The Instigator
ThomasJosephSheehan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Capitalism and low tax is the best and fairest economics system.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
henryajevans
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,611 times Debate No: 34977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

ThomasJosephSheehan

Pro

Capitalism is the way to go. It allows large corporations to create more jobs and support the economy. Liberal tax makes the rich poor, and blames them for being forced to lay off workers. The only way to go is complete economical freedom, creating a competetive and free society.
henryajevans

Con

Capitalism leaves the economy, the cornerstone of any society, in the hands of a privileged few who seek to exploit it for profit. Because people are naturally greedy, they will always seek to exploit others, especially those who are in a perfect position to be exploited, i.e. people dependent upon consumer goods, people who are brainwashed by the capitalist-owned media. I think you are confusing liberal with socialist. Liberal, as the name suggests, is related to freedom, and therefore the tax cuts advocated by the Republican Party are liberal. Healthcare is socialist, as is state education, a centralised government and even a state-run police force. A liberal system would have no healthcare, no state education and a privatised law enforcement and defence force, as outlined in Adam Smith's text 'An inquiry into the Causes and the Nature of the Wealth of Nations'. With regards to a free market creating a free society, the USA is an example of a society run with a free market, and it merely allows corporations to run wild and tacitly enslave the people. Corporations are free to dodge tax, " la Apple or Amazon, and can even lobby the state to carry out their will, wither through applying pressure or by financing the Republican Party. Socialism, on the other hand, not to be confused with Hitler's National Socialism, the USSR or Maoist China, but more in line with Harold Wilson and the Labour Party in Britain in the 1960s and 70s; controls these corporations and individuals, protecting the workers and the people who have no assets to sell other than their labour. Low tax allows the CEOs of huge multinationals and unscrupulous bankers to rake in salaries and bonuses of millions, while those at the bottom are paid next to nothing. An example of this is the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, Mike Jeffries, who was paid in 2011 $48,069,473 in compensation, while the workers, often children, are paid less than a dollar a day for their labour. One would think that these phenomenally low costs would translate into lower prices, but they do not, and after seeing Jeffries' pay for 2011, it is fairly self-explanatory who the money goes to. Apple is another example of this, who have paid next to no tax for years, and all of the profits from this scheme have ended firmly in the pockets of executives. Apple products are ridiculously overpriced, and their R&D expenditure is far lower than that of Microsoft or Samsung. When Hammurabi created the Code of Laws thousands of years ago, he envisioned a world in which 'the strong cannot harm the weak'. Regulations on the free market ensure that the rich cannot harm the poor, just like the laws of Babylon ensured that the strong could not harm the rich.
Debate Round No. 1
ThomasJosephSheehan

Pro

Actually I was arguing for the efficient use of tax, but personal freedoms. You may call it libertarianism. I do believe in corporations to rule the economy, but not able to corrupt the government, leaving a society competent but not corrupt. I do think as well that in the court of law, rich and poor are completely equal. If someones domain is getting so large that they are ruining one persons life, legal action should be made. I also think that there should be a government headhunting force, which helps to allocate jobs with corporations. This will leave a fair society. I also think that healthcare should not be government owned, but rather government sponsored to save money. You should also be able to choose different tax packages, one which is the standard rate, and another that depends on the shape of the economy. Therefore people what they can afford, it is saved by the government, and used in worse times. Unions should also be reformed in order to stop letting workers slack off but give them a chance in life.
henryajevans

Con

Corporations should not run the economy. When you entrust something as important as the economy to individuals whose only aims are profiteering, there would be no other result than those individuals looking after their own interests and their own interests only. Only the government can have the best interests of the people at heart, as the government does not need to maximise profits, only to break even. Embracing the idea of 'From Each According to his Ability, to Each According to His Needs' would mean higher taxes for the wealthy, lower taxes for the poor, and spending on what the poor require, such as a health service, state schools and social security. A corporatocracy would not cater for these things, even Obamacare is fundamentally flawed and not socialist in intent as its primary aim is not to provide healthcare to the masses, but to help pharmaceutical and medical corporations. Corporations do not care about the wellbeing of consumers or employees, or about society's fairness, only how much money they can make. Also, you argue that corporations should be able to run the economy, but have no influence in the government. This is a paradoxical fallacy, as the government IS the economy. The cornerstone of any political campaign is which side has sounder economic policies. Corporations can finance campaigns, such as Donald Trump financing Bush, McCain and Romney respectively, as they all advocated tax breaks for the wealthy. Corporations can also directly influence foreign governments via economic imperialism, which once again places the benefits of the corporation before that of the people of that country, such as opposing child labour laws, the introduction of the minimum wage and tax rises for the wealthy, all of which would have damaged the corporation's welfare in the country, but immeasurably improved the welfare of the country's people. In addition to this, in a free market society, the rich can be exempt from justice. Can you name twenty rich people that have gone to prison in the last decade? Celebrities are continuously caught in drugs offences that would have led to a conviction without parole for anyone else, but because of their money, they can hire good lawyers and receive, at most, a suspended sentence. You also say that healthcare should be privately run, but government subsidised. This would lead to immense cost cutting in hospitals, and an alltogether lower standard of care, even if it is free. Britain's NHS is one of the best health systems in the world, because most of it is still centrally operated. The corporately run hospitals would operate at the bare minimum standards of care enforced by the government, because they have no need for unnecessary costs such as cleaning, maintenance and security, as it would be cheaper to allow them to get out of hand and pay fines, or pay a migrant worker five dollars an hour to polish it up before the government inspectors arrive. A state-run hospital on the other hand would be run with the consumers' interests at heart, because the government is relying on their votes to stay in power. This would lead to a consumer-based service, which is what an essential service such as a hospital, a school or a power plant should be. The consumers would have no other choice than to go to the hospital, as if one had been hit by a car, one would go to the nearest hospital, not go onto a comparison website to look at which one has the best reviews. Tax packages are a bad idea, as everyone would advocate low tax and high services, which would lead a country to ruin. Very few people would choose the system that benefited society the most, as people are naturally greedy and would pick the package that benefited them personally. This also depends upon how educated the people being given a choice are. The vast majority of people would not know what they wanted, and instead go for the low tax high service option, as it benefits them the most. The government does not store money by sitting on it in a vault; it stores it by investing in infrastructure projects that would create jobs and provide a larger return in the long run. Fiscal policy is naturally adjusted to cope with changes in the economic climate, which I assume is what you mean by saving money in worse times. Your comments about trade unions are very counterproductive. You say that trade unions allow workers to 'slack off', and do not give them a chance in life. The truth is far from that Fox News drivel. Trade unions have always stood up for workers' rights as long as they have been existent. Before trad unions, workers would go out to work at night, and return the next night, could be legally fired for no reason by their employers and could be kept in wage slavery by unscrupulous land or factory owners. Trade unions' key aims are to ensure that a firm is not exploiting their workers and profiteering at their expense. They are routinely given bad press because of strikes that cause inconvenience for other people, but these strikes normally happen for just reasons. The stereotypical image is a militant trade union that bankrupts a company through its incessant demands, leaving everybody worse off as a result. This is also far from the truth. Union bosses know that their livelihoods as workers are dependent upon the company's survival, so they demand what the company can provide. Surely Walmart and Apple can afford to pay their workers more, what with their revenues of $469bn and $156bn respectively, when they pay the people that produce and sell their products so little, and the people that own the company so much? The propensity for exploitation of workers is a key aspect of free market capitalism that should e swept aside.
Debate Round No. 2
ThomasJosephSheehan

Pro

It is all matter of who thinks they own what. I believe in fair taxing, and the efficient use of government money, and you can bet I believe in human rights, but I do not believe in hatred of all who own money. The popular magazine, Time, recently featured an article on the giant supermarket chain, Costco. It provides its workers with plenty of money and benefits. The chain whole foods is 93 percent owned by non-executives. Monopolies are the only thing that fully take over industries and rule. That should not be allowed, but unions can promote worker fairness and supply/demand otherwise. The government does technically own the rights to all of the things in its nation if you think about it, so perhaps the more you make, the higher your tax, but not too high to prevent the rich from hiring. If the government wants to really get tax, then instead of attacking shelters, it should try to tax based on competence. Our nation was founded on work, not welfare cheats.
henryajevans

Con

I suppose that one's conception of economics is based upon what one thinks is fairness. I do not believe in hatred of all who own money. I accept that a lot of wealthy people, my family included, that are responsible, pay taxes and do not exploit people. But for every one of these responsible people, there is a Steve Jobs, a Mike Jeffries, a Lloyd Blankfein. Corporations such as Costco and Whole Foods are the exception, not the rule, and due to their generous styles of conduct, they enjoy a high level of productivity and consumer satisfaction. They are shining beacons to the rest of the market as capitalism at its absolute best. Under socialism however, all firms would be like Costco or Whole Foods. They would all give the best pay to their workers, the best training, the best benefits, and in turn provide the best products at the best prices. Consider socialism an investment in social justice. The world does not need aristocrats and billionaires; it needs professionals and skilled workers to allow the economy to function efficiently. Through a system of bonuses for efficient managers, nationalised industries can function as efficiently, if not more-so, than their private sector counterparts. The ownership concern is a typical misconception of nationalisation. The state does not just confiscate the assets of the companies. That would be illegal, unless they had cause to do it. Instead, they buy the company out, usually maintaining most employees, except those employees would no longer be private sector employees, but civil servants. State-controlled monopolies are a force for good, unlike private sector monopolies. Because the disadvantages with private sector monopolies are the exploitation of consumers and inefficiency; two disadvantages that are curbed by the fact that the government has an obligation to consumers, who are also its citizens, and the system of managerial bonuses would stimulate efficiency. So it's not necessarily a matter of who owns it in the first place, more a matter of who should own it and whether the government would take ownership should the need arise. The problems with excessive taxation are explained by the Laffer curve, and socialist governments take this into account. In France recently, the government introduced a 75% tax on all earnings over a a million Euros, which is a fair amount. Most income above a million Euros (about "850,000 or $1.4m) is not reinvested or spent; it is merely sat upon. That money is not working for the benefit of anyone apart from the person who is sitting on it. Also, if a person acquires too much money, they can effectively establish a dynasty, like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds, who do not have to work because of the vast quantities of money stashed away. Those scroungers are far worse than poor scroungers, who live in poverty in exchange for not having to work, which is a fair exchange. The key to a perfect economy is narrowing the scope to include as few people at the very top, and as few people at the very bottom. A progressive tax system is the best way to achieve this, as it takes excess money from those at the top and gives it to the rest, which includes the very poorest, and extends to everyone else in society. The government should be there to help everyone, except for those capable of helping themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by shsbobrust 3 years ago
shsbobrust
I have a tough time believing that a Government run organization will be anymore altruistic than any private company.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Be more specific: do you mean laissez-faire system?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
"Low tax" is subjective. Sweden has high taxes for an American typically, but not a Sovietist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
ThomasJosephSheehanhenryajevansTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, albeit not formatted well.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
ThomasJosephSheehanhenryajevansTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The U.S employs a mixed economy that primarily supports crony capitalism, defined as an economy in which success of big business ((depends)) on a close relationship with government. So, be careful when blaming the problems of the poor on a free enterprise system. Its not really a "free enterprise system" at work, but rather a rigged government system.