TH will tax the rich and give to the poor
Debate Rounds (2)
Some rich people look down on the poor and do not bother to donate money. If all rich people were kind, generous and caring, poverty would have become a much rarer thing and the world might and could have become a better and more caring place to live.
Taxing the rich ensures this as many are not bothered or are too greedy and selfish that they do not want to donate. So, to help the poor gain some money for their lives and their families, taxing the rich would be a great way to solve that problem. Of course, if they still want to donate extras, no one will stop them. The rich or the volunteers now sometimes go to great extents to help the poor, but if everyone pipes in to help, it would be so much easier. This method only works when the poor do not know it is by taxation that they earn that money. It also can only work up to an extent. If used too long, or used on the right people at the wrong time, or the wrong people at the right time, might cause some disturbance. And the method works only if more is given to the poorer and less is given to the less poor. Families and children must also be included.
Others might disagree and say this is more of communism and making everything fair for everyone, but it is surely not. Richer people still maintain their status and poorer people maintain theirs. Unless, of course, they gain higher status or get better education and jobs, which will in the end, benefit mankind as there are many geniuses who are poor, and once given an opportunity to shine, might change the whole of mankind"s ways and technology.
It is definitely worth taxing the rich and donating to the poor and we will not make the same mistakes as our ancestors, who taxed the poor and gave the rich. We will also gain new knowledge from improving from our past mistakes and will lead to less suffering through the actions that we will take.
Therefore, this motion must stand.
*Second round: counter*
An additional tariff should not be imposed upon the wealthy, and the aforementioned funding should definitely not be distributed among the poor. If we were to freely hand out capital to the poor, there would be no incentive to further their education or to work for a living. They would be able to survive on the money obtained through wealth redistribution, and America would be full of unemployed and slothful citizens because they would know that the government would finance them.
It should also be noted that if less fortunate inhabitants became richer, the price of goods would rise. One can see this in cities of dramatically different affluence. For example, if one were to visit the country, the price of living would fall because the average net worth is far less than in the city. One can even observe this phenomenon in different kinds of restaurants. If the location attracts people of high net worth, then the price of the food would skyrocket. However, if a small bar attracts lower class peoples, the price of their food would be much lower. This is some why people, in even affluent neighborhoods, struggle to make ends meet.
Finally, redistribution of wealth simply wouldn't be feasible because of the way our government runs. A tax, as Pro calls it, is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. In other words, the money is supposed to be given to the government. In a perfect world, the government would use their revenue wisely and improve the lives of all; not solely peoples of lower class!
By no means is this an exhaustive list. There are countless more reasons for America to impose a flat tax. One final thought: I implore the voters to not cast a vote biased by their personal views. Thank you.
DebatingTZK forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.