The Instigator
Barnabas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Galal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Capitalism vs. Socialism (Economically)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 49564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Barnabas

Pro

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).
Galal

Con

I here by accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Barnabas

Pro

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 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.
Galal

Con

Galal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Barnabas

Pro

Good game I suppose.
Galal

Con

Galal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Galal

Con

Galal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.