The Instigator
clajen0112
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dexterbeagle
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children.

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 1 vote the winner is...
dexterbeagle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 59128
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

clajen0112

Pro

Under the motion THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children, I would first like to define the problem and move on to my argument. I believe that the problem of the society is low productivity. As people have low birth rate, the productivity also gets lower. I believe having babies actually contribute to the society, and how tax contributes to the society must be equal with how having babies actually contribute to the society. As I have fully defined the problem, now I would like to explain the first argument of the government. The first argument is about effectiveness. The government believes that this motion is the best way to solve the problem stated above. Imposing higher tax, we can give the same effect, the good effects to the society as having babies do. Additionally, tax is the most direct financial insentive, and I believe having higher tax will actually help solve the problem. So what I have told you is that there's a problem in the society and how our motion is effective, and I'm proud to propose.
dexterbeagle

Con

Your position is very sensible but fails to take into account current tax breaks and tax credits for having children. Moreover, there is little correlation between the economy and lack of labor. Currently, one lagging feature in the economy stems from too many people not being able to find full time employment. First, let us look at how the government treats families under the current tax codes. There already exists a tax credit for couples or individuals that have children. According to the IRS, the Child Tax Credit "may be worst as much as $1,000 per qualifying child depending upon your income."[1]In addition, the Dependent Exemption gives a tax exemption "$3, 950 per person in 2014 to cover basic living expenses. Single people can take one exemption for themselves. Married couple can take two exemptions (one for each of them)." [2] Now let us tackle the idea our current labor shortage has adversely effected the economy. According to the Economic Policy Institute "from 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent," so productivity has risen rather than fallen, which would appear to negate one of the central arguments espoused by PRO. Around the world, the population is increasing, especially in places like China and India, which combined account for 40% of the world"s population. This growth is unstainable and in China, employers are able to establish work camps, meaning low wages and long hours, leading Human-Rights groups to raise concerns to put an end to the inhuman working conditions. [4] The current growth of world population is already a major problem. A national security study from 1974 put the problem in context: "Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be." PRO argument perhaps appealing at first glance does not hold up on further inspection on the second or third time around. On an emotional level, do we really want children born out of an economic calculation? PRO seems to hint at the idea that if we tax couples at a certain level this will create an incentive to have children, not because of choice but due to government tax policy. Imagine someone asking new parents: are you going to have children? And the parents respond: "Well we didn"t want children but after a thorough cost-benefit analysis we decided that the taxes were just too onerous, we decided the it made economic sense." This is an exaggeration to some extent but follows the logic purposed by PRO. To sum the argument so far: (1) tax incentives already exist under the current tax system. (2) Workforce productivity has increased by 80% from 1973 to 2011. (3) The world population, topping over 7 billion, already presents sustainability issues already and it is unclear why we would want to exacerbate this problem. (4) Finally, from an emotional and basic human perspective, do we really can couples to have children based on a cost-benefit calculation? CON argues, no. VOTERS please consider the arguments made in the opening round. PRO, thank you for the debate. I look forward to your substantive objections in the next round.

[1] http://www.irs.gov...
[2] http://www.nolo.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://online.wsj.com...
[5] http://www.usnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
clajen0112

Pro

clajen0112 forfeited this round.
dexterbeagle

Con

For whatever reason PRO has forfeited the second round, the round CON expected PRO would make a major argument substantiating an argument. However, this did not occur. PRO did not meet her BOP, and I encourage VOTERS to vote for CON for the following reasons: PRO did not counter the arguments made by CON in the second round. CON invalidated the major premise made by PRO. PRO"s entire argument rests on conjecture and unfounded speculation"at least given the nonexistent evidence used by PRO to assist the major contentions made in the first round. In addition, CON was the only side to cite legitimate sources to support an argument. Please vote CON. I thank PRO for the debate, sorry that we did not get to have a substantive argument. In the future, I would be willing to engage in a rematch on a similar argument. Again, please vote CON. I could use my first win, and there is good reason to provide that win based on this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
clajen0112dexterbeagleTied
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: The harm explained by Pro simply never makes any sense. He never states why there's a need for more children to enter the world, nor does he state why there's a need to create a negative incentive to achieve that goal, especially since a positive incentive exists. His case, thus, lacks any obvious benefit. The forfeit is basically a concession at that point, and Con's arguments outstrip his in terms of warrants, evidence, and explanation of harms. Just one note though, Con - separate your arguments into paragraphs. The wall of text can be somewhat daunting.