In the article “What’s Really Radical? Not Taxing the Rich,” by David Leonhardt, the author argues that income inequality is a major concern for America. Most people believe that the rich keep gaining wealth, while average and below average Americans are working hard just to survive. Taxes are taking a toll on ordinary people. It could be said that a common belief among American people is that the distribution of money is unfair. While a prevalent outlook on income equality exists within other parties, Leonhardt resists the idea and does a favorable job arguing that the circulation of money is unequitable in the United States.
In this opinion column, Leonhardt explains why compensation is unfairly appropriated in America. He begins the article by giving a fake, exaggerated presidential candidate speech. This speech helps set the stage to prove his point. Middle-class families do not make as much money as they should, because they “forfeit” their money to the rich via taxes (Leonhardt 2). He claims that President Trump has just made everything worse and is not willing to do anything about this issue. Leonhardt believes that the prospering Americans continue to feed off lower-class Americans’ expenses, thus increasing the diversity in revenue. He is looking for like-minded people to rally around the idea of moving forward in a “wealth tax” for the well-to-do Americans, hoping to overturn economic inequality (Leonhardt 3). Leonhardt takes his understanding of the debate and takes action in hopes that it will get the community in one accord with his new ideal objectives.
Although the Republicans and other parties argue that income inequality is not a substantial controversy, Leonhardt and those of the Democratic party tend to disagree. He proposes that Democrats are not “radical[s]” for thinking this, but rather are making an endeavor to help all Americans gain the welfare they deserve for doing their appointed jobs (Leonhardt 2). Leonhardt’s argument is a valid line of reasoning, but it is most certainly biased. He is not taking into careful consideration the other side of the argument, that the rich do pay their taxes, and they work hard to achieve their success in their wealth and income, making income inequality not an issue of debate, but rather something to improve. His objectives and tactics are very successful in persuading his audience to get involved in standing up for the unequitable distribution of money in the United States, but again do not address the opposing view fairly. When Leonhardt states “Americans resent not receiving their fair share of economic growth,” this is an overestimated statement, putting all Americans under one category (2). There is always room for adjustments, but it is unnecessary to blow all other ideas out of the water and take everything out of proportion.
Leonhardt uses effective methods of persuasion in this article to motivate the audience to come together in agreement on this matter. The targeted readers in this article are lower-middle class Democratic Americans. This limits who will be interested in the article, and also adds a lot of possible opposers. Leonhardt has a degree in Mathematics, so it would seem that he would have a bountiful resource of knowledge on the topic, but his Democratic biases and his desire to please society limits how much of his intelligence he can display in this article. Speaking of the Democrats, Leonhardt suggests that the leaders of the party be considered “conservative” (Leonhardt 3). This exhibits Leonhardt’s loyalty to the Democratic party, and the belief that their stance is correct. Leonhardt uses pathos, logos, and ethos as a means of influencing his audience. He has a lot of passion for this debate, considering his educational background, and the way he composes this article. It is made manifest in this article that the author understands the topic and knows how to argue it very well. He makes profuse amounts of well-educated statements and arguments in this article.
While a predominant view on income equality exists within other parties, Leonhardt repels the idea and does a favorable job arguing for the excessive jaundiced viewpoint that the distribution of money is wrong in the United States. The author has authority that makes his article reliable. Leonhardt is an opinion columnist for the New York Times. He was also the founding editor of “The Upshot.” He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, and for editorials on the financial crisis. His bias is most certainly evident in this article. His view on income inequality is very extreme. He believes that the rich keep gaining wealth, while the common people are stagnant in wealth or declining.
Leonhardt states this in his article, “But clear majorities support higher taxes on the wealthy, higher taxes on corporations, more education funding, and expanded government health insurance” (2). He is very sure of where he stands on the subject and has the credentials to back it up. It’s also crucial for the audience to understand that the author highly believes in income inequality and is pro-Democrat. He believes lower-middle class Americans are being taxed unfairly. He is exceptionally bold in his arguments and states them as they are; he does not try to ‘sugar coat’ them. One of his audacious claims is that fiscal variation has attained “Gilded Age” (Leonhardt 2). The Gilded Age in History is known to be a time of reconstruction after the Civil War, for social and economic problems. It’s an ultimate high and is a time of re-establishment in our government.
The organization is well done in this article. It has an introduction, a problem, a solution to the problem, then a conclusion. The supporting claims to prove his main assertions are not very strong, but good enough to get the point across. This article is not a hard read, except for a couple of terms here and there. The most audience attracting parts are when Leonhardt is rallying the middle-class to make a difference and support the change. It shows the emotion behind the writing of this article, and that’s what makes it so interesting and appealing to a reader’s eye.