opposed by the popular majority.
(He mentioned a few, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Bush tax cuts and the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law — which was widely
blamed for facilitating the economic collapse of 2007-8 — that were adopted even though they were opposed by the majority of Americans.)

they found no cases in which a policy with majority support was adopted without
But

additional support by wealthy Americans or organized influence. That’s the key to Gilens’ statement that “only people with money or
organized influence matter.”
\
But how can that be true when no one can get into political office without popular support, usually majority support? You don’t have to be a super-cynic to know where Gilens goes with that question. It takes money to get elected. On average, he said, $1 million to win a seat in the
U.S. House, $10 million in the Senate. In the last presidential election, more than $1 billion was spent by or on behalf of each of the major-party presidential campaigns.

Wealthy donors, comprising less than .01

Maybe you’re used to that so it doesn’t surprise you, but how about this one:

percent of the population (that’s not 1 percent — that’s one one-hundredth of 1

percent) accounted for 40 percent of all political contributions in 2012, Gilens said. (All those donors
could fit inside Target stadium, he said— but, of course, they may not all be Twins fans.)

Who gives how much to campaigns has long been an issue, but in the post-Citizens United era, Gilens said, most of the money isn’t even raised and spent by the
campaigns. In 2012, more than $1 billion of political spending was done by SuperPACs and other unaccountable groups who don’t even give to campaigns. Of
SuperPAC money, he said, 93 percent came from just 3,318 wealthy people. Fifty-nine percent of it came from just 159 people, which he called “a shocking
concentration” of political giving that “shows no signs of letting up.”

“Political and economic power has become concentrated in the hands of fewer and
fewer people,” Gilens said, and if that trend continues “we’ll have a democracy in
name only.”

O2: Democracy is the best way to represent the interests of all

and maintain societal stability
Democracy is a network of mutually reinforcing structures in which those exercising
power are subject to checks both within and outside the state
Sarah Repucci leads the Americas Policy and Insights team for Economist Impact. Drawing on more than 20 years’ experience in the social impact space, she
spearheads production of cutting edge custom research to drive positive change in the world. Previously, Repucci worked for Freedom House, where she oversaw
Freedom House’s flagship publications including Freedom in the World, and led the expansion of Freedom House’s research on global democracy and human
rights as Vice President of Research and Analysis. She also worked for Transparency International and the Global Business Initiative on Human Rights, and as an
independent consultant for a range of NGOs, bilateral and multilateral organizations, and private businesses.
Amy Slipowitz leads research for Free Them All: The Fred Hiatt Program to Free Political Prisoners. She previously oversaw Freedom in the World, Freedom
House’s flagship annual report assessing the conditions of political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories. Prior to joining Freedom House, Amy
worked on the research team at the nonprofit organization DonorsChoose, and at a private investment management firm. She holds a master’s degree in
international affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, where she specialized in human rights policy. She also holds a B.A. in
economics and American Studies from Colby College.
Repucci, Slipowitch 22,

[Repucci, Sarah, and Amy Slipowitz. “The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule.” Freedom House,
2022, freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule. Accessed
27 Oct. 2024.]
Fundamental to the restoration of democracy is a correct understanding of what it is. The word democracy has been applied, rightly or wrongly, to states of all types, from the “Democratic People’s Republic” of North Korea to the freest polities in Scandinavia. A December 2021 joint
op-ed by the Russian and Chinese ambassadors to the United States called both of their dictatorships “democratic.” Misappropriation of the word is a testament to democracy's widespread appeal. Yet this unfortunate practice has generated confusion, allowing opponents to
simultaneously claim democratic credentials and argue that actual democracies are ineffective or hypocritical.
Moreover, it has contributed to a misperception that all democracy requires is the regular performance of elections. Democracy means more than just majority

In its ideal form, it is a governing system based on the will and consent of the
rule, however.

governed, institutions that are accountable to all citizens, adherence to the rule of law,
and respect for human rights. It is a network of mutually reinforcing structures in
which those exercising power are subject to checks both within and outside the state,
for example, from independent courts, an independent press, and civil society. It requires an
openness to alternations in power, with rival candidates or parties competing fairly to govern for the good of the public as a whole, not just themselves or those
who voted for them. It creates a level playing field so that all people, no matter the circumstances of their birth or background, can enjoy the universal human
rights to which they are entitled and participate in politics and governance.

Democracy is also more than just an ideal. It is a practical engine of self-correction and improvement
that empowers people to constantly, peacefully struggle toward that ideal. When one
part of the system falters, the others can be used as tools to repair and strengthen it.
This unique and inherent capacity for self-correction is what makes democracy so
successful at delivering long-term stability and prosperity. No democracy in the real world is perfect, and those
demanding democracy in places like Cuba and Hong Kong are not demanding perfection. What they desire are the freedoms and the institutions that will allow
them to create a better life and a more just society over time.

Wealth inequality threatens our democracy. It is necessary to address wealth

inequality in order to maintain true democracy in which all can be fairly
represented and the rights of corporations will be kept in check.

Advantages

Growing the middle class

The United States middle class is declining, and the upper-class has seen
the most significant gains
Horowitz et al. 2020 from Pew Research Center writes,

[Horowitz, Juliana, et al. “Trends in U.S. Income and Wealth Inequality.” Pew Research Center, Pew
Research Center, 9 Jan. 2020,
www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/. ]
The decline in the middle-class share is not a total sign of regression. From 1971 to 2019, the share of adults in the upper-income tier increased from 14% to 20%. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. On balance, there was more movement up
the income ladder than down the income ladder.

But middle-class incomes have not grown at the rate of upper-tier incomes. From 1970 to 2018, the median middle-class income increased from $58,100 to $86,600, a gain of 49%. This was considerably less than the 64% increase for upper-income households, whose median income
increased from $126,100 in 1970 to $207,400 in 2018. Households in the lower-income tier experienced a gain of 43%, from $20,000 in 1970 to $28,700 in 2018. (Incomes are expressed in 2018 dollars.)

More tepid growth in the income of middle-class households and the reduction in the share of households in the middle-income tier led to a steep fall in the

From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income

share of U.S. aggregate income held by the middle class.

going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the
share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share
flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.
These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980.

As previously stated, the Warren plan will bring in $3.75 trillion in revenue over a
ten-year period. Calculated, this is $375 billion dollars per year.
The federal government spends more than $1.1 trillion a year on 134 welfare
programs
Tanner 2022 writes,
Michael Tanner was a Cato Institute senior fellow and headed research into a variety of domestic policies, with an emphasis on poverty and social welfare policy,
health care, and Social Security and entitlement reform.

[Tanner, Michael. “Poverty and Welfare.” Cato.org, The Cato Institute, 2022,
www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/poverty-w
elfare. ]

Although the exact number fluctuates from year to year, the federal government funds
more than 100 separate anti-poverty programs. Some 70 of them provide cash or in-kind benefits to individuals, while
the remainder target specific groups or disadvantaged neighborhoods or communities.

There are eight different health care programs administered by five separate agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. Six cabinet departments and five independent agencies oversee 27 cash or general-assistance programs. Altogether, seven different cabinet
agencies and six independent agencies administer at least one anti-poverty program. And those are just the programs specifically aimed at poverty. That doesn’t include more universal social welfare programs or social insurance programs, such as unemployment insurance,
Medicare, or Social Security.

Altogether, the federal government spends more than $1.1 trillion a year on 134
welfare programs. State and local governments add about $744 billion more. Thus, government at all levels is spending roughly $1.8 trillion per
year to fight poverty (Figure 1). Stretching back to 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson first declared a “war on poverty,” anti-poverty spending has totaled
more than $30 trillion.

With a wealth tax, we can increase spending on these programs by 134%,

greatly increasing their impact and the quality of life of Americans. A stronger
middle class made by weakening the grip of the upper will create a more
democratic system because we would be weakening the policy pushing power of
the upper class while enforcing the power of the upper and lower. This change in
power dynamics is key for strengthening democracy and thus the societal welfare
of our people.

Strengthening the US economy

The decline in the wealth share of the middle class and the rise of income inequality
create an adverse climate for economic growth.
Daugherty 2023 writes,
Greg Daugherty received his bachelor's in political science from Northwestern University and his master's in journalism from the University of Illinois.
He has held senior-level editorial positions at Money, Consumer Reports, Success, and Reader’s Digest. As a freelance writer he has contributed to The New York
Times, Parade, Smithsonian, National Geographic Traveler, Investopedia, PBS NextAvenue, Wirecutter, and many other print and online outlets. He was also the
longtime “Retirement Guy” columnist for the Consumer Reports Money Adviser newsletter.

[Daugherty, Greg. “Slip Slidin’ Away: America’s Shrinking Middle Class .” Investopedia, edited by Robert
Kelly, 2 Nov. 2023, www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disappearing-middle-class/. ]
The economic recovery following the Great Recession of 2007–2009 was one of the slowest in modern times and may have prevented adults with aspirations of class mobility from moving into upper-income households. This economic recovery also had a profound impact on how
income is distributed in the U.S.

In general, the decline in the wealth share of the middle class and the rise of income
inequality create an adverse climate for economic growth. This is because a relative
decrease in the incomes of lower- and middle-income families in the U.S. may result in
a decline in overall consumption in the country—this has been shown to increase the
level of borrowing (and debt) and decrease investments in education.
For this analysis, the Pew Research Center defined “middle-income” Americans as adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national
median, after incomes have been adjusted for household size. In 2021, the national middle-income range was about $52,000 to $156,000 annually for a
household of three. Lower-income households had incomes less than $52,000 and upper-income households had incomes greater than $156,000. All of these
numbers are in 2020 dollars.

A strong middle class creates a stable source of demand for goods and services
Boushey, Hersh 2012
Heather Marie Boushey is an American economist who currently serves as a member of President Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisers and the Chief
Economist for the Invest in America Cabinet at the White House.
Adam Hersh is a Senior Economist at the Economic Policy Institute who ocuses on international trade, industrial, climate, China, and macroeconomic policies.
Adam publishes and is cited frequently in both peer reviewed and popular media outlets, regularly provides expert Congressional testimony and advises U.S. and
international policymakers and civil society leaders. He is a contributing author of Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy (2015) with Nobel Prize-winner
Joseph Stiglitz.

A strong middle class gives certainty to business investors that they will have a market
for their goods and services. Supply-side thinkers argue that light tax and regulatory policies will lead to high investment, employment,
and economic growth. But many economists acknowledge that an increase in supply does not automatically lead to an increase in aggregate demand. Rather,
economies may have prolonged periods of unemployment and underutilized capital, which can be both the cause and the result of depressed and unstable
demand.

If demand matters for economic growth, the question is then, how do high inequality and the strength of the middle class impact demand? Economists have
developed a number of theories about how inequality affects demand:

● As more of the nation’s economic gains go to those at the top of the income
distribution—and if those families have a lower propensity to consume—then
this will pull down demand from potentially higher levels given more equitable
distribution.
● Heightened inequality and a squeezed middle class leads families to either
consume less, lowering demand, or put in place short-term coping strategies,
such as borrowing more, which has long-term implications for growth and
stability.

When the middle class is strong, so is democracy

Lu is a professor at the China University of Political Science and Law.
Lu 2005,

[LU, CHUNLONG. “MIDDLE CLASS AND DEMOCRACY: STRUCTURAL LINKAGE.” International Review of
Modern Sociology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2005, pp. 157–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41421642.
Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

In the democracy literature, middle class has been considered a potent agent of the sociopolitical transition toward democracy and the cornerstone of
democratic rule. This article offers a structural perspective on the relationship between middle class and democracy. This article uses the method of structural

findings indicate that

equation modeling to test the structural relation between a country's size of middle class and its level of democracy. The

where the middle class is numerous and strong, there are more possibilities for the
country to be a stable democracy; while where the middle is weak, there are few
possibilities to be democratic. And the findings also indicate that economic development does not exert direct impacts on democratic
status, rather it works through middle class to exert indirect impacts. These findings have significant implications for the role of middle class in the
democratization.
A strong middle class is indispensable to a strong democracy. Strengthening our
middle class and weakening the upper makes America more democratic.

Greater access to education

Schools in low-income areas have extreme disparities compared to those is middle
or high class areas
School of Education at American University 2020,
American University’s School of Education has built a reputation as an innovator in education curriculum, research, leadership, and service—including
partnerships with organizations such as City Year, the Peace Corps, Teach For America, and the renowned Lab School of Washington. It has established a tradition
of excellence by creating teachers, education leaders, and policymakers who are committed to social justice and building equitable and inclusive learning
environments for all students.

[American University. “Inequality in Public School Funding.” Soeonline.american.edu, 10 Sept. 2020,

soeonline.american.edu/blog/inequality-in-public-school-funding/. ]

By relying largely on
The financing systems of public schools in the US ensure that community wealth disparities carry over into education.

property taxes to fund schools, which can vary widely between wealthy and poor areas, districts create funding
gaps from the word go. Affluent areas end up with well-funded schools and low-income areas
end up with poorly funded schools. District sizes also distort funding levels. Predominantly white districts are typically smaller, yet
still receive 23 billion more than districts that are predominantly students of color, according to a recent EdBuild study. This results from the tendency to draw
district lines around small affluent islands of well-funded schools within larger poorer areas that serve mostly students of color.

Smaller districts offer more local control which can encourage more investment in education since the investment is directly observable in a person’s community.
However, local funding and locally controlled school systems tend to create perverse incentives that lead to inequitable outcomes.

The current funding approach across most of the nation leaves schools serving
low-income and minority students at an inherent disadvantage. Despite additional funding from states
meant to offset these differences, the budgets of low-income districts typically fall very short of reaching anything comparable to that of their wealthier
neighbors.

According to the Education Trust’s analysis “Funding Gaps 2018,” school districts with the greatest concentrations of black, Latino, or Native American students
receive around $1,800 less per student than districts educating the least students of color. Between low-income and high-income areas, the funding difference is
$1,000 per student.
Spending differentials exist both between states and within them. For example, the same analysis found that surrounding suburban counties outspent Chicago by more than $10,000 per student. Despite these dismal reports, some states have chosen a different path, implementing
measures to ensure the districts with the highest levels of poverty receive more equitable funding.

More elite college students in America come from the top 1% of the income scale
than the entire bottom 60%
Aisch, Buchanan et al. 2017,
Gregor Aisch is a graphics editor at The New York Times, based in Berlin. He has worked for The Times since 2014.
Buchanan spent more than a decade at The Times, covering stories for nearly every desk, including breaking news, the presidency of Donald J. Trump, gun
violence in America and the last four Olympic Games.

[Aisch, Gregor, et al. “Some Colleges Have More Students from the Top 1 Percent than the Bottom 60.”
The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-
1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html. Accessed 21 Oct. 2024.]

Students at elite colleges are even richer than experts realized, according to a new study based on millions of anonymous tax filings and tuition records.

At 38 colleges in America, including five in the Ivy League – Dartmouth, Princeton,

Yale, Penn and Brown – more students came from the top 1 percent of the income
scale than from the entire bottom 60 percent.
38 colleges had more students from the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent
Roughly one in four of the richest students attend an elite college – universities that typically cluster
toward the top of annual rankings (you can find more on our definition of “elite” at the bottom).

In contrast, less than one-half of 1 percent of children from the bottom fifth of
American families attend an elite college; less than half attend any college at all.
Where today’s 25-year-olds went to college, grouped by their parents’ income
About four in 10 students from the top 0.1 percent attend an Ivy League or elite university, roughly equivalent to the share of students from poor families who
attend any two- or four-year college.

Colleges often promote their role in helping poorer students rise in life, and their commitments to affordability. But some elite colleges have focused more on
being affordable to low-income families than on expanding access. “Free tuition only helps if you can get in,” said Danny Yagan, an assistant professor of
economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the study.
The study – by Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner and Mr. Yagan – provides the most comprehensive look at how well or how poorly
colleges have built an economically diverse student body. The researchers tracked about 30 million students born between 1980 and 1991, linking anonymized
tax returns to attendance records from nearly every college in the country.
We’re offering detailed information on each of more than 2,000 American colleges on separate pages. See how your college compares – by clicking any college
name like Harvard, U.C.L.A., Penn State, Texas A&M or Northern Virginia Community College – or search for schools that interest you.
At elite colleges, the share of students from the bottom 40 percent has remained mostly flat for a decade. Access to top colleges has not changed much, at least
when measured in quintiles. (The poor have gotten poorer over that time, and the very rich have gotten richer.)

People who lack access to higher-level skills will increasingly find themselves unable
to join the workforce and participate effectively in society
LPI 2020,
Nonprofit and nonpartisan, LPI works with policymakers, researchers, educators, community groups, and others to strengthen the education system from
preschool through college and career readiness.

[“The Federal Role in Advancing Education Equity and Excellence.” Learning Policy Institute, 28 Aug.
2020, learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/advancing-education-2020-brief. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.]
Gone are the days when, for many Americans, rote learning of routine skills led to a good job and a stable, middle-class life with time for family and friends and opportunities for civic engagement. Today’s fast-paced technological advances are continually changing the nature of the
job market. Not only can computers check you in at the airport and check you out at the grocery store; together with robotics, they can clean houses, conduct surgery, and steer self-driving cars. As the pace of global change continues, the old assembly line model of education will
not suffice. The top skills needed for employment in 2020 are the abilities to make sense out of complex information and events, to think creatively to solve real-world problems, to work well with others, to engage effectively in cross-cultural contexts, and to manage many forms of
media and data in sophisticated ways.

As other countries that have been attending to these skills are surging ahead, U.S. students’ scores during the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era dropped on
international assessments like the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA) and, recently, on our own National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP). More importantly, people who lack access to higher-level skills will increasingly find
themselves unable to join the workforce and participate effectively in society. This has
enormous implications for us all. With a greater number of seniors living longer, for example, the social compact that supports

our collective health and retirement benefits cannot be sustained unless younger
generations can gain productive employment, support themselves, and pay taxes to
help support others, as well as participate productively in a civic democracy.

U.S. childhood poverty rates have grown by more than 50% since the 1970s and are
At the same time,
among the highest of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations,
reaching 21% in the latest published statistics. Even before the current global pandemic, more than half of children attending U.S. public schools qualified for free
or reduced-price lunch— the highest percentage since the National Center for Education Statistics began tracking this figure decades ago. Furthermore,
American children living in poverty have a much weaker safety net than their peers in other industrialized countries, where universal health care; housing
subsidies; and high-quality, universally available preschool are the norm.

While there are pockets of progress across the United States, adequate and equitable educational
opportunity is far from a reality for many students of color, students from low-income families, and
other historically underserved students. Recognizing the guarantee of a high-quality education as one of the cornerstones of a more just and equitable society, then President Johnson and Congress worked
together to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)—one of many critical civil rights laws enacted during this era. Following the passage of ESEA and other key civil rights laws, the federal government continued for a period of time to fully use the tools at its
disposal to make educational equity and excellence a reality for all students, particularly students of color and students from low-income families. During this time of significant federal action and investment coupled with efforts by states and local school districts, the nation
experienced increased student achievement and substantial closing of educational opportunity and achievement gaps.

Unfortunately, beginning in the 1980s, the federal government retreated from its role in securing equity and excellence through investment and action. Had the rate of progress achieved in the 1970s continued, the achievement gap between Black and White students would have
been fully closed by the beginning of the 21st century.

We must learn from these lessons as we chart the path forward. It is our collective responsibility—including the federal government’s—to ensure that all young people have equal access to a high-quality, world-class education. This goal has never been more important than in today’s
fast-growing knowledge economy that is coupled with increasing rates of poverty as more and more families are left behind.

Federal policymakers can learn from states in which progress is being made, from past federal investments that resulted in equitable advancement, and from high-quality research on what works to improve learning and how federal tools and resources can support productive efforts
at the state and local levels. These include advancing the federal policies described below.

Only 36% percent of voters have completed college

Carroll Doherty is director of political research at Pew Research Center. He plays a leading role in developing the Center’s research agenda and overseeing
editorial content about long-term trends in political values, U.S. views on policy issues and priorities, and political knowledge and news interest.
Jocelyn Kiley is a senior associate director of research at Pew Research Center, where she primarily works on U.S. public opinion about politics. She is involved in
all stages of the research process at the Center, and is a principal investigator on the Center’s work on political polarization in the American public, as well as its
regular election polling.
Doherty, Kiley, 2020,

[Doherty, Caroll, and Jocelyn Kiley. “In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark
Dividing Lines.” Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy, 2 June 2020,
www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-sta
rk-dividing-lines/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

just 36% of registered

Just as the nation has become more racially and ethnically diverse, it also has become better educated. Still,

voters have a four-year college degree or more education; a sizable majority (64%)
have not completed college. Democrats increasingly dominate in party identification among white college graduates – and maintain
wide and long-standing advantages among black, Hispanic and Asian American voters. Republicans increasingly dominate in party affiliation among white
non-college voters, who continue to make up a majority (57%) of all GOP voters.

Education is the number 1 determinate of success in later life. Extreme wealth

gaps depresses the non-rich access to education on par with that of the rich. A
wealth tax would help to mitigate that; not only fulfilling a right to education but
also educating our voter base so they can make better decisions in the future
about their own government, further contributing to democracy.

Happiness and life satisfaction

Upward wealth inequality has a significant negative effect on happiness
Bochi Sun is a postdoctoral researcher at Beijing Normal University. He has published in multiple scholarly journals throughout his career, many under the Beijing
Normal University.
Gao, Sun 2022 et al.,

[Gao, Lingxi, et al. “How Wealth Inequality Affects Happiness: The Perspective of Social Comparison.”
Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, no. 13, Frontiers Media SA, Apr. 2022, pp. 8–9,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.829707. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.]

The regression starts by taking the total effect of wealth inequality into account. The model in Table 2 is the empirical test of permanent inequality aversion. In

the wealth Gini coefficient has a significantly

this study, we estimate inequality aversion based on pooled data. First,

negative effect on happiness (b = −0.082, p < 0.001), which means that one standard
increase in the Gini index in the surroundings decreases the proportion of people
reporting themselves as “Very happy” by 0.20 percentage points. Overall, permanent
inequality is negatively related to happiness, which means that the persistent gap between people upsets them. To clarify
the mechanism of comparison-driven inequality aversion, we decompose the wealth Gini index into the upward wealth inequality and the downward wealth
inequality.

Table 3 shows that based on the results of the regression of the upward wealth inequality and the downward wealth inequality on happiness, the upward
wealth inequality has a significantly negative effect on happiness (b = -0.453, p < 0.001),
while downward inequality has the opposite effect (b = 0.021, p < 0.05).
The results show an aversion to the upward wealth inequality and an inclination to the downward wealth inequality. However, the two components that the Gini

the upward wealth inequality has a greater impact on happiness

index decomposes display asymmetry:

than the downward wealth inequality does. This trend mirrors people’s psychological preferences, as they would tend to
focus on the increases among the rich and neglect decreases among the poor (Boyce et al., 2010).

The inequality aversion mainly comes from the upward wealth inequality, rather than the downward wealth inequality. The empirical results show that a
persistent upward distance makes one feel worse and that a persistent downward distance makes one feel better. Compared to the result in temporary advantage
that Cojocaru (2014) reveals, the permanent advantage makes status concerns exceed empathy. The temporary advantage arouses unfairness of the downward
distance. In contrast, the larger one’s permanent downward distance is, the better one would feel. Additionally, the results show that upward inequality aversion
is stronger than downward inequality aversion. The behavior concept behind this outcome might be loss aversion, and the upward wealth inequality can be seen
as loss from others in the reference group. Households confirm their status quo from the social comparison. Thus, an increase in upward distance implies a loss in
relative status, and an increase in downward distance implies a gain in relative status.

The United Nations recognizes that happiness is a fundamental human goal

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes
and principles contained in its founding Charter. The UN has evolved over the years to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. But one thing has stayed the
same: it remains the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of
humanity.
UN General Assembly 2024,

[“Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 28 June 2012. 66/281. International Day of
Happiness .” United Nations, United Nations General Assembly, 12 July 2012,
documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n11/475/68/pdf/n1147568.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.]

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 65/309 of 19 July 2011, which invites Member States to pursue the elaboration
of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being
in development with a view to guiding their public policies,

Conscious that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal,

Recognizing the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and

aspirations in the lives of human beings around the world and the importance of their
recognition in public policy objectives,

Recognizing also the need for a more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach to
economic growth that promotes sustainable development, poverty eradication,
happiness and the well-being of all peoples,
1. Decides to proclaim 20 March the International Day of Happiness;
2. Invites all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, as well as civil society,
 including non-governmental organizations and individuals, to observe the International Day of Happiness in an appropriate manner, including
through education and public awareness-raising activities;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system
and civil society organizations for appropriate observance.

People in richer countries tend to be happier, and within all countries, richer people
tend to be happier
Esteban is the Executive Co-Director of Our World in Data alongside Max Roser. In tandem, they lead Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization
responsible for publishing Our World in Data. Esteban is also an Honorary Researcher at the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development, where his
research and writing cover topics including economic development, public sector analysis, education, and a wide range of related issues. Prior to joining the team
at Our World in Data, Esteban was a Departmental Lecturer in Economics at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, from 2013 to January
2016. Esteban completed his doctoral studies at the University of Oxford (DPhil Economics).
Max is the founder of Our World in Data and began working on this free online publication in 2011. Today, he serves as the publication’s editor and leads the
team as its co-director. He is the Professor of Practice in Global Data Analytics at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, the Programme
Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development, and the Executive Co-Director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that
publishes Our World in Data.
Ortiz-Ospina, Roser, 2024,

[Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. “Happiness and Life Satisfaction.” Our World in Data, May
2013, ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction#economic-growth-and-happiness. Accessed
24 Oct. 2024.]

richer countries tend to be happier than poorer countries

As we can see, there is a very clear pattern:

(observations are lined up around an upward-sloping trend), and richer people within countries tend to be happier

than poorer people in the same countries (arrows are consistently pointing northeast).
It’s important to note that the horizontal axis is measured on a logarithmic scale. The cross-country relationship we would observe on a linear scale would be
different since, at high national income levels, slightly higher national incomes are associated with a smaller increase in average happiness than at low levels of
national incomes. In other words, the cross-country relationship between income and happiness is not linear on income (it is ‘log-linear’). We use the logarithmic

a doubling of the average

scale to highlight two key facts: (i) at no point in the global income distribution is the relationship flat, and (ii)

income is associated with roughly the same increase in the reported life satisfaction,
irrespective of the position in the global distribution.
These findings have been explored in more detail in a number of recent academic studies. Importantly, the much-cited paper by Stevenson and Wolfers (2008)

these correlations hold even after controlling for various country characteristics,
shows that

such as the demographic composition of the population, and are robust to different
sources of data and types of subjective well-being measures.
In the charts above, we show that there is robust evidence of a strong correlation between income and happiness across and within countries at fixed points in time. Here, we want to show that, while less strong, there is also a correlation between income and happiness across time.
Or, put differently, as countries get richer, the population tends to report higher average life satisfaction.

The chart shown here uses data from the World Values Survey to plot the evolution of national average incomes and national average happiness over time. To be specific, this chart shows the share of people who say they are ‘very happy’ or ‘rather happy’ in the World Values Survey
(vertical axis) against GDP per head (horizontal axis). Each country is drawn as a line joining the first and last available observations across all survey waves.

As we can see, countries that experience economic growth also tend to experience happiness growth across waves in the World Values Survey. This is a correlation that holds after controlling for other factors that also change over time (in this chart from Stevenson and Wolfers
(2008), you can see how changes in GDP per capita compare to changes in life satisfaction after accounting for changes in demographic composition and other variables).

An important point to note here is that economic growth and happiness growth tend to go together on average. Some countries, in some periods, experience economic growth without increasing happiness. The experience of the US in recent decades is a case in point. These
instances may seem paradoxical given the evidence—we explore this question in the following section.

Happiness and life satisfaction is a human right. Implementing the aff will break
down the wealth gap that is keeping the American people from establishing this
and work towards an egalitarian society where this happiness can be continued
by the people’s right to democratically vote for the candidate they prefer.
Solvency
The majority of societal problems can be traced back to extreme wealth
inequality. Breaking down the large chunks of wealth that get stuck within the top
1% will allow us a chance to adequately address problems that would not
otherwise be solved.
Address neg
We better solve for the wealth gap and strengthen democracy thereby protecting
the middle class we are building with affirmation.

Conclusion

Crystallization
We have addressed how a significant wealth gap is tied to a weak democratic
system and proposed a plan to solve both. Implementing the affirmative will
maximize societal welfare by growing the middle class, strengthening the US
economy, creating greater access to education, and increasing happiness and
life satisfaction; in turn creating a self-reinforcing system in which democracy is
strengthened along with the wellbeing of the people.

Role of the Ballot

The affirmation is the only way to protect our sinking democracy and protect our
rights for all the reasons I spoke about before. As the final decision it is your
responsibility to do what is best for the American people, and as such I urge you
to vote affirmative.