Linden Kelley
Jana Fischer
English 106
9 September 2008

Shared Prosperity, Easy Fix or Long Term Problem?

A new agenda called “shared prosperity” lures supporters in by offering a one fix solution to all of America’s economic and social problems. Although the enticing proposals of shared prosperity sound promising, the increased size and influence of government would result in several masked negative affects on the nation.
The title shared prosperity suggests a utopian society where all are equal and well-off. The concept of shared prosperity requires (?)is really a mixture of wealth redistribution and an increase in the government’s power and influence. As pointed out by Dave Hooper points out in his letter entitled “Democrats looking to redistribute wealth,” sharing should be voluntary, but in the case of shared prosperity it leads to more taxes and restrictions set by government for some people while providing free resources to others.
Shared prosperity plans also boast to provide health care, world class education, a fair and opportunistic workplace for all and manage the fiscal policy, but its ideals are rooted in a socialist economy. The American public as a whole is requested to contribute to the nation’s growth and well-being regardless of social, ethnic, or economic background. This would give the government extended influence on healthcare, education, work and the economy eliminating competition, the system our capitalistic nation thrives on, in these areas.
Shared prosperity could indeed solve several problems in America but only in the short term. Shared prosperity is a hidden method of wealth redistribution that would lead to the destruction of healthy competition is several areas of America’s society.

Linden Kelley
Jana Fischer
English 106
9 September 2008

Shared Prosperity, Easy Fix or Long Term Problem?

A new agenda called “shared prosperity” lures supporters in by offering a one fix solution to all of America’s economic and social problems. Although the enticing proposals of shared prosperity sound promising, the increased size and influence of government would result in several masked negative affects on the nation.

The title shared prosperity suggests a utopian society where all are equal and well-off. The concept of shared prosperity requires (?)is really a mixture of wealth redistribution and an increase in the government’s power and influence. As pointed out by Dave Hooper points out in his letter entitled “Democrats looking to redistribute wealth,” sharing should be voluntary, but in the case of shared prosperity it leads to more taxes and restrictions set by government for some people while providing free resources to others.

Shared prosperity plans also boast to provide health care, world class education, a fair and opportunistic workplace for all and manage the fiscal policy, but its ideals are rooted in a socialist economy. The American public as a whole is requested to contribute to the nation’s growth and well-being regardless of social, ethnic, or economic background. This would give the government extended influence on healthcare, education, work and the economy eliminating competition, the system our capitalistic nation thrives on, in these areas.

Shared prosperity could indeed solve several problems in America but only in the short term. Shared prosperity is a hidden method of wealth redistribution that would lead to the destruction of healthy competition is several areas of America’s society.