The Instigator
Barnabas
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism vs Socialism (Economically) Dbt 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Barnabas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 49782
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Barnabas

Pro

The first debate of this sort ended in a forfeit, and thus I am going to re-up it.
I will post my opening again.

"I will argue for the advocation of pure capitalism with the only socialism being in the providing of very minimal needs to those who need it (i.e. Education, Food, Water, Shelter, Healthcare, etc)."

And on acceptance, I will likely repost my first round, in hopes of founding a counter-argument. 3000 character limit.
henryajevans

Con

I am going to argue for European-style Social Democracy. Present our argument for capitalism, and I'll present mine.
Debate Round No. 1
Barnabas

Pro

The argument presented here is against the Progressive Income Tax, there are some countries in Europe that have this and I am 100% not for it.

From the other debate:

"Okay to start, I am going to put Socialism on the stand. Allow me to be the plaintiff, and I will start my testimony by asking the witness to please explain why he continually steals money from the people, and why he wishes for the rich to pay so much more than the poor (Graduated Income Tax). He will say that the rich have such a disproportionate about of wealth that they, and everyone else, should pay taxes to help those less fortunate in the national round of affairs. In this way, there will be less people who are poor, and more people who are happy.

Here is the thing that is not clicking for Socialism. When you take away more money from the rich, including those who are big business owners, what do you think will happen? Do you think that there will be a sudden influx of workers? Well no, I am assuming not, they will actually fire workers, and diminish jobs from the economy.

Now this sounds evil and treacherous to say for I am saying that these wealthy people should have such power over people who are equal to them in almost all terms except money; but consider it, they were successful enough to reach that position, and if you do tax away their money, they will reduce jobs, and those in need will not have a job.

With much contemplation though, I gave myself a temporal excuse for this: these people will find jobs in entrepreneurship. But here's the thing, this is not the case, in a matter of fact, only a small percentage of them will do so, otherwise the 6.7% of Americans who do not have a job now would be doing so.

Let us talk now about increasing the tax on middle classmen. Every business that is owned by the middle class is going to have to reduce their workers or raise prices to compensate. If they reduce workers, that will counter the effect; if they raise prices, inflation occurs. And as they raise prices, it takes more money to pay for things that the consumer wants, and now things are less so being transferred from people who value them less to people who value them more.

If we do not print money, prices going up would actually affect those who are poor a lot more than you might think. Think of it like this, you give a million dollars to a lot of people, if you make things cost a lot more, there is less stuff to go around for everyone--production goes down to meet the reduced demand, and now that not that many people are buying, standard of living goes down, and entrepreneurship levels go way down.

These sorts of taxes lead to less jobs, less innovation, and a reduction in the standard of living.

Do remember that I advocate the basic needs of all American citizens to be taken care of for those who cannot afford them, but by no means should they ever be given luxury. A one room apartment with 3 small meals a day, water, and sufficient healthcare is all they need."
henryajevans

Con

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Barnabas

Pro

I was hoping to find someone who did not forfeit, but whatever I guess.
henryajevans

Con

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
henryajevans

Con

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Capitalism is dying in America. The middle class and poor will rise up and destroy the wealthy soon.
Posted by Barnabas 3 years ago
Barnabas
As an addition to Point 3, the U.S. government's total stimulus was $2.5 trillion since 2008.
Posted by Barnabas 3 years ago
Barnabas
(1)
Part 1: According to ntu.org, in 2009, the top 1% paid 37% of the taxes, and the top 5%, 60% of the taxes. This makes sense if you think about it. A percentage of a larger number of money means the government is taking more the more you make, 30% of a billion is a lot more than 30% of a hundred thousand. But what you advocate is even more radical, it is the increasing tax percentages for those who are wealthy. You think that it should not only be that the rich pay most of the taxes, but they should, now with your idea, pay a lot more, 90% as you said. This may even be seen by some as communistic.
Other parts: Realize that simply because people are very smart, they are not always very wise. Einstein was a very science driven person, and I have read a lot of his work--it's astounding. But this by no means means he is a Plato or Socrates at government affairs.
Benjamin Franklin was a very good citation due to the fact that he played a very large role in the making of such a great, capitalist country. But, he must have been against the capitalism the other fathers wanted, because in the end, he did not get what he wanted. Is this good? I believe so, it made our country as great as it is today--the fact that we did not listen to his economic ideas made us such the great country.
Posted by Barnabas 3 years ago
Barnabas
(2)
When one encounters the socialism that you demonstrated in your comments, he/she realizes that you need a plan after you get what you want. So say you are the government and you just received a large amount of money, so much so, that you have brought the rich down, a lot, much closer to the poor. But the poor are still living dirt conditions, so what do you do? Well, you have two choices. Choice number one is that you give the money to the poor so that they are no longer impoverished, in this way you can equalize the wealth curve moreso, while still rewarding hard work, and also remove poverty. Great, but wait, before you do this, I need to give you advice. If you do so, you are, in essence, countering the effect that you wanted--you are rewarding people for being poor. Do you think that you would want to work as hard, educate yourself as hard, or even work at all, if you were given everything for free. Not so much. In my system I give the basic needs, in your system you give them more than that, you give them luxury. In your system you have a lot of people who do not work because it's fullness with those who are lazier than they should be; this in turn will drown the economy, and your population will be so full of these people that the only way to raise revenue to pay for them all is to go back to the old system.
Posted by Barnabas 3 years ago
Barnabas
(3)
Choice two is that you use the money to make jobs, in essence you take the money from the rich, and you give it to bureaucrats, or in social democracy, the community, and you tell them to spend it. They have a lot of money to spend, and they need to make jobs. You may think this task to be easy, but the explanation to the reason it is not is beyond my scope, and thus I must look to historical facts. Government spending has never worked as great as letting people have the freedom to get their own money, and make their own jobs. The Obama administration is a great example. Obama took from the debt, and, at first, used 800 million dollars to fund economic activity, but nothing happened. He thought that he simply needed more money, so he tried 200 million more, nope didn't work, and then he tried 400 million more, nothing, and now we are 1.4 trillion more in debt.
There is no way to fix the rich having more than those who whine. If you do not like it, do something about it. Get rich, innovate, work hard--I know they did.
Posted by Hayek 3 years ago
Hayek
*and servitude
Posted by Hayek 3 years ago
Hayek
Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one thing, equality. But notice the difference: while Democracy seeks equality through liberty, Socialism seeks equality through restraint a servitude. This is why they cannot be place together.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
@ Barnabas " Part I,

Then you are talking about fantasy land and make-believe because pure capitalism has never existed and will never exist in the future.

And, you are all wrong about who pays the most taxes. The average worker pays the most income tax as a percent of their disposable income. For example, Warren "Buffet himself declares that he pays a 17.4 percent rate on taxable income. His staff, like Bosanek, pays an average of 34 percent." Buffet should be paying at least 50% or higher on all income over $1 million.

Actually, the current marginal rates on the wealthy are way too low. Need to be at least 90% like they were under FDR on income over $1 million. And, dividends over $100,000 need to be taxed at marginal rates up to 90%. And, the tax rate on estate and trust needs to be least 90% on all assets over $1 million. Benjamin Franklin understood this in 1783
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
@ Barnabas " Part II,

Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris
25 Dec. 1783 Writings 9:138
The Remissness (negligent, careless, or slow in performing one"s duty) of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance (a protect) against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous (being more than is sufficient or required; excessive; possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant) to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
@ Barnabas " Part III,

Albert Einstein said it best about the evils of Capitalism.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

http://blogcritics.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
BarnabashenryajevansTied
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: FF