The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Liberals in the United States are also the enemies of the proletariat/working class.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 98585
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate topic with me.

Debate rules:

Time to argue:
72 hours
Rounds: 4
Voting period:
10 days
Character limit: 10,000 If con wishes to use google docs, that is permitted but it can't go over 10,000 characters.
Vote Comments: no
Voting Style: Judges. Con should offer up to 5 judges(name them in the comments) they wish to nominate and I will nominate them to be fair. If you accept the debate before mentioning any judges, then you will have to live with the judges I chose, and potentially handing me the debate since they may not be impartial. The judges I nominated are Blade-of-truth, Hayd, ca2005, Cat47, and n7. Each of their profiles can be accessed by going to my profile and looking through my friends list.
Point system: 7 point system
Round Structure:
If con uses round 1 for debate, this is what their round structure will look like:
Round 1: Main argument
Round 2: Rebuttal to pro's round 2 main arguments
Round 3: Defense against Pro's round 3 rebuttal, no new arguments allowed in this round.
Round 4: Waive this round by saying something like "I waive this round as agreed upon". This is to make sure that we each have the same amount of rounds used for argument.

If con does not use round 1 for debate, this is the structure both pro and con will follow, otherwise only pro follows it:
Round 1: Acceptance, definitions of terms, state your position
Round 2: Main argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Defense against rebuttal, no new arguments.

If any of the above rules are violated by either me or my opponent, the judges should award the other person the point for "conduct". The exception to this is if the person they are going to award it to, had poor conduct in other ways, such as perhaps they cursed at the opponent or something else. Then judges should choose it to be a "tie", but I guess there is no holding the judges to what they can do since there is no RFD required.

Note: I am willing to change the voting style to open voting if my opponent doesn't like judge voting, however I require that we have vote comments turned on(they are turned off right now) since anyone, including trolls, could vote on the debate and I don't want a troll to vote on the debate and be able to get away with it.

I may be willing to negotiate on some other things too, but if you want to change any of the rules I outlined, say so in the comments and do not accept the debate first, since if you do, I will not be able to change certain rules.

Definition:
For the purpose of this debate, liberal will be synonymous with democrats, members of the democratic party who support the party platform. It will also be synonymous with Green party members. Anyone else in between Green or Democrat in terms of positions will also be defined as a liberal
Stupidape

Con

Round 1: Acceptance, definitions of terms, state your position. I accept your judges, they seem partial enough.

My position, liberals are the allies of the working class.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

The first points I shall make is that liberals tend to support sales, gas, and social security taxes.

Sales Tax
Every single liberal state in the United States of America, except for Oregon and New Hampshire, have a sales tax, and several of them are some of the highest, such as California's, New York's, and Washington's [1]. The problem with the sales tax is that, while it appears to be a flat tax, it is, in reality, a regressive tax. The poor are the ones who have to spend a higher percent of their money than the rich do, as the rich saves 6 times more money(as a percentage of overall money) than the poor[2]. Thus, in this instance, liberals are making things harder for the poor and middle classes.

Gas Tax
Liberal states tend to, not only have gasoline taxes, but also higher gasoline taxes than other states[3]. Since the poor and middle classes spend more of their income on gas and transportation than the rich[2], this is also a regressive tax. Liberals are also making it harder for the poor and middle classes in this case.

Social Security Tax:
While this tax is not a regressive tax, it is a flat tax, which is still detrimental to the poor, working class. Paying 6.5% of your income is more detrimental to the poor than the rich. Let's take an example: suppose person A makes $20,000 a year, and person B makes $500,000 a year. Both pay 6.5% in social security taxes. 6.5% is more detrimental to the person 20,000 because now they only have $18,700, which is hard to live off of, whereas person B has plenty of money left over: $467,500, which is plenty to live off of.



Moving on, I shall point out that liberals are interested in maintaining a capitalist society, more or less. They never do call for the dissolution of capitalism, and generally attempt to make capitalism work better for workers, without realizing that capitalism inherently won't be better for the workers. Sure, some things can be improved through regulation, but it won't solve all problems. I will only point out problems that are inherent to capitalism that no amount of regulation(unless it is regulation that destroys the fundamentals of capitalism) can fix. Liberals don't generally support these ideas either way.

Capitalism gives no to little consent to the workers
Under capitalism, for all intents and purposes, business owners are leaders and are people with a lot of power: after all, they are the ones who decide whether you get to work for a living. However, no one consented to having these people be the ones who decide to have such power. Workers did not get to consent to who hires and fires people in the company, it's as though they don't matter for this respect, even though their co-workers are people they will have to put up with as well. Capitalism is essentially like a monarchy: you have one person at the top of an entity(business) who decides everything about that business. We are supposed to value democracy in the United States and most of the western world, yet basically no western nation has a democratic economy.

Capitalism takes money away from workers
The main problem with capitalism is it is a hierarchical system which has people at the top which take money away from what could be going to the workers. I believe that a business owner is completely unnecessary, and only is a position of power that takes away profit that could be going to the worker. If I establish that a business owner is unnecessary, then this shows that capitalism is an enemy of the workers, as it keeps them below a certain wage.

I would like to make the point that businesses can only offer a maximum wage to their employees before they no longer make a profit, the fact that the business owner also takes a percent of the profit, means they are taking something which could be going to increase the workers' wages.

A viable alternatative to the capitalist business model would be workers' cooperatives. Since this is not a debate on cooperatives, I would like to point towards another debate of mine about cooperatives if you wish to know more: [4]

Therefore, since liberals encourage taxes that hurt the poor the most, and are not opposed to the capitalist system, they are enemies of the working class and the proletariat.

I believe that is all I have for my argument and I turn this debate over to con to offer their main arguments.

Sources:
[1] http://taxfoundation.org...;
[2] http://www.npr.org...;
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
[4] http://www.debate.org...;
Stupidape

Con

Round 2: Main argument


Liberals are allies of the working class, AKA proletariat. This is because liberals support social evolution as opposed to revolution.

If you ever heard about Karl Marx dogma, you will know that Karl Marx encourages violent revolution from capitalism to socialism, and then another violent revolution from socialism to communism. I don't need to go into gory detail why a civil can be detrimental to the working class. Just for starters you risk dictators like Stalin who end up mass murdering them.

Liberals like most conservatives support social progress, but at a faster rate than conservatives. This is the push/pull relations ship between the majority of conservatives and liberals. Both want social change for the better, just the two disagree about the tempo or speed of change, conservatives say slow and the liberals say moderate. Neither wants a break neck speed like a revolutionary would want.

The exception being the alternate right who want to go in reverse in my opinion. There we have the four political parties that compete for the workers votes. The revolutionary who wants fast progression, the liberal who wants moderate progression, the neo-conservative who wants slow progress, and the alt right who wants to go backwards.

Honestly, I believe all four groups have the workers best interest at their hearts. Yet, despite having their hearts in the right place, their actions are different. All are allies of the working class, but offer different ways of dealing with contemporary problems. There is no reason to believe any of the above political parties are enemies of the workers.

Liberals tend to support climate change, vaccine treatment, affirmative action, gender equality, GLBT equality, an increase in minimum wage, and health care.

"Jill Stein on the Minimum Wage
Stein supports having a $15.00 minimum wage."[0]


Thanks for debating.

Source.
0. http://2016.presidential-candidates.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

My opponent claims that liberals support social progress, but at a faster rate than conservatives. This seems to imply that liberals want to go as far as communism, when I have never heard of a liberal state that they ultimately want to go to communism or socialism. They tend to want to stop at minor social and economic change. This is not enough to help the working class and only does so very little. I've never heard of a liberal who eventually wants to get to a society where workers control the means of production. Perhaps my opponent can offer a study on the views of liberals that indicate majority want to eventually move to socialism or communism.

My opponent also seemed to imply that conservatives would also support moving towards socialism, but at a much slower rate. Again, this needs validation.

In addition, even if the groups' intentions are good, that doesn't matter in terms of whether they are enemies of the workers. If they support items that hurt the workers, even if it's with good intentions, that makes them enemies of the workers because they are causing things to be worse off for them. Liberals should easily be able to see that their policies hurt the workers, yet they continue to live in blissful ignorance thinking it helps them. Just how does supporting regressive taxes and not wanting to completely get rid of capitalism truly help the workers? It should be obvious it doesn't.


Stupidape

Con

Round three rebuttals


"The first points I shall make is that liberals tend to support sales, gas, and social security taxes.

Sales Tax
Every single liberal state in the United States of America, except for Oregon and New Hampshire, have a sales tax, and several of them are some of the highest, such as California's, New York's, and Washington's [1]. The problem with the sales tax is that, while it appears to be a flat tax, it is, in reality, a regressive tax. The poor are the ones who have to spend a higher percent of their money than the rich do, as the rich saves 6 times more money(as a percentage of overall money) than the poor[2]. Thus, in this instance, liberals are making things harder for the poor and middle classes." Capitalistslave


My opponent has not offered a valid replacement for sales tax. There is flaws with any system, but to make an effective argument you need to offer a replacement. Let's take the example of the world's tallest roller coaster. Some body might say, "the roller coaster is too short!" This begs the question can a roller coaster be taller with the technology of today. Sales tax offer many benefits, mainly paying for municipal services that benefit the working class.


"Gas Tax
Liberal states tend to, not only have gasoline taxes, but also higher gasoline taxes than other states[3]. Since the poor and middle classes spend more of their income on gas and transportation than the rich[2], this is also a regressive tax. Liberals are also making it harder for the poor and middle classes in this case." Capitalistslave


Ditto as above.

"Social Security Tax:
While this tax is not a regressive tax, it is a flat tax, which is still detrimental to the poor, working class. Paying 6.5% of your income is more detrimental to the poor than the rich. Let's take an example: suppose person A makes $20,000 a year, and person B makes $500,000 a year. Both pay 6.5% in social security taxes. 6.5% is more detrimental to the person 20,000 because now they only have $18,700, which is hard to live off of, whereas person B has plenty of money left over: $467,500, which is plenty to live off of. " Capitalistslave


Ditto as above.

"and generally attempt to make capitalism work better for workers, without realizing that capitalism inherently won't be better for the workers. Sure, some things can be improved through regulation, but it won't solve all problems." Capitalistslave


This paragraph is contradictory. You claim capitalism won't inherently be better for workers, then you claim some things can be improved via regulation. Can some things can be improved by regulation or can they not? Your argument is confusing.

I doubt any system can solve all problems. In an utopia society we will likely still have death, taxes, crime, war, and disease.

"I will only point out problems that are inherent to capitalism that no amount of regulation(unless it is regulation that destroys the fundamentals of capitalism) can fix. Liberals don't generally support these ideas either way." Capitalistslave


I disagree, liberals might not openly support socialism due to the stigma that surrounds the word socialism. Nevertheless, liberals are opposed to inequality. Inequality is a key part of capitalism. By continuing to fight for equality on many different fronts at the same time liberals are effectively fighting for socialism, even if they don't know they are.

Liberals tend to be very much pro climate change action. Climate change will affect the poor the hardest. Natural disasters always harm the poor the most. This is common knowledge and sense and requires no further warrant. This is effectively a call for equality. Telling the fossil fuel industry to stop getting rich off the backs of the poor.

Affirmation action, is a call for equality, women's suffrage, gays in the military and other GLBT, that's gay lesbian, black, and trans-gender if I got the acronym correct. Might be gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gender, I've seen conflicting meanings for the acronym. All five of these groups are worthy of our protection. Look at what Black Lives Matter is doing, calling an end to excess police violence against African Americans.

Minimum wage and many more. In fact minimum wage alone might be enough to effectively destroy capitalism within itself.


""Dr. King was fully committed to low wage working people and their families. There is no better way to celebrate his birthday than to advocate for a raise in the minimum wage so that, in the words of the prophet Amos, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream," said Rev. Dr. Paul Sherry, coordinator of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign." [1]


Equal pay for women is another progressive value that will help destroy inequality. Effectively liberals and neo-conservatives are aiming to increase equality. Capitalism cannot survive without inequality. Be aiming to destroy inequality liberals are effectively calling for an end to capitalism. They might not be doing so directly or even knowingly, but the results are benefits to the working class.


"Capitalism gives no to little consent to the workers
Under capitalism, for all intents and purposes, business owners are leaders and are people with a lot of power: after all, they are the ones who decide whether you get to work for a living. However, no one consented to having these people be the ones who decide to have such power. Workers did not get to consent to who hires and fires people in the company, it's as though they don't matter for this respect, even though their co-workers are people they will have to put up with as well. Capitalism is essentially like a monarchy: you have one person at the top of an entity(business) who decides everything about that business. We are supposed to value democracy in the United States and most of the western world, yet basically no western nation has a democratic economy." Capitalistslave


I beg to differ, if you look at feudalism workers had considerable less rights than in capitalist societies. Apple pickers were paid in apples. There was little social or economic mobility. If you were an apple picker you were probably an apple picker for life. Slavery with whips and chains and indentured servitude were rampant.

Also, there is laws against discrimination, you can't just fire somebody because they are a woman. Workers can cause a fuss if they want to if somebody they like get fired or hate gets hired.


"Capitalism takes money away from workers
The main problem with capitalism is it is a hierarchical system which has people at the top which take money away from what could be going to the workers. I believe that a business owner is completely unnecessary, and only is a position of power that takes away profit that could be going to the worker. If I establish that a business owner is unnecessary, then this shows that capitalism is an enemy of the workers, as it keeps them below a certain wage." Capitalistslave


On the other hand workers don't have to worry about the upkeep of the business and getting sued and losing the business. I wonder who gets the liability under your system if someone slips and falls on a hazardous surface? Workers are more free than the owner, the workers can often just simply walk away and get another job. If the owner leaves, he/she will lose the entire business and property.


"I would like to make the point that businesses can only offer a maximum wage to their employees before they no longer make a profit, the fact that the business owner also takes a percent of the profit, means they are taking something which could be going to increase the workers' wages. " Capitalisticslave


Someone has to be liable, they need that profit to offset the risk of damages, insurance, and lawsuit.


"Therefore, since liberals encourage taxes that hurt the poor the most, and are not opposed to the capitalist system, they are enemies of the working class and the proletariat." Capitalistslave


Liberals encourage equality which will eventually destroy capitalism. Overall, I think Capitalistslave argument focuses too much on money and not enough on workers rights, voting rights, union rights, any many other issues that lead to equality. There is no argument about vaccines for example by Capitalistslave.

Vaccines are one way in which liberals tend to push for compulsory vaccines, which leads towards greater equality. Why should a few people who stubbornly fail to vaccine, infect others? This is unfair. Workers can be become infected, and thus by pushing for compulsory vaccines liberals are pushing for equality that helps destroy capitalism and helps the workers.

By definition liberals are pushing for equalitty and thus are pushing to help workers and destroy capitalism.

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality."

Thanks for debating.

Sources
1. http://www.ncccusa.org...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

For some reason, when I click "review" it deletes a vast majority of what I say, so I'm going to use a google doc here for my argument, it is still under the 10,000 character limit though, so there should be no reason to object to this.

https://docs.google.com...
Stupidape

Con

Round 4: Defense


"My opponent claims that liberals support social progress, but at a faster rate than conservatives. This seems to imply that liberals want to go as far as communism, when I have never heard of a liberal state that they ultimately want to go to communism or socialism. They tend to want to stop at minor social and economic change. This is not enough to help the working class and only does so very little. I've never heard of a liberal who eventually wants to get to a society where workers control the means of production. Perhaps my opponent can offer a study on the views of liberals that indicate majority want to eventually move to socialism or communism. " Capitalistslave


First, some liberals do want to go as far socialism. President Barrack Obama conservatives opponents have called him a socialist.


"“Thank You, Comrade Obama, For Saving the Children From the Menace of Guns, Family, Liberty, Work, and Other Outdated Values.”" [1]

""The reason he's being called a socialist it that he wants to provide health care to people, he wants to provide other benefits and opportunity, he wants for everyone to have an equal share of the pie."" [2]


This ploy seemed to backfire as seen in Michael Moore's capitalism a love story, and the fact that President Obama served two consecutive terms.


"as well as portraying Barrack Obama as a Socialist." [3]


This indicates many liberals want socialism, even if they are closet socialists, too afraid of the stigma associated with the word socialist.


"They tend to want to stop at minor social and economic change." Capitalistslave


Because change for the better at a too fast a speed is deferential. Also, because the political opponents' of liberals would seize upon the opportunity.


"This is not enough to help the working class and only does so very little." Capitalistslave

I think affirmative action has done a lot for minorities. You have to remember how bad things can be, unregulated leaded gasoline just for starters.

"For nearly six decades, gasoline companies ignored the known dangers associated with lead to get rich. " [4]


"I've never heard of a liberal who eventually wants to get to a society where workers control the means of production." Capitalistslave


If you have read Karl Marx's doctrine you would know that we cannot see too far ahead of us. That we can't percieve communism clearly from a capitalistic view.

"Perhaps my opponent can offer a study on the views of liberals that indicate majority want to eventually move to socialism or communism. " Capitalistslave


Moving to communism from capitalism would be inconsistent with Karl Marx's views. We cannot clearly view communism from a capitalistic state.

"My opponent also seemed to imply that conservatives would also support moving towards socialism, but at a much slower rate. Again, this needs validation. " Capitalistslave


I don't hear of any conservatives that want to bring back slavery. Abolishment of slavery would have been considered very liberal in the early days of America. You can call capitalism slavery, but I think that devalues the word. Remember, slavery often meant whips and chains in the past. Neo-conservatives are moving slowly towards a more progressive state. The exception would be the alt right.


"In addition, even if the groups' intentions are good, that doesn't matter in terms of whether they are enemies of the workers. If they support items that hurt the workers, even if it's with good intentions, that makes them enemies of the workers because they are causing things to be worse off for them." Capitalisticslave


This makes little sense to me. My dog often performs destructive actions that makes me worse off. I wouldn't call my dog my enemy. The same goes for some of my family members and friends. Knocking over an object and so forth. Intention matters.


Look at the definitions for enemy, all of them require intent, except definition 1c. something destructive or injurious in its effects. I knew in the first round we should defined ally and enemy. To have to bring up definitions now, is awkward to say the least.

"en·e·my (ĕn′ə-mē)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1.
a. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes another; a foe.
b. One who opposes or is hostile to an idea or cause: an enemy of democracy.
c. Something destructive or injurious in its effects: "Art hath an enemy called Ignorance" (Ben Jonson).
2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun." [5]


Furthermore, even if we go with definition 1c, there are benefits to a multi party system. Each party keeps the other parties in check.

"The co-existence of different political parties bound to express the people’s will through constitutional means is the most effective way towards progress in any nation – a practice which is entirely foreign to us Cubans." [6]


If you perform a quick search, almost all comparisons are between two and multi-party systems. That being said, there is very little desire or benefit from a single party system.

"What are the advantages and disadvantages of a multiparty system?" [7]

Even if you disagree with everything a political party presents, there is benefits to having more than one political party. In this way all political parties are allies of the working class.

Finally, I don't see how adhering to Karl Marx's theories will help the workers.

"Why the insistence upon violent revolution? Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”" [8]

There is a reason people distance themselves from Karl Marx, socialism, and communism.



Sources
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2. http://www.cnsnews.com...
3. http://www.imdb.com...
4. http://content.time.com...
5. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
6. http://www.havanatimes.org...
7. https://www.reference.com...#
8. http://www.stephenhicks.org...
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
"I still think your evading the crux of the problem. That liberals are about equality."
If they were about equality, they wouldn't be supporting regressive taxes like the gas and sales taxes. There is nothing equal about a gas or sales tax. If they were about equality, they wouldn't support keeping capitalism around. If they were about equality, they wouldn't be paying their liberal politicians at a rate much higher than they probably should be. If they were about equality, they wouldn't have passed the stimulus package which only bailed out the wealthy, and not the poor.

Also, equality isn't the thing we should be fighting for, rather it should be equity. Equality would be a flat tax, equality would be paying a doctor the same amount as a fast food worker for the same amount of work, because you're treating everyone equally, but what is equal is not what is equitable(fair) since not everyone starts off at the same place.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
""The problem with progressive tax is then this is discrimination against the wealthy. Lawyers sue on the behalf of the wealthy and win."
Well, I think if states have it written in their constitution that they can tax the wealthy at a higher rate, there is no way that the rich could win in courts, since courts have to go by what is written in a constitution.

"Finally, rich people have the resources to find every tax loop hole available."
Yes, we'd have to find a way to close those loopholes of course." Capitalitslave

I still think your evading the crux of the problem. That liberals are about equality. That's why the minimum wage tax is a good idea. Also a maximum wage tax, which is not discussed much is a grand idea in my opinion. That the maximum wage should be 2.5 times that of the minimum wage.

Therefore, if the min wage was set at $15 per hour then the max wage should be set at 37.5$ per hour.

About the military, I think many liberals are in favor of cutting the military, just not enough. The reason for not cutting enough is unknown to me.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I'll respond to each of your comments

"The problem with progressive tax is then this is discrimination against the wealthy. Lawyers sue on the behalf of the wealthy and win."
Well, I think if states have it written in their constitution that they can tax the wealthy at a higher rate, there is no way that the rich could win in courts, since courts have to go by what is written in a constitution.

"Finally, rich people have the resources to find every tax loop hole available."
Yes, we'd have to find a way to close those loopholes of course.

"I think most liberals want to cut military spending. Traditionally conservatives want to increase military spending and liberals desire to cut."
Right, which is why I wonder why liberals support the social security tax, when cutting the military by the amount I said would be more than enough to cover social security costs. It makes no sense that liberals support the social security tax.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Who would you vote for?
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Someone should have nominated me to be a voter. I would have voted by now.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I want to comment that most of what you are saying is that liberals don't go far enough. I think most animal advocates would agree. For being so different liberals and conservatives practically have the same stance on animal rights.

You can also look at the speeches of Martin Luther King jr. Stating the liberals and conservatives betrayed the "African-American", I don't think MLK used that exact term in quotes. The idea is the same though, that liberals don't go far enough.

"King was always a radical, but at the end of his life, he was something of an outcast, criticized by liberals, the left and the right."

If you think about this makes sense, that liberals failed to give civil rights to African-Americans w/o MLK 's intervention. That liberals didn't go far enough.

http://www.salon.com...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
" For example, we definitely don't need military spending as high as it is" Capitalistslave

I think most liberals want to cut military spending. Traditionally conservatives want to increase military spending and liberals desire to cut.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I'm going to respond to your round 4 in comments. Don't hold this for or against me when voting though.

" I didn't think I needed to offer a replacement since it's a no-brainer on what the government can instead do: increase the only progressive(rather than regressive) tax it has: the income tax on the wealthy. " Capitalistslave

I forget about progressive tax, you were focused more the economic side the coin, I was on the more less tangible equality affirmative action side. The problem with progressive tax is then this is discrimination against the wealthy. Lawyers sue on the behalf of the wealthy and win. This is why often rich people like Warren Buffet pay less in taxes than their secretaries.

Finally, rich people have the resources to find every tax loop hole available.

"Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary"

This is the problem with liberalism and economics in a nutshell. If liberals tax with a progressive tax, it is discrimination against the rich, and regressive taxes are unfair to the poor. This is a lose lose situation from a liberal point of view.

http://money.cnn.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I just barely got my argument in on time! I had only 4 minutes left. That was close.

Again, I apologize it took me so long to reply, having classes and working at the same time takes up a lot of your time.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
It may be a while before I can post another argument, as I begin classes tomorrow and I'm working a part-time job at the same time, so I'll have little time during the days. Maybe I shouldn't have started a debate yet, I fear I may not be able to respond in time.

I would respond now, but my classes are early in the morning and it's 10:30 pm here, so I would need to get to sleep.
No votes have been placed for this debate.