The Instigator
cweagle7712
Pro (for)
The Contender
ConservativeGiraffe
Con (against)

Should the rich help the middle class and 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
cweagle7712 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 100006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

cweagle7712

Pro

I have 2 main arguments in support of this issue.

1) i believe the rich must share in the profits they produce, and not hoard it all to themselves. It does not make sense for them to keep every single dime they make. They are the reason we have so much corruption in this country, and they are the reason the economy has been virtually stagnant.

2) class division is completely unethical. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that there are LITERALLY people who seek out the poor, and make their lives a living hell. WHAT THE *** GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY " oh i make 1,000,000.00 dollars every minute! GO STAND IN THE CORNER YOU PEASANT!!!!!. what do you make???? NOTHING. thats what i thought. " its downright horrifying
ConservativeGiraffe

Con

Firstly, I would like to thank Pro for beginning this debate. Secondly, onwards to the debate!

To Pro's first argument: Is Pro saying that it should be illegal to be rich? Because in the system that sounds like Pro is suggesting, if the rich MUST share the profits that they produce, then Pro would be impinging on their freedom; if the rich are actually rich because they have worked up to their position, then all of their hard work and benefits of their hard work would be drained to the poor. Would Pro think THAT unethical? Yes, it is unjust and unethical, in case Pro was wondering.

To Pro's second argument: Do you have any proof that class division is unethical? Whether or not it makes you sick to your stomach is irrelevant, and I seriously doubt that people actually do that. It is an unrealistic, cartoonish, and almost satirical view of people. Sure, there may be a few"or more"rich people who are terrible, but then again, there are probably a few poor people just as bad.

A very good example of this is the French Revolution. Thousands of people were brutally murdered"twelve-year-olds were being led to le Guillotine"and most were the rich, because the poor (and middle class) were tired of being overlooked. Most of them were innocent; some didn't even know what they did wrong! Would you say that is ethical? Of course, you get bad people in both classes, but no one should discriminate against an entire people group.
Debate Round No. 1
cweagle7712

Pro

To cons rebuttal to my first argument : I am merely suggesting we should adopt an economic system that allows the poor to share in the profits of those more fortunate. I am saying this because I grew up in a family that had EVERYTHING at one point. I've seen what being affluent ( somewhat ) and what being tight on money really means. I'm now working to make sure my future wife ( whoever that may be) , and kids have a good stable life, so they never have to experience default, or missed mortgage payments. and NO. I am not saying its illegal to be rich. you're implying that I hate rich people, which I don't. profit sharing does not drain the accounts of the rich.
A good example of how profit sharing works would be raising taxes on the wealthy, so the burden is reduced on the middle class and poor.

2nd rebuttal : its unethical in how the rich flaunt their wealth and status. In my hometown ALONE I've seen houses with 6 or more luxury cars lining the driveway. Tell me, do you REALLY think its ethical for some to have all and most have NOTHING????? furthermore, my " scenario" about the rich guy and peasant was not meant to infer that ALL rich people are bad, but that SOME are. Heck, when I was in high school, 80% percent of my graduating class ( I presume) came from wealthy families. One even posted photographs of their families yacht. What message do you think that sends to the people who view it????? something like " hey look at me i have ****ing everything and you don't HA HA". it makes those less fortunate start to have doubts, and hate the position they were born into, leading to depression, anxiety, stress, etc.
ConservativeGiraffe

Con

Well, what economic system would Pro suggest? If the poor were to "share in the profits of those more fortunate," would that mean those "more fortunate" have no say as to whether or not they share? Of course, the rich SHOULD donate to help support the poor, but they should also do it of their own free will, rather than the government forcing them to give away.

If the government were to redistribute all of the wealth in the country, that would be flat out robbery. As mentioned in my previous argument, some people actually WORK their way up to a good profit, and some of the poor are still poor due to their own ineptitude (bear in mind, I am not saying the entire class). Say most of the rich are business owners (I know not ALL of them are, but most of them are). If the government were to raise taxes on the rich, then the business owners would have to compensate for their new financial situation; they would have to raise prices for their products, and less people (poor people in particular) could afford the new price.

No, it is not, in fact, unethical for some to be rich. What is preventing the poor from working hard to achieve position? Nothing. There is nothing preventing the poor from working to gain a higher position.

Some who are rich may flaunt their wealth. This may not seem to be the right thing to do, but it would be impractical, and frankly, ridiculous to pass a law that the rich are not allowed to show off.

Hate the position they were born into? Like I said earlier, what's preventing them from working up to a higher place in life? That is the beauty of Capitalism: anyone can become anything with enough work.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sovcody2 11 months ago
Sovcody2
Also

"Should they help" Yes, by investing in these communities, they can give opportunities to these less fortunate people, and they would be able to make a return on their investment.

"Should they be forced at gun point (robbery) to give money to the poor" No.
Posted by Sovcody2 11 months ago
Sovcody2
Accidental re-post, sorry.
Posted by Sovcody2 11 months ago
Sovcody2
You propose the forced re-distribution of resources, you say "It does not make sense for them to keep every dime they make" you know how they make that money? By providing goods and services that people need. Every "Dime" that you want to take from these people is earned through a consensual trade of goods and services, I give you $10, and you give me a steak, Obviously I value the steak more than the $10, and you value the $10 more than the steak.

When I refer to 200m+ dead and Billions starving I'm speaking about the dictatorships who have attempted this, guess what? Their economies absolute crashed! Nationalist-Socialist Germany, while an absolute hellhole for liberty, and they killed millions of their own people, but they, still had a semi-free market, it was still able to keep up. The Soviet's couldn't produce half the consumer goods that American's had because there were so much red tape, there wasn't a free market... Until they switched to a capitalist economy, even then it was too late.

I'm pretty sure that someone who owns 1m can't go up to a poor person and say "Get in the corner, peasant" because that person has the same rights as the person who owns 1m.

Also, your argument on corruption...

The government is corrupt because it is lucrative to get involved with the government, bailouts, tax breaks, favors, etc. Take away the incentive for businesses to get involved in government, and you will see the corruption fade away.

Also the reason the economy is stagnant is because there is so many regulations and so much taxes that it's becoming increasingly harder for small businesses to survive, take a look at Ontario, Where I live, jesus christ.

Also, got the stat wrong it's 100m+, not 200m+.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.cia.gov...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Sovcody2 11 months ago
Sovcody2
You propose the forced re-distribution of resources, you say "It does not make sense for them to keep every dime they make" you know how they make that money? By providing goods and services that people need. Every "Dime" that you want to take from these people is earned through a consensual trade of goods and services, I give you $10, and you give me a steak, Obviously I value the steak more than the $10, and you value the $10 more than the steak.

When I refer to 200m+ dead and Billions starving I'm speaking about the dictatorships who have attempted this, guess what? Their economies absolute crashed! Nationalist-Socialist Germany, while an absolute hellhole for liberty, and they killed millions of their own people, but they, still had a semi-free market, it was still able to keep up. The Soviet's couldn't produce half the consumer goods that American's had because there were so much red tape, there wasn't a free market... Until they switched to a capitalist economy, even then it was too late.

I'm pretty sure that someone who owns 1m can't go up to a poor person and say "Get in the corner, peasant" because that person has the same rights as the person who owns 1m.

Also, your argument on corruption...

The government is corrupt because it is lucrative to get involved with the government, bailouts, tax breaks, favors, etc. Take away the incentive for businesses to get involved in government, and you will see the corruption fade away.

Also the reason the economy is stagnant is because there is so many regulations and so much taxes that it's becoming increasingly harder for small businesses to survive, take a look at Ontario, Where I live, jesus christ.

Also, got the stat wrong it's 100m+, not 200m+.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.cia.gov...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by cweagle7712 11 months ago
cweagle7712
Exactly what are you referring to ???
Posted by Sovcody2 11 months ago
Sovcody2
I think we tried this in the 1900's, how did that turn out? 200m+ dead and billions starving.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.