Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy
Debate Rounds (3)
Since Pro never mentioned who had the BOP in the first round, we will assume that, as per usual rules, it will fall on the instigator of the debate. As such, my opponent will retain the primary burden, and his responsibility will be to bring a positive affirmation of the resolution. As the contendor, my primary burden will be to refute any and all of my opponent's arguments, culminating in the negation of the resolution. The way in which I will attempt to refute my opponent's case will be to summarize the arguments he has made and show where there are problems in them thusly. But first the primary claim my opponent seems to be upholding needs to be scrutinized. He writes:
"the government should make pupils pay a small amount to stay in education after 16"
The charge I will bring against my opponent's summary of his claim is that it is at best, inconsistent. In order for one of his arguments to hold up, specifically the part about benefiting the economy, we must know at least what ball park the "small" charge would be. If by "small", my opponent refers to 1 euro a year per student, it would not help the economy much and it would be in contradiction to my opponent's argument that the 'school fee' would help the government raise more money in that since there are more tax paying citizens than students over the age of 16, the funds could be raised in a more spread out fashion, If it is 100,000 euros a year per student, my opponent succeeds in his point that the government would surely raise a lot of money from implementing this policy, but it reduced government education to something more privatized than actually government-run. So, I will not provide a full refutation of his case until he provides me with the general ballpark in which his fee would be in.
A1: this would help the economy by giving the government more money to work with
I will not dispute this argument, however I will dispute whether this is a more effective method of raising funds than traditional taxation. The differences may not be too apparent upon superficial consideration of my opponent's points, however I will bring two reasons for why a small tax raise would be a more efficient means of raising funds, and why it would prove more beneficial to students in the United Kingdom who are over 16.
Counterpoint A: Compulsory taxation is a more efficient means to produce funds than a voluntary fee.
At first glance, this point is clearly valid. Tax evasion in most countries is a crime. Making tax evasion a punishable offense is a means of deterring tax evasion. So, people are more likely to pay their taxes than not and risk fines, cut wages or imprisonment. Not paying a voluntary fee is no grounds for legal recourse and so one must conclude that an ordinary British citizen is more likely to pay a compulsory tax than to pay a voluntary fee.
Counterpoint B: Having government charge for schooling would lead to higher rates of drop outs.
With some working class and blue collar families, their budgets are tight enough so that they cannot afford higher education after that which is compulsory and universalized. As such, the specific age my opponent uses as a point where they should pay for government schooling, means that the students will be more likely to simply leave at 16 in that most 16 year old are legally allowed to get certain jobs.
A2: Government making more money benefits the economy as a whole.
My opponent did not say this specifically, however his A1 implies that because the government would make money off of the students, it would necessarily help the economy. He provides no warrant for this assertion though. Since he retains the primary BOP in this debate, he has a responsibility to affirm the resolution with warrant and evidence. Since he has not done this, his A2 argument may be discarded.
With 1000 euros per annun, I think I can fully formulate the argument I brought in the last round while refuting the counter-points by opponent brings. He writes:
Counterpoint B: Having government charge for schooling would lead to higher rates of drop outs.
In my opponent's response to my counter-point he writes:
""as much as this may cause many 16 year olds to leave education I believe many would then be able to go back in later years of life""
He believes that they will go back later in life. But my opponent provides no reasoning behind this conclusion. Assuming that they had to leave school at 16 for a small 1000 euros per annun, and coupled with the probability that they will have a spouse and possibly children, the odds of them going back to school would be considerably improbable given their condition as teenagers. My counter-point B has been dropped by my opponent. Instead of responding to it, he brings another argument. He writes:
""raising tax levels would result in people spending less and the worsening of the economy""
Raising taxes does not necessarily cause a worsening of the economy. I have two reasons for this. The first is that 1000 euros from every 16+ year old who goes to school in the U.K. could be much more spread out if it were applied to every tax payer in the U.K. This means that instead of having 16+ year olds who are still in school pay the fee and have them tighten their wallets, thus worsening the economy according to my opponent's line of reasoning, it would be spread out among the entire country, thus minimizing the negative affects.
The other reason for this is not necessarily my own line of thinking, though I wish to point it out as a sort of Reductio ad Absurdum refutation of my opponent's point. He argued in his R1 post that the more money the government makes, the better off the economy is. So by his line of reasoning he has conceded this point. Since the government is making money, they are going to spend more and thus help the economy.
I guess I will simply respond to everything my opponent said since he squeezed his final conclusions into one paragraph. He writes:
""Applying a tax toe everyone in the Uk would be worse than a school charge because the people who would pay the tax would be people who spend more money""
This is not necessarily the outcome. Spreading the fee over eery tax paying citizen would greatly cut down on what every particular individual would end up spending. Since the number of tax payers in the U.K. is considerable larger than the number of 16+ year old's in school, spreading the fee to all of them would make it so each individual pays less than each student would pay and the government would still make the same amount of money. Now as to whether students in the U.K. contribute to the economy, my opponent writes:
""if[sic] every year 16 year olds have £1000 less to spend then it will not affect the economy as mucha[sic] as they probably wouldnt spend it on worth while things possibly even drugs.""
I have a few points to bring against this sentence in general. 1- My opponent first makes a baseless claim that all or most 16+ year old students would not spend their money in a worthwhile way and so they have less of a right to it than everyone else. 2- I can simply apply my opponent's line of reasoning to his own case. Average taxpayers generally do not buy things that I find worthwhile. Tabloid magazines, boats, spicy ketchup, the movie 'Drive Angry'....... Should we tax them since we do not find their vices worthwhile? This is not a valid reason. My opponent then writes:
""Therefore by applying the charge would also go a small way to reducing problems with drugs in the Uk[sic].""
My opponent makes the huge jump from the fact that students might possibly buy drugs to the idea that they necessarily will and so they would be better off without it. If someone decides to buy Bleach because they like to drink it sometimes, are you justified in taking their wallet because drinking bleach is detrimental to their health? Of course not. This reason alone does not really have much to do with our debate. We can theorize all day about what a British student or taxpayer is likely to buy with their money, but what they could conceivably buy is not reason for making decisions like the one my opponent and I are debating on.
""Widespread taxes are also likely to affect poorer people in society who already recieve[sic] about the same amount as those on benefits ""
The tax that I am advocating is not a large one as my opponent seems to be arguing. Let's say for example that there are 1 million students in the U.K., over the age of sixteen. The number of taxpayers in the U.K. is obviously higher than the number of students 16 or older(though those groups would not be mutually exclusive). Because the second group is so much larger, the individual burden on the average taxpayer would be much less than 1000 euros. Even if we take a conservative estimate and say that there are 1 million 16+ students and 30 million taxpayers, the individual raise in taxes to cover the amount of money that would be made with my opponent's choice would be about 33.33 dollars. By spreading out the cost, dropout rates would be able to be kept low while at the same time making the same amount of money.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Novel ideal by Pro, though they could have benefited from a proof of their posts. Dominant performance by Merda.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.