The Instigator
TurkeyMary
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
madhumita
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is taxing the rich the best way to solve poverty?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 9/24/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,806 times Debate No: 38077
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

TurkeyMary

Con

I believe that taxing the rich is not the right way to solve poverty because if they are not taxed more, they are more likely to start a business or a company, opening up more jobs to other people in need of one. They are also more likely to give to charity if they have more money. What are your opinions about this topic???
madhumita

Pro

The very word 'likely' demonstrates a lack of conviction. Poverty eradication cannot depend on what is likely to happen.Definite steps are required for the purpose. If the rich are in a position to acquire more money then they must be responsible citizens and pay their taxes. This money can be then utilized judiciously to solve poverty issues.
Debate Round No. 1
TurkeyMary

Con

While this is true, giving to charity will ensure that the money will go to the poor and needy. If the government takes it all, who knows what they will do with it? They didn't work hard to earn the money, so they won't feel like they need to spend it on the wisest thing. The money that the government has are the taxes that the people have responsibly paid.
madhumita

Pro

The government is a popularly elected body whose responsibility is to look into the problems of the nation such as poverty eradication. No government across the world earns money by working hard. It is known to every wise man that the governments income is the tax given by people who earn and that is to be used for the welfare of the nation. What guarantee can be given that an organisation which claims to be charitable will spend the money judiciously. Giving money to a charity is optional while paying taxes is a responsibility. The flow of funds is guaranteed in the case of tax payment and the possibility of removing poverty is higher than an optional contribution to charity. We cannot argue on assumption that the government will not spend while charitable organizations will spend. The funds have to be available to be spent and the government will have more knowledge about where to spend the money. A charitable organisation will concentrate only on a small section of people while the government funds will be distributed throughout the nation.
Debate Round No. 2
TurkeyMary

Con

The government gives money to charity and those in need, but they have many more responsibilities as well (paying the public jobs such as policemen, firemen, etc., funding public schools, funding military needs, and a lot more). But taxing the rich isn't fair to those who have worked hard to earn that money. The money has to come from somewhere, but taxing some people more and others not as much isn't the solution. Also, as I mentioned earlier, companies and businesses are started from rich people, providing more job openings so that others can make money. That is a solution that is fair. Citizens have to work for the money by having a good job, while the rich aren't being taxed unfairly.
madhumita

Pro

A government is responsible for the welfare of its people. Belonging to a democratic nation,I believe that the power is in the hands of the people and the government will not remain in power if it does not work for the welfare of its people. If a government has to work to solve poverty issues then the citizens who earn must pay their taxes. Why do we even need to bring the government into this? Welfare of the nation is a responsibility of its citizens too. Where do the rich people get their money from? They don't produce the money on their own. If they are working hard then that work also has been facilitated by the nation. They have been lucky enough to have got the opportunity. How can we just assume that if they are not taxed they will start a business and create opportunity for employment? Then we should also assume that the government will use the taxes to solve poverty issues. A debate cannot go on based on assumptions. Definitely the government spends on Police, firemen, funding public schools and military needs etc; and who do they do it for? The citizens definitely. So, if as a citizen I have demands and expectations from the government then I also ought to pay my taxes. Its not only the rich who are taxed anyway ,all those who earn must pay a tax. They are after all earning from the nations resources and thus they ought to be taxed. Charitable organisations may do charity but the government creates opportunities and removal of poverty cannot be done through charity it can only be done through creating opportunities.
Debate Round No. 3
TurkeyMary

Con

TurkeyMary forfeited this round.
madhumita

Pro

Every nation has a tax system. Those who earn pay taxes in proportion to their earning. They also are given the option to put their earning into some kind of savings recognised by the government. Lest anybody wonders why I am constantly referring to the government, let me explain that tax and government go hand in hand since taxes are decided by and paid to the government of a nation. When a person earns, he is making use of the resources the nation provides and must return to the nation in some way or the other for that use. This is what we do when we pay a tax. National resources belong to everyone, rich or poor. When we pay taxes we are returning to the nation in a different form the resources we have used. Their has to be a body to collect the tax and monitor the use of that money and that body is the government. If we say that it is unfair to tax the rich because they have worked hard to earn the money then I would say that the Governments also work hard to get money. A lot of planning has to be done to correctly impose taxes. Is that not hard work? A nation cannot be run by a charitable organization it has to be run by a government. How many charitable organisations exist in a nation that they can undertake the massive task of removing poverty? Not too many I think. Even if there were numerous they still would not be able to solve the problem of poverty because that would mean identifying all those who required help. No one would have that kind of infrastructure to identify the poor and solve the issue. If anybody can do it then it is a government. Therefore taxes must be paid by those who earn, to solve the problem of poverty in a nation.
Debate Round No. 4
TurkeyMary

Con

"When we do for those in need what they have the capacity to do for themselves, we disempower them."
"As a country, we understand that welfare created unhealthy dependency, that it erodes the work ethic, that it cannot elevate people out of poverty."
~Bob Lupton
While it is the citizens job to care for the poor as well as partially the government, as Lupton states, it "disempowers them." They should have the chance to work and make a living off of what they are capable of doing instead of being dependent on others to provide for them. In some situations it isn't possible for them to work and make a good living, such as if they had a bad education or if they are mentally or even physically ill. Then that is where the people's normal taxes could come in.
Paying taxes is what everyone is supposed to do. I am not saying that we shouldn't pay taxes. It is the fact that raising taxes only on rich people is not the solution.
madhumita

Pro

The word 'charity' never occurred favourably in any of my arguments. Therefore, you should conclude that I believe charity will only "disempower" people. A welfare state as per my understanding is one where the citizens are treated equally in terms of opportunities whether it be for work or education. Such opportunities are created by the government because an individual entrepreneur invests for the purpose of profit and not with the purpose of helping out the poor. When the government has to create opportunities it needs money which will come from the taxes. No sensible government will raise taxes only from the rich. Taxes are paid by all who earn in proportion to what they earn. However, I also know that this is not the only means of government income. I reiterate what I have stated earlier, 'removal of poverty cannot be done through charity it can only be done through creating opportunities.' I still fail to understand why we should think that only rich people pay taxes, all who earn pay taxes so the argument that taxing the rich may not be the 'Best' way loses credibility . One of the methods of government income is taxation and the option to charity is, self sufficiency through opportunities where every person gets the same platform. Taxes are to be used for the welfare of people and the best way is to provide opportunities in self sufficiency. Government and taxation are synonymous in this case so the government of a nation is the 'BEST' suited to solve the problem of poverty.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by madhumita 4 years ago
madhumita
I meant my debate is with Turkey Mary and not Andy.
Posted by madhumita 4 years ago
madhumita
I think you have certain preconceived notions which prevents you from reading and understanding my comments. You have FRIENDS in India and I am an INDIAN. My debate is with Andy so I will stick to that. I am here to debate and not to argue unnecessarily.
Posted by Andy99 4 years ago
Andy99
Rich never pay enough taxes in any country, with the 'HELP' of the government !!! Only the middle class ends up paying taxes. You tax the rich more, they move money out of the country or use other exemptions, hidden trusts etc. They are always one step ahead. Your idea of taxing the rich more would never work.

I have Indian friends, I understand.
Posted by madhumita 4 years ago
madhumita
The richer you are the more taxes you pay if you are honest. Every intelligent person knows that. To me 'best' is not the superlative it is the only way. I am proud to be an Indian and that's it. I am not debating on the policies of my nation with anybody. The poverty of my nation has a history, best not discussed,yet we have moved ahead and make ourselves heard much to the chagrin of many.
Posted by Andy99 4 years ago
Andy99
PRO, you keep going back to 'everyone should pay taxes'. Nobody is arguing that. The debate is, whether extracting more taxes from the rich is the best way to remove poverty. I am emphasizing on the words 'more' and 'best way'. Try to stick to that.

By the way, you mentioned you are proud of your government (which is democratic but acts socialist), then how do you explain that India has one of the highest income gap? You can see the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich living in the same zipcode. Great job by your government so far. Did they give any date on when they will reduce the gap?
Posted by madhumita 4 years ago
madhumita
A government can is democratically chosen through Adult Suffrage and its policies may be socialistic. I proud to belong to such a nation yet I am not socialistic by nature. A man who earns enough must enjoy life but as responsible citizens we need to pay our taxes. Its simple. The government will use this money for removal of poverty among other things. The government does not grow money on trees. Whoever thinks that all rich people give work opportunities by setting up industries must be living in a fool's paradise. Anyways, taxes are not only paid by the rich they are paid by every employed person who falls into the category. You have spoken about limit in taxation which is already in place. The very fact that there is poverty in a Socialist or Communist country makes their policies socialistic/communistic. "Poverty can be removed through creating opportunities" is already there in my argument. Well if charity cannot solve poverty then where is the need for the charitable organizations spoken of in my friend's argument? Nothing upside down my friend its all straight.
Posted by Andy99 4 years ago
Andy99
The debate is not about taxes. I guess what Con is trying to say is that rich should be taxed but to a limit and that shouldn't be the main way of ending poverty.

Pro talks about Democratic government but her views re mostly socialist. Tell me one Socialist/Communist country where there is no poverty. Giving money to poor will not end poverty, it will only create more poor people by making them dependent and they will never work.

Creating jobs is the best way to end poverty. And you know who creates jobs - rich people. Ever heard of a poor person creating jobs?

Your socialist concepts are upside down.
No votes have been placed for this debate.