The Instigator
Smartacus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sfors
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is it fair to antagonize ALL the 1%

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 279 times Debate No: 89113
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Smartacus

Con

I am personally not in the 1%, but I am tired of people saying they aren't paying their fair share, are evil, and greedy. This may be true for some(CoughTrumpCough), but this is not true for all.
Here are my base arguments for what I said
Paying their fair share-
A percent means the more the total is the more the percent is, which is why their should be a flat tax, but that's not the debate. So 40% is more for the 1%. The justification for this is redistribution of wealth, but someone worked hard to get the money, and nobody is obligated to get free money without working for it.
Evil-
this goes without saying, rich people do bad things sometimes, but so do poor people, it's just that generally the evil things they are doing are different.
Greedy-
Yes this is true for some people, but for example Bill Gates has given billions to charitable causes with the bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
This is my opening statement and I am prepared to elaborate further if the debate calls for it
sfors

Pro

The "1%." We usually define this group of people as "the persons whose income or net worth ranks at the 99th percentile."
This is a broad definition, as, applying the definition globally, according to the Global Rich List, one only needs to make the equivalent of $32,360 to make it into the top 1% of global income earners, well below the median annual salary for U.S. residents.
As the opposition did not define the "1%," for the sake of this argument and for the reasons above, I will define the "1%" as "the persons whose income ranks at the 99th percentile, in the United States of America."

Using this definition, the Tax Foundation finds that $434,682 in adjusted gross income ranks one in the top 1% (or in the 99th percentile) of U.S. earners. In a standard 40-hour workweek, this makes out to $208.98 per hour, in a nation where the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour ($15,080) annually).

This is, to the vast majority of people, a copious amount of money.

It is, of course, trivial to argue that all rich people are, as the opposition puts it, "evil," as that same statement can be applied toward any segment of the general population and find the at least the same amount of truth.

Now, in terms of greed, one may find that this is the central motivator in many of the few positions that support a salary at or above that 1% echelon. Positions such as highly reputable lawyers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, athletes, and, of course, successful business executives typically fall above that magic number. Each of these jobs is highly strenuous in differing ways, but speaking generally, they require almost inhuman dedication and willingness to work combined with above average intelligence and spatial reasoning. I would argue the thing driving these individuals through the arduous conditions is that: a strong greed, the pursuit of self-interest, either for money itself, reputation, stability, and the like. And I will go further to argue it's the basis of what drives many to earn more, even if they aren't in the top 1%. The pursuit of self-interest is the bedrock of our capitalist society, and it's naive to suggest that anyone with money is not greedy, even if they do donate money to good cause (as, they ultimately trade in money for a good reputation, either in the eyes of others, or the eyes of himself). Some people are simply more...shrewd than others.

Now, in terms of paying their fair share, the rich (the 1%) do pay a larger amount, but this is oversimplifying it. The rich, like every other American, pay into the progressive tax system. All persons filing single, for example, pay 10% on the first $9,275 they earn, then 15% on the following income up to $37,650, and so on. It just so happens the rich earn more, and thus move through higher and higher brackets until they reach 39.6% on income earned after $415,050.
The purpose of this system is to "get" more wealth from the top earners. That is true. However, it is beneficial. We see that the top 1% pay 43.5% of federal income taxes (accounting for over $600 billion in revenue) despite possessing only 16.% of income in the country (according to the Tax Policy Institute). The reason the rich should progressively pay more in taxes (and shoulder more of the burden) is that, essentially, what the government takes out is a negligible portion of their money as compared to the autonomous consumption (cost-of-living). It would not be fair to have a flat tax rate, as 10% of $15,080 (full-time minimum wage) hits that individual much harder than 10% of $500,000, because of simple cost-of-living. Put another way, it is morally correct to tax the rich more, as it affects the rich less than the poor. This also frees up the government to be able to give tax credits to individuals who cannot pay their taxes because their income lies close to or below the basic cost-of-living, and getting the rich to cover the gap. No, this isn't "unfair." This is allowing a subset of the population close to or below the poverty line access to more of their income to spend on basic human needs such as shelter, food, and water, while the rich, through their substantially higher taxes, are able to pay for, as they already have access to those (and so much more). We call this the social safety net.
With this, let me argue the opposition's point that the justification of the social safety net is invalid as "someone worked hard to get the money, and nobody is obligated to get free money without working for it."
In this nation, the populace tends to agree that each and every person ought to have equality of opportunity. This implies a fair shot at life itself, as without life a person does not have the opportunity to contribute to society. The purpose of the social safety net (to which I assume the opposition is referring to) is to provide basic needs to persons not able to work, for whatever reason. The safety net from a governmental standpoint is morally correct as it provides disadvantaged persons with a living income or housing to aid them in their life (or search for a job, or job skills), so that they don't starve or freeze to death on the streets (in the United States of America).
So no, it's not necessarily that people aren't obligated to free money without working for it.
It's that people are obligated to a chance at life, and, to live and contribute to society, money is a basic need, as it is the facilitator for exchange for all goods, including needs. Now, of course, you'll get people abusing the system, but, like you said, it cuts both ways with "rich" people avoiding the tax system and such.

Now, through this, I have shown it is acceptable to "antagonize" the 1%. But by that, I mean it's acceptable for them to have a greater burden (financially and morally), and to hold them to a higher standard than the rest of Americans. I do not mean that we should treat them as less than human, or that they're evil, or that they are any greedier than any other person. They (the 1%) have a lot of power in our economy, and it's through them we are able to provide a substantial amount of support for the disadvantaged, through the social safety net.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Smartacus

Con

Smartacus forfeited this round.
sfors

Pro

sfors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Smartacus

Con

Smartacus forfeited this round.
sfors

Pro

sfors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Smartacus

Con

Smartacus forfeited this round.
sfors

Pro

I believe that by failing to post a rebuttal to my points, the opposition has forfeited the debate. However, let me briefly reiterate:

It is fair to hold the 1% to a higher standard, both society-wise and tax-wise. As they earn the most money, and have the most resources, it is acceptable to tax them at the progressive rate. Their autonomous consumption forms a far lower percentage of their income than people in the lower tax bracket. An amount of greed combined with determination and shrewdness has elevated either themself or their family to the economic echelon they occupy, and, by the very nature of our economic system, trounced on others to get there. They do commit crimes from time to time, too, just like the poor, or any segment of society. It's to be expected.

With this, I ask for your vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
If a rich dude cuts me on my lane, I'm definitely shouting on them. Damn privileged arseholes
No votes have been placed for this debate.