Welcome to my blog!
What do you think about wealthier people paying higher taxes? Or should we use a flat tax rate? My article shows how people feel about this topic while also giving factss. If you really want to, give some feedback on what you think we should do about this.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sources Article
Authors Viewpoint
My first article “Should taxes on millionaires be boosted?” CNN Political and Political Director Paul Steinhauser are trying to inform the reader on how other people feel about the increase of taxes on wealthier people. The author’s main idea was that polls of Americans feel that people with greater income should pay higher taxes. The text structure of compare and contrast supports the main idea by comparing the how Obama thinks and how the people think. The author is unbiased because he is just presenting opposing points of few and wants the reader to make up their minds. Evidence that supports the authors viewpoint is when he says, “CNN/ORC International Poll conducted last month, 63 percent of the public said they were OK with any deficit reduction bill passed by Congress that included increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent opposed to the idea.” This is just stating how other people feel not the author. No conflicting evidence because the author isn’t trying to persuade the reader. The author is choosing a statistic that most people feel the same way. These facts are reliable because the facts are from a big news corporation.
In my second article, “Raising Taxes on the Rich: Not Whether, but How” Bruce Barlett, is trying to persuade the reader to agree with increasing the taxes on wealthier people by showing data tables and other facts. The author uses compare and contrast to state his idea more clearly. The author has no clear bias shown in the article. He uses neutral statements that are just stating facts about how people with certain incomes are taxed. No conflicting evidence because the author is just illustrating how the tax system currently works. One quote is when the author is talking about how a character in Casablanca
In my last article, “Flat tax? Not so fast,” Kay Bell is trying to persuade the reader that the idea of a flat tax rate is bad. The author uses the text structure of compare and contrast to show how this will affect lower class and middle class people differently then those considered wealthy. In one statement the author says, “Obviously individuals with higher incomes would pay more taxes. However, they have more discretionary income.” Then the author said, “Sure 10 percent of 20,000 is “just” 2,000. But that’s 2,000 that a family depending on the full 20,000 needs to pay or buy utilities, transportation and groceries.” This is stating how a flat tax will have a worse affect on those who have lower income. The viewpoint on the topic is that a flat tax rate won’t solve all the inequities. Some evidence that supports the author’s viewpoint is when she uses data from The Tax Policy Center and the Treasury Department. On this view point there is no conflicting evidence. The author creates connotations when she gives the example of taxing a family living on $20,000 a year versus a family living on $200,000 a year. The author uses the persuasive strategy of logos because throughout the article the author puts facts and data to use in her article. This is reliable because all of the articles she has written are all about the same topic so she must now a lot about it, also she has degrees in journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)