The Instigator
jamccartney
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Sanders2k16
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
jamccartney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 89595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

jamccartney

Con

Introduction
This debate is concerning whether or not Bernie Sanders would make a good president when elected. I will be arguing that he will not, while my opponent will be arguing that he will. Most of my arguments will be based on economic factors, though there are a few other factors as well.

Rules

The first round is for acceptance only. The second round is for arguments only; no rebuttals in the second round. The third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals.
Forfeiture will result in a loss of conduct points.
Sanders2k16

Pro

I accept, I will be arguing that Bernie Sanders will make a good president.

I propose we do not compare him to other candidates as whether he is the best candidate or not is a separate argument from this one.

Good luck, also just as a warning, I often use up all ten thousand characters and every letter/space/punctuation counts therefore my spacing will sometimes be a bit weird, as in between paragraphs (and there may be a couple paragraphs merged, but just ignore that!).
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Con

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking Sanders2k16 for accepting this debate. Let us get started.

Arguments

I will begin by detailing some key facts about Bernie Sanders’ economic plan.

By looking at Bernie Sanders’ website, specifically on a page titled “How Bernie pays for his proposals,” it is evident that Bernie will enact policies that, in order to be paid for, will require an increase in payroll taxes and the income taxes of individuals, particularly high-income individuals. After looking at this page, I added up the costs of each of those programs, as well as the amount of added revenue after the tax increases.

Under Bernie Sanders’ plan, tax revenue will increase $13.6 trillion over the next decade. This will include revenue from the new 6.2% employer-side payroll tax and the new 2.2% broad-based income tax. Overall, the marginal tax rates would be significantly increased, as well as the cost of capital and the amount of capital needed to start a business. As a result, the GDP would decrease 9.5 percent long term. After that decade is over, the increase in taxes “would lead to a 10.56% lower after-tax income for” the bottom 99% “and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84%.[3]

Another source of tax revenue under Sanders’ plan comes from healthcare. Currently, people do not pay taxes on the value of the health insurance provided by their employers. Were people to pay taxes on this today, federal tax revenue would increase by over $300 billion.[4] Under Bernie’s plan, though, privately-provided insurance would go away; instead, employers will have to add the value of the insurance policies they used to provide to their employees’ paychecks. This ends up increasing said employee’s taxable income. Furthermore, employers would be required to pay employer-side payroll taxes on that new income. This adds up to $3.6 trillion in added federal revenue.[2] After taking into account the reduction of the GDP? (36*10^11) - ((36*10^11)*.095) = $3.25 trillion.

Presently in 2016, there are currently 7 federal income tax brackets.[5] Under Sanders’ plan, two more brackets are added, and their rates are increased. For example, if you make $10 million or more each year, 52% of your income is taxed. Between $2 and $10 billion a year? 48%. Furthermore, if your wealth exceeds $1 billion, an extra 10% is added to your estate tax.[2](Estate tax increases anywhere from 5% to 25%[3].) Now, in addition to ordinary income, there is also taxation on capital gains and dividends. We know that dividends are taxed twice: Once as income and then again a second time. If you make more than $10 million a year, you end up paying at least 104% of what you received in dividends. It does not take an economics major to see that there is a problem with paying more than you received.[3]

Under Bernie Sanders’ new tax proposal and spending plan, the GDP would decrease 9.5%. Capital investment would decrease 18.6%. Average wages (after taxes) would go down 4.3%. Approximately 6 million full-time jobs will be lost. This would, to say it softly, crush the economy.

Bernie Sanders would also increase the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour. Now, the existence of a minimum wage is an entirely different debate on its own, so I will not go into detail right now, but there are a few key points I need to go over concerning it. A minimum wage decreases the amount of low-skilled jobs. A wage should reflect the amount of work the job demands. Is a door opener at a hotel worth $15 an hour? No. Is it worth $7.25? Probably. Increasing the minimum wage would also increase the cost of running a business and having employees. While this could change in the long run, it will ultimately remove certain jobs from existence and kick out those who are employed in those positions.

I will now go on to talk about trade.

Bernie Sanders is opposed to free trade. In a page on his site, "On the Issues: Income and Wealth Inequality," it says, "Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries." This shows a lack of knowledge of the issues. If Bernie knew what it was like to run a business, he could see that this is a ridiculous concept. One cannot just dictate business activity so recklessly when it will have unintended consequences, which this would. Also, free trade boosts not only our economy, but the global economy as well. While yes, American companies employ people in other countries, foreign companies also employ Americans. It it not a one-way concept. Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company but employs over 30,000 Americans.[7]

Furthermore, the gender wage gap, which Bernie's site calls "an outrage," is a myth.[6] Yes, on average, women get paid less than men, but this is not for the same job. Women tend to have jobs that pay, on average, 78 cents to the average dollar a man makes. It is not for the same job, it is an overall average.

Conclusion

I believe I have sufficiently given a good amount of facts in opposition to a Bernie Sanders presidency. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in favor of it.




Sources

[1] https://berniesanders.com...
[2] https://berniesanders.com...
[3] http://taxfoundation.org...
[4] https://berniesanders.com...
[5] http://www.bankrate.com...;
[6] https://berniesanders.com...;
[7] https://www.cars.com...;

Sanders2k16

Pro

Sanders2k16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Con

I am disappointed. I hoped that my opponent would be able to carry on this debate, but he instead has forfeitted. I have no arguments to refute, so I extend all previous arguments forward.
Sanders2k16

Pro

Sanders2k16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Con

My opponent forfeits the debate. I extend all arguments.
Sanders2k16

Pro

Sanders2k16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 1 year ago
WilliamsP
Socialism and Social Democracy are entitely different things.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I am 100% anti-free-trade.

free-trade is stupid. debate me on it if you like.
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
Socialism didn't work for the USSR either.
Posted by Hdiddidjn 1 year ago
Hdiddidjn
Socialism did work for the ussr, communism didn't.
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
The word "billion" showed up a few times in paragraph 5 of my introduction that should have been "million."
Posted by DBPDX 1 year ago
DBPDX
Our country has been built on the roots of capitalism. A house divided cannot stand, nor can a house stand with its roots cut from under it. Socialism has never worked for large countries, just look at USSR
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hunts 1 year ago
Hunts
jamccartneySanders2k16Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 1 year ago
WilliamsP
jamccartneySanders2k16Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not agree with jamccartney's premise in the least, but I will extend credit where credit is due. He did not forfeit. And he actually made a coherent argument, while his opponent neglected to make one altogether. It was an easy victory due to Sanders2k16's forfeiture. With a proper challenge, it would have ended very differently.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
jamccartneySanders2k16Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Con was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Con by default.