The Instigator
MrBlues
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,195 times Debate No: 18332
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

MrBlues

Pro

Our job creation problems is actually fairly simple to solve.
We need to tax corporation who outsource their labor... who is going to replace the cheap labor you ask?

Easy...The people who collect unemployment need to be put to work.

The government pays the unemployed�, the corporations pay the government the same wage they paid the overseas worker. (maybe the government will break even, they can use the rest of the money to help the unemployed - skill training, counseling, home assistance)

You might see this as slave labor for the corporations, but i say

So you rather see people collect unemployment checks, and drain our economy further? What is the point of people sitting around collecting checks.... Put these people to work, maybe they will learn a new skills at this job... Maybe they will make valuable connection�s that can lead to a real job. Obviously these jobs are going to very low level type jobs... Employers might see something in these people that can lead to promotions�. These are your choices... Outsource OR feel productive�, learn new skills, make connection�s. Outsourcin�g is a pure drain!
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for the chance to debate him on the topic. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck during the round.

Case
My opponent's idea on how to help the economy is highly flawed because not only does it lack meaning, but it also lacks significant information. My opponent's idea, if possible, does not solve the general economic crisis rather it addresses the smaller section of the economic crisis (unemployment). To better the economy, one must address all factors that causes the economic crisis in the first place. Failure to do this would only result in a waste of time, money and effort. In our current economic crisis we can no afford the lost of money on unnecessary things. We must treat everything regarding the economy, with fragility.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
MrBlues

Pro

I thank my Opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish him the best of luck as well.

My opponent states that my idea does not solve the general economic crisis, I never claimed it would.
I am simply trying to solve ONE of our problem within our current economic crisis.

My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money.
I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction.

My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of money.
This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers.
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate topic.

"My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money.
I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction."

My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation.

"Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations."
(http://www.cato.org...)

As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis.)

"This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers."

Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences.

In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost. For these reason, i urge that you vote Con, as i have provided you with evidence showing that taxes are costly as well as address all of my opponents point of analysis.
Debate Round No. 2
MrBlues

Pro

I am glad my opponent is taking this debate seriously and I thank him for that.

"My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation."

The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal.

The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures.

My opponent points out that passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware how effective it could be.
The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking.
wierdman

Con

"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal."

The IRS is a total complete wreck. It has shown several reasons or situation in which it is unable to properly regulate taxes. Given them another Tax to regulate would be equivalent to giving a severe mentally retarded child pre-cal test and expect an A.
"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." (http://blog.aicpa.org...)

"The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures."

I ask my opponent this question, were is prove of effectiveness. We cannot pass a resolution simply because it looks
good on the outside, we have to go in depth to assure us that this will be an effective program. Our economy today, does not give us opportunity to simply waste money in passing a resolution that will in turn fail with no benefits.
To properly reduce the unemployment rate in the United States, the answer is not to Tax companies for overworking there employee, but to build new job in which people are able to apply for.

"The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking."

Taxing companies on the basis that there are minimal cost in regulation would be mutiny as the government is now taxing its citizens without giving them a clear understanding as to how the enforced tax is going o help the public. This would be equivalent to letting criminals run free on the basis that freeing prisoners is more cost efficient than imprisoning them.

Ones again, my opponent has provided no evidence as to how this is beneficiary to us, thus failing to meet his burden of proof. For the reasons that i have countered all his points, i urge you to vote Con on the basis of superior case as well as a better argument.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrBlues 5 years ago
MrBlues
a+b) The benefit is the jobs are back in America, and people are working.. thats the benefit. It might not be profitable for the government, but who care we spend billions on wasteful programs. Purely giving people unemployment benefit is a complete drain. At least the government in this scenarion is getting some money back from the corporations, if they have to give up some of that money for tax credits on building/phones so be it.

c) I agree that corporation would be giving up a stable workforce for a declining one, however this country needs to make a stand against our unemployment problem. Allowing companies to hire overseas without penalty in case they cannot find unemployed people would eleviate this burden somewhat, but I agree it is not the ideal solution.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
a+b) You intially said the companies would pay additional taxes to offset government expenditure. If the government is giving tax credits to the companies, what is the benefit of the plan? Expenditures on benefits remains the same.

c) You are missing my point. The point is if you claim that the program would decrease unemployment, this is a disincentive for companies to give up an overseas work force. If the program decreases unemployment, then your program asks companies to make use of a continuously shrinking workforce at the expense of a stable one. The Rez. is then ineffective.

If, on the other hand, you claim unemployment does not decrease, then that means (quite obviously) you cant claim reduction of unemployment as a benefit.

Dude, do you want to just make a new debate and challenge me?
Posted by MrBlues 5 years ago
MrBlues
Raisor:

A) They would be motivated because their being taxed otherwise
B) Maybe the government can gives them some tax credits to offset their expenditure in getting a building/phone system.
C) The goal is to decrease the # of unemployed... if do get to 0-2% unemployed, we might be running out of unemployed, if the corporations cannot tap from the unemployed, and they can prove that, then they should be allow to pull from overseas without taxation.

The point is to get people to work, and get them back into the system.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
a) This claim is dubious at best. Companies are generally motivated more by economic interest than ideals like "bringing jobs back to the US." Why would a company that initially decided to send jobs overseas suddenly be motivated by this ideal? At best this consideration would come into play only after economic considerations.
b) Bringing a call center back from overseas involves: renting or purchasing a building in the US (more expensive than renting overseas), purchasing/installing a phone system (this can cost a lot- totally anecdotal but I have family that works for a distributor of communication systems and some accounts are multi-million dollar), furnishing an office, paying for US management, paying for US utilities, etc. Additionally it represent at leas some internal reorganization. None of this is "not a big deal."
c) 1. This point is only valid if the plan just maintains a work force of unemployed that work for below minimum wage. This means your plan doesnt alter the number of people on benefits, just puts them to work.
c) 2. This is unrealistic as the unemployment rate varies. Basically a company choosing to make your of the Rez. would entail the company betting that unemployment rate at the least does not decrease.
c) 3. This is unrealistic because it requires the "freshly unemployed" rate remains constant. A company would have to believe that newly unemployed workers with relevant skills were being generated at a reliable level over a long period of time in order to conclude that the Rez. offers an economically viable alternative to outsourcing.
Posted by MrBlues 5 years ago
MrBlues
Raisor,

Thank you for participating in this debate...

A company would do this because:

a) they are helping jobs come back to the US
b) these jobs are not that big of a deal to bring back to the US, for example a call center. There is lots of existing infrastructure they could reutilize.
c) this is a permanent solution because the work force would be on a rotation of fresh unemployed.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Rocky, Pro said that taxing outsourcing would reduce it and thus encourage more domestic employment. How is that "outlandish"?
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
What so you can only hire US unemployed for below wage if it means you are bringing jobs back from overseas?

Why would any company do that? Theres a large initial cost to switching production location (on top of the cost of sending jobs overseas in the first place), and this initial cost has a lower return because unemployment benefits expire after 1-2 years. Basically youd be asking companies to give up (at cost) a permanent low cost labor force for a temporary low cost labor force.
Posted by MrBlues 5 years ago
MrBlues
Raisor you make a good point, but the this proposal would only be jobs that were shipped overseas to begin with.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
You are aware that unemployment benefits are currently funded by taxing the employers?

Also, as an employer, why would you not simply hire these unemployed for below minimum wage and then lay off your current labor force? This option would actually be more economic than outsourcing overseas because there isnt any of the cost associated with shipping, logistics, and extra management. Plus, doing so would ensure that there is always a labor force able to be hired for below minimum wage. For example, I hire 100 unemployed and lay off 100 workers; now the unemployment is the same but I am paying workers below wage. Additionally, there are now TWICE as many "unemployed." As soon as my below-wage workers lose their unemployment benefits, I simply lay them off and hire a worker who still has the benefits.

All of this was irrelevant to my vote btw, as Con made none of those arguments.
Posted by MrBlues 5 years ago
MrBlues
Call it training, call it internship... whatever... Make a law that makes minimum wage not apply to this situation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MrBlueswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro's case wasn't perfect, Con misses the point completely. Pro has a plan to increase jobs while Con says that it won't help the economy: an assertion that Pro never made. Con also doesn't address Pro's point that taxing corporations is fairly straightforward neither does he point out any difficulties in doing so. Overall, I don't believe Con took Pro seriously at all and Pro's argument stood largely unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
MrBlueswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar: Read the first sentence of the debate... Arguments: Pro made outlandish arguments, but was unable to support them. Con, defended the status quo successfully. Sources: At least con used them.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
MrBlueswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I re-read Con's round 3. Turns out he doesn't actually respond to Pro's argument that incremental regulation costs would be minimal. While Con quotes the argument, his rebuttal didn;t actually address it and instead talked about whether or not the plan would be successful. Con says the plan will fail with no benefits. Thats all he says, not explaining why thats so. Furthermore, Con never denied that putting more Americans to work is good. Spelling to Pro because Con doesn't capitalize his I's.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
MrBlueswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a better job convincing me where the burden of proof was. Pro has to clearly demonstrate why the Rez should be affirmed. Pro's case lacks specifics, which might be ok, but Con provides reasonable objections to why Pro's lack of depth could be missing important disadvantages of implementing the Rez.