The Instigator
SGM_iz_SekC
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NoMagic
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
NoMagic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,107 times Debate No: 65805
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

As pro, I side with the resolution and am therefor against taxing the rich and giving government funded welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed. Con sides against the resolution and believes there is no flaw with high taxes on the rich and giving government funded welfare.
First round is acceptance, second is opening statement, third is no set style, and fourth is closing statements and no new arguments.
BOP is shared in this debate, so both pro and con must prove their stance on this resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

SGM_iz_SekC forfeited this round.
NoMagic

Con

The Flow of Money.
Profit, when we purchase a product, the product is of less value than what we pay for it. This is the case because profit is included in the price. Profit, is the force the drives money upward. The flow of money is from bottom to top. Money must be forced back down through some mechanism. If it isn't, it pools in the hands of a few, does less work, shrinks economies, and generates poverty.

Money is a Resource.
If I have an apple orchard. The apples are a resource I have. I can sell the apples for money. Take the money and purchase lumber to build a new barn: money=resources=apples=lumber.

Supply and Demand.
High supply of anything equals less value of that thing. If I have a billion apples, one apples is of less value to me then it is to a person who has no apples. Lets say we have a tough job that pays $20 an hour. Someone who has few $20s will value this job more than someone who has a million $20s. There is a value difference. The poor person values the job that pays $20 an hour, much higher than the rich person does. The rich person will see that $20 hour job has not worth his time. To the rich person, $20 has much less value than to the poor person. Rich person $20=low value. Poor person $20=high value.

Example.
Let imagine we are viewing a table. At one end of the table sits a person with a billion apples. More apples than they can eat in their lifetime. An individual apples is of less value to this person. At the other end of the table sits a poor person who has no apples. An individual apples is of great value to this person. If we take (through taxation) five apples from the apple rich person, there is no to nearly no harm done to that individual. Now we give the poor person those five apples. We have greatly helped the poor person, while doing no harm to the apple rich person. The apples aren't of equal value to each person. We have done no harm, while improving the life of another. This is a net social gain. This is a net gain for humanity. The proposition is incorrect. In this example, we have taxed the rich, given it to the poor and improved the world, slightly.

The answer.
We already know the answer to the question above. "Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed." Money has a flow. It moves up. We must establish a mechanism to move it back down. Money must continue to circulate. (a good analogy is the water cycle, evaporation keeps the flow moving, governments must keep the money flow circulating) Based on flow, it is just to tax to keep a healthy circulation. To a rich person, resources (money) is of less value then to a poor person. A net gain is achieved through welfare programs, improving society, which even the rich person gets a return on their tax "investment" direct toward the poor. We have already been here. In the 1900s we figure this out. It seems as though we have forgotten our lessons. Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor ISN"T fundamentally flawed, it is actually the correct answer.
Debate Round No. 2
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

SGM_iz_SekC forfeited this round.
NoMagic

Con

Thank you Pro for that response.


From 2000 to 2007, two-thirds of all economic expansion went to the top 1%. The economic system we have in America favors the wealthy. The justification for greater tax rates on the wealthy can be based on what is clearly an uneven playing field. The propositon is incorrect. Not highly taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is fundamentally flawed because the system favors the rich.



http://www.cbpp.org...



Back to you Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

SGM_iz_SekC forfeited this round.
NoMagic

Con

A graph the justifies "highly taxing" the rich.

Economics

Thank you Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jmanuola 2 years ago
jmanuola
Won't take the other side... There are fundamentally only two ways to get money from the rich to the poor...either take it (through either legal or illegal means)...or convince them to invest, spend of donate their money. Which way works best...should be the ultimate question.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
@FreedomBeforEquality: I agree on behalf of all people incapable of reading between the lines.
On behalf of all others, I beg to differ.
Posted by CucuGreen 2 years ago
CucuGreen
I would have liked to debate, had the topic not been as "flawed" as it is. The main problem is, I think, that the only way to convince anyone that the high taxation of the rich to support the poor is unflawed is by appealing to morality. No arguments can convince anyone that a system is perfect.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
@ BoggyDag

This is no strawman argument.

Fundamentally the instance he provided is wrong, yes. He presented no other option even say was right over the first! There was no "B is right", there was no "B" ... all he said was "A is wrong and ill prove it".
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
50% don't pay tax? I feel like such a boob now ...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Lloyd...... 50% of Americans pay no federal tax.Where do you get the idea that the middle class supports anyone?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What is not fair is taking by government force money that a person earned and giving it to the society of the freeloader.People are poor because of their lifestyle, which is passed on to their young.In America anyone can rise above the status they were born in and overcome the lifestyle that made their parents poor.But what makes it mush harder is welfare. Children are taught by the freeloader parent how to scam the system.
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
This debate could have been framed by Fox News.

It makes the implicit assumptions that the rich are taxed to deliver welfare to the poor, when the fact is that the middle class is taxed to subsidize both the rich and the poor.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, your interpretation of this resolution really makes it impossible to win as Con. You're putting the impossible burden on your opponent to defend against any and all attacks you levy perfectly, or else they lose. Make this an on balance debate about whether this kind of taxation and welfare system does more harm than good, or, if you really want the slant, put the onus on your opponent to prove that the benefits substantially outweigh the harms.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
What an unfair and biased pseudo-debate is this?
So you argue something to be flawed and your opponent argues it to be UNFLAWED (=perfect)?
That creates a totally unfair false dichotomy.
No system is perfect. If you had any decency, you would adjust your resolution to showing - by shared burden of proof - that ON AVERAGE, the benefits of either system outweigh its flaws.

What you're trying right now is this:
A is flawed. Hence, B is right!

That has to be one of the silliest straw-man arguments in the history of this site.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
SGM_iz_SekCNoMagicTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
SGM_iz_SekCNoMagicTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and Con kept it up nice to see I would have just waited for another debate :) Full points
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SGM_iz_SekCNoMagicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture