The Instigator
tklcis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Rich people should be required to donate to the poor.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,392 times Debate No: 51794
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

tklcis

Pro

Rich people should be required to donate to the poor because the poor are in need and rich people have a lot of money. The poor could use the money to get their life back up and running.
It is also helpful to the poor and it is a form of generosity because you are helping somebody else. This may prevent robbery and other crimes caused by the poor in desperate conditions
Defro

Con

I would like to remind Pro that rich people are already doing this. That's what taxes are for. People pay tax to the government, who provide public services to the people of the nation, which would include poor people. [1][2] Therefore, it is implied that Pro's resolution demands that rich people should be required to donate money directly to poor people aside from the fact that they already pay taxes.

I will be arguing that the rich people should not be required to donate to the poor.

In addressing Pro's resolution, I would like to ask what the bounderies are as to who is rich and who is not. That is a major flaw in Pro's resolution. How do you define rich? Suppose you consider a person earning 150,000 USD per year, and he must give 10% of his earnings to the poor, which is 15,000 USD. If a person knows that if he earns $150,000 per year, he must donate a tenth of it, due to human nature and logic, he would lose incentive to work for $150,000 per year, and instead work for $135,000 per year, which is the maximum amount of money he can work for without losing any of it (except for taxes). This means that people will have less incentive to be rich, and desire more to be in middle class.

Furthermore, by making this a required act, you are violating a rich man's freedom of choice.[3] A man, even if he is rich, should be able to choose what to do, not be forced into it. This also violates the basic human right to not be discriminated against. By saying that the rich should donate, the middle class don't have to, and the poor recieves the money, you are saying that people with different amounts of money don't have the same basic human rights. This is also violating the right to your own things. People should be able to choose what to do with the things that belong to them. Lastly, the resolution violates the 30th basic human right, which is the right to not have these rights taken away from you. In total, Pro's resolution violates freedom of choice, and 3 basic human rights.[4]


Sources:

[1] http://www.irs.com...
[2] http://money.howstuffworks.com...
[3] http://www.mormon.org...;
[4] http://www.samaritanmag.com...


Debate Round No. 1
tklcis

Pro

First, I would like to start with some rebuttal.
The rich people pay taxes, I will not deny that, but taxes don't exactly go directly to the poor. They are used to build roads, sometimes restaurants, and hospitals, but mainly all goes to the military. Because of this, the poor is not receiving enough
help. Poor people need food and water, which public services cannot provide.
What poor means is people begging, starving (like in Africa). Those are extreme cases, and that's what "poor" means. Now what "rich" means is that the people who have a lot of money, like your example, 150,000 USD per year. They are the ones who live luxurious lives who are able to give their children a good education, eat sufficient and maybe even more, and the ones who can buy expensive real estate. We are not talking 10% of its earnings, but rather 5% or 3%. It should be up to the person's choice, and when they donate to the poor (via Charity) there should be some record of the person donating the money.

About your point about people having less incentive to be rich, I don't think anyone would want to become a middle class person as they are donating a bit of their income and donating once a year. Also, they are helping the poor people. As I said, this may reduce robbery due to desperation, which is best for everyone. I am sorry if I didn't explain the motion, but this is what I define it as. If you wish, we can start with this speech. Everyone would want the world to be a better place.
Defro

Con


Rebuttal:


" I will not deny that, but taxes don't exactly go directly to the poor. They are used to build roads, sometimes restaurants, and hospitals, but mainly all goes to the military."

-There are many public services funded by tax, and I will mention them in my rebuttal.


"Poor people need food and water, which public services cannot provide."

-Yes they do. The Food Stamp program (funded by tax) has been around in the United States since the Great Depression. It provides those who are poor and unemployed with sufficient food. As of 2009, over 40 million people have been enrolled in the program, and currently they are still accepting applicants. Therefore there is no reason why a poor person in the United States does not have food because they can simply apply for Food Stamps. [1] If they don't have sufficient food, it's because they are not aware of the Food Stamp service or for some reason just don't want to be part of it, in which case it is their own choice. Furthermore, there are homeless shelters funded by tax to provide homeless people with a place to sleep at night. [2][3] If you see people sleeping in the streets, it's also because they choose not to be in a homeless shelter. [4]


"They are the ones who live luxurious lives who are able to give their children a good education, eat sufficient and maybe even more, and the ones who can buy expensive real estate."

-Education is provided to children whether they are poor or not. There are public schools which are free because they are funded by tax. It has been established also that poor people have access to food in a program funded by tax. The expensive real estate that rich people buy are earned through their own money. While poor people do not have access to expensive real estates, they have the option to be in homeless shelters, which essentially gives them a temporary home. And it is funded by tax.


"It should be up to the person's choice, and when they donate to the poor (via Charity) there should be some record of the person donating the money."

-Pro has committed a huge contradiction to his resolution. His resolution states that rich people should be required to donate to the poor, and now he is saying that it should be up to their choice.


"About your point about people having less incentive to be rich, I don't think anyone would want to become a middle class person as they are donating a bit of their income and donating once a year."

-The study of incentives is one of the first things I learned in my Business and Economics class. I'll give an example: Let's say you want to climb a tree to pick as many apples as you can. You have a basket that can carry a maximum of 13 apples, however you know that after ever 10 consecutive apples you pick from the tree, 3 of them rot and become unedible. Therefore, instead of picking 13 apples everytime you go up, you will pick 10 apples everytime you go up, because you know that after you pick 10 apples, the next 3 will be rotten. Therefore, you lose incentive to use the maximum potential of your basket, which can carry 13 apples. This example corresponds to the one I gave in the previous round.

-Furthermore, this would discourage middle class people to become rich. Let's say you earn $142,500 per year, but you know that if you work as hard as you can, you can earn $150,000 annually. However, you also know that if you earn $150,000 annually, you will be considered rich and must give 5% of it to the poor ($7,500). Therefore you must minus the $7,500 from your income, leaving you back with $142,500. That means, that even if you work as hard as you can, you will earn the same amount of money as if you worked lazily. You lose incentive to work to your full potential.

-On a large scale, this would greatly damage the economy, because the economy would not be running at it's full potential. If the economy is damaged, this would maybe even result in even more poverty, which worsens the situation.


"Everyone would want the world to be a better place."

-And the world would not be a better place if the economy is damaged and there is more poverty.








Sources:

[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...

[2] http://www.homelesssheltersusa.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.divinecaroline.com...


Debate Round No. 2
tklcis

Pro

tklcis forfeited this round.
Defro

Con

To summarize the debate:

Pro has not met his burden of proof, and even conceded that it sould be the rich man's choice whether or not to donate to the poor.

I have shown how if every rich man was reauired to donate to the poor, the economy cannot work at it's maximum potential.

I leave it to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Thanks :D
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
Fair enough. I honestly think the resolution is very poorly worded. He's either making you argue against any welfare at all -- which I think is a bit difficult, but I guess you could do it -- or argue against additional payments or forced charitable giving, which is really easy for you.

Anyway, good luck.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
I wonder who's gonna win this....
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@progressivedem22
Honestly, I don't know. I never thought about it. That's why I'm asking Pro what he considers "rich" instead.
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
Defro: I'm curious to know what you would consider "rich" as opposed to "very rich." To me, 6 figures is "rich," over $200K is very rich, and 7 figures is ridiculously rich. The scale continues in that way.
Posted by JacobAnderson 2 years ago
JacobAnderson
What would make it morally justifiable to force wealthy people to donate to the poor people? Rich people often work as often as they can, constantly working overtime, pulling all-nighters, and are more likely to retire at a later age than average. What gives people the right to say "You worked hard for this, let's give a percentage to the people that can't do what you can do." If you don't have the capabilities to handle a demanding job that pays well, why do you think you should be allowed to take from those that do contain those capabilities?
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@progressivedem22
Good point. But that only applies to people who are well above the "rich" line. My point was specified toward people who are barely considered "rich".
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
"This means that people will have less incentive to be rich, and desire more to be in middle class."

Less incentive to earn even more money? But of course! No, I'm not going to earn a million dollars because I might get taxed! I'm going to earn 50 grand instead!

Sure, there's a laffer curve, but for goodness' sake, that's a whole other topic.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I think they call that taxes....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
tklcisDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Conduct: Pro forfeited. Arguments: As Con points out, Pro didn't meet his BOP at all. Amongst others, Pro didn't provide any sources, weakening his arguments further.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
tklcisDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and con had better arguments. Pro wasn't as knowledgeable about the tax funded public programs already in place designed to help the poor.