Debate Rounds (3)
I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by Con's argument. Although the title of Con's argument is Obamacare, Con does not really address the issues of Obamacare.
Con states that everyone in America should have free healthcare, but this is not an accurate description of Obamacare. Con moves on to a general argument against progressive tax rates, with an emphasis on people whose net income is over $225,000. This may be a reference to Obamacare, since that program included a Medicare surtax that increases tax on net investment income by 3.8% for individuals whose gross income exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). Or con may be referring to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 which raises the top tax rate to 39.6% for single filers with taxable income above $400,000, married filers with income over $450,000, married filing separately over $225,000 and heads of household with taxable income over $425,000. The American Taxpayer Relief Act is not a part of Obamacare, being passed 2 years after that bill. 
Two arguments seem to be against progressive tax:
*people who have worked hard deserve to keep their money
*some rich people spend all of their money and have no surplus
There is also an argument that there are people with circumstantial money, but I think Con needs to provide a definition for circumstantial money.
The final argument is that healthcare is a public benefit, but should be paid for by some method other than taxes, which con implies are unfair and unequal. Although Con's line of reasoning is not cohesive, I suspect this is Con's thesis.
Con does not suggest even one fair alternative to taxes, nor does Con place the responsibility for decision-making on any other body: "a fair way...must be thought of" passive voice, no subject.
I would argue that there is little value to Con's argument that taxes are not the way to fund healthcare if Con is not able to provide an improved strategy for financing this project.
I think Con & Pro can agree that the government did not wish to regulate healthcare to the extent Obamacare now mandates, but the Insurance industry forced the government's hand. By exploiting the forced markets of healthcare and jacking up premiums well over the cost of providing medicine, insurance companies pushed beyond the limits of greed that government can reasonably ignore.
I expect Con & Pro can also agree that the cost and effectiveness of Obamacare are unknown variables, so we have no way of knowing whether the current tax provisions will be proportional to the healthcare benefit.
I refute that the current taxes included in Obamacare, 3.8% tax increase on net investment income for investors making more than $200,000 gross, is unfair or unequal.
Think about the optimal amount of public goods and services the government should provide? If the government creates a rule that says everyone must pay an equal share of their income, revenue will be restricted to the rate that the lowest earning workers can afford to pay. By way of example, split up a million dollars among 100 people according to the current division of wealth in the U.S.
That is, the first one in line gets $346,000, the second person get $116,000. The tenth one in line gets about $20,000, twentieth gets about $10,000, fortieth gets about $2,500, sixtieth gets about $1000, eightieth gets about $50 and the last guy gets $2. Now, let's say we decide to buy some health care. If everybody must contribute equally, than the most the last guy can give is $2. $2x100/100= $2 so everybody gets a box of band-aids . Now try contribution according to the rough outlines of current U.S effective tax rates- The first guy in line puts in $77,158, the second person puts in $25,752, tenth adds about $4000, twentieth about $1,800, fortieth about $400, sixtieth about $121, eightieth about $2.70 and the poorest guy adds one penny. Now our total collection is just shy of a quarter million dollars and our budget per person is $2,490. We can now afford some prevention like flu shots, even a trip to the doctor if somebody gets hurt. Progressive taxes are more efficient.
But why should the richest guy pay so much more to make sure that everybody gets to see a doctor, you ask? Well, everybody going to the doctor is a public benefit. Getting shots and check-ups and care when you're hurt keeps all 100 people alive. If 5 or 10 people died every year while another 20 or 30 kept calling in sick, that million dollars at the top starts shrinking pretty fast. The richest guy's cut remains high, but the total amount of wealth shrinks rapidly. Everybody has an interest in seeing the whole group thrive, so progressive taxes are more productive.
Besides which, can we really argue that the richest guy really deserves his cut of the wealth? GDP per capita for a U.S. citizen is just shy of $50,000 while that of India is just under $1500. I can't see that Americans work 33 times harder than Indians or are for some reason 33 times more deserving. Most of that disparity is an accident of birth and Americans depend heavily on the hard work of Indians to maintain U.S. industries, provide cheap goods and services, and buy our products. The same is true Nationally. The U.S. depends on the collective hard work of everybody to maintain our collective productivity. Is a CEO at the top really working harder and more deserving than a guy working two jobs at the bottom? No. Progressive taxes are more just.
I refute Con's assertion that somebody making $225,000/yr is equally unable to afford a tax raise as somebody who makes $25,000/yr just because the richer person is just as likely to spend all their money. While there's no denying that some rich people are cutting it just as close to the edge as some poorer people, there is also no denying that money is less valuable to the rich than to the poor. $100 is a nice dinner out for someone making $225,000/yr. $100 is a weekly food budget for somebody making $25,000.
I refute Con's twice stated contention that there are over 1 billion American citizens. According to U.S Census data the U.S. population stood at 313,933,954 on July 4, 2012.
For round 2, I would respectfully request Con to restate his thesis as succinctly as possible so that we might narrow our focus.
billary-clinton forfeited this round.
billary-clinton forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to make a good case for his side in the one round he posted; Pro clobbers him with a monster of a round, answering every point thoroughly. Conduct, arguments, and sources to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.