The US should use negative taxation over welfare checks
First round is acceptance. Key terms to know before voting on this debate....
- EITC (Earned Income Taxation Credits)
- Welfare spending
Good luck to my opponent. I hope to have a great debate.
Let's see what you got.
I, Negative Income Taxation Liability Pockets
There is a huge problem regarding negative taxation. The idea is to make sure every citizen has a income, but the process its extremely destructive. What happens, is the IRS pays into others taxes, negating them, and giving that person more money then their tax threshold allowed,
Or in layman's terms, paying however much ever a US citizen goes in debt. These are called liability pockets, and they must be reimbursed by the IRS to the tax payer. Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills. All liability pockets are filled following IRS policy, which means not only are we paying others debts, but were also doubling our spending.
II. Negative Income Taxation Discourages Work
Back in the 70's, many people in America were considering using NIT's in exchange for welfare. The government ran multiple studies on NIT effectiveness, and everyone concluded by saying that NIT causes people to work less than welfare. Trust me, I was very puzzled upon reading these results. They both accomplish the same function, so why does one cause people to work more?
I didn't see the correlation at first, but upon further examination, it became abundantly clear. There is a old saying called "Don't give a man a fish. Teach a man to fish". The NIT method pays for everyones needs and expenses, whereas welfare gives that person a monthly check, allowing the man to use that money to his benefit.
To clarify, one method pays directly for all expenses that negate that persons tax threshold. Welfare gives people money based on their income, and allows that person to use that money with more flexibility. Hence, one method is teaching someone to fish, and the other is giving someone a fish.
III. Negative Income Taxation Causes Collateral Expenses
This is a very important point the audience should consider. Under the NIT, the USFG pays for all expenses under the tax threshold of a person. Even if that person is on earned income, the USFG is still forced to pay the negated taxes. Meaning, someone may be able to pay back their debts over time, but the annual return will force the USFG to pay said debts, even though citizens are perfectly capable of paying them.
This was one of the biggest arguments used against the NIT in the 70's. There is actually a fix, but not a good one, and I'll that in my next contention. The point is that unlike welfare, the US government is paying expenses that the people they are stimulating can afford. No one is helped by collateral expenses.
IV. EITC's Make Changing the Status Quo Pointless
EITC, a abbreviation for earned income taxation credits. EITC's are a form of welfare that we give people who earn income. It is a form of NIT, and the primary fix to contention 1 +3, although it only addresses 50% of the problem. The IRS gives credits to people who are earning income of any sort, meaning that as long as their making self serving, they will receive negated taxes. People
This contention is astoundingly simple. By making the NIT the preferred system, then we would simply make welfare the conduit for earned income credits. Which means the welfare bureaucracy would still exist (I suspect this will be the oppositions primary argument). The opposition must accept one of the following.....
#1 The EITC would have to be abolished all together, meaning people will no longer be rewarded for working.
#2 The EITC would simply shift from the NIT to welfare
This will be a hard choice for my opponent. There is no plausible way he can argue #2, and if he argues #1, he would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we don't need EITC credits, which are actually quite popular among conservatives.
I will simply lay out what my opponent must refute, and him having the affirmative stance, he has the BOP. He must prove that liability pockets are not a major threat. He must affirm that negative taxation causes more work. He muse argue that the collateral expenses are not sufficient for resolution negation. And finally, he must prove that the EITC is not important in America.
I look forward to seeing my opponent fill a incredibly impossible BOP. Good luck!
I’m not very good with intros in debates, so here are the reasons why NITs are better than welfare:
1. It would be more efficient.
4. Welfare doesn’t work.
The war on poverty hasn’t alleviated poverty, and since then, the NIT has been implemented. In 1975, the EITC was enacted. This was passed well after Milton Friedman was talking about NITs. The only logical reason was that welfare wasn’t good enough.
Further, I don’t know what he calls welfare, if not liabilities, fiscally speaking.Why is one type of liability any worse than another?
This statement is utterly false. According to Con, the government pays a mandatory minimum income. This has nothing to do with debt.
However, there is already a mandatory minimum income, in the sense that it is not taxed. These are the standard deduction, which was revolutionized from its flat tax-style deduction of 10% of income, to its current flat rate.
“Meaning negative taxation is taking US citizens dollars, and using them to pay others bills”
This is exactly how welfare works.
Lastly, what is the social security liability, if not a liability? Whose tax dollars are paying for those checks?
The NIT, as proposed by Friedman, is not some luxurious windfall.
“Hey, deadbeat family, here is $10K. That is all you get for the year. Have fun.”
Remember, there is no government aid now, so that is not a whole lot to work with.
Also, Con’s analogy is inapt, since the issue isn’t learning to work, it is actively doing so.
It is more the adage: Why buy the cow, when the milk is free? Why exert the effort, if I can get something for nothing? Some people are always moochers.
Taxes are spent to be given. There is no difference.
I have no idea why Con is talking about debt. The NIT, welfare, nor EITC pays debt for another. If the individual uses the money for debt, which they often do, that is not the same as saying the government is forced to pay the debts.
I’m pretty sure the USFG doesn’t pay for debts eliminated in bankruptcy.
The EITC creates negative tax incomes, and is not considered welfare.
The EITC, as do many actual welfare programs, does encourage people to do stupid things, like not get married or not work more. The NIT will be no different. People are going to abuse the system. At least with NITs, you will know how much these particular people are costing everyone else because it is reported on the tax return. It isn't lost in some budget report for one department over here, and a breakdown of payment made by that department over there.
I do not understand why Con is telling me what I must argue.
I do not need to prove any of the things he says I do. Hell, I don’t even need to prove welfare is bad. Just that the NIT is better.
Con has already said the NIT is “quite popular”, and has, as far as I can tell, not shown why welfare is any better, since the downfalls of the NIT are the exact same as welfare.
They can be abused. They are disincentives. They cost money.
At least, NITs are more transparent, absolute, and efficient.
[On a related note, I find it quite hypocritical that Con forces a self-described impossible BOP on to Pro, when he makes comments stating how BOP is to be on the instigator.]
I. Opposition Tactics
My opponent is not defending himself this debate. He is taking all the points I make about NIT's, and saying they also exist in welfare (whch they don't), before delving into a emotionally charged statement, which is called appealling to emotion. He is not arguing from a practical or logical sense. I just wanted to state this to the audience, in case they did not notice this last round.
II. EITC means welfare fails, because of NIT liabillity pockets
This made no sense whatsoever. First of all, the earned income taxation credit has nothing to do with welfare. It is something designed for negative taxation. Second, how can welfare have negative taxation liabillitys, if it isn't negatively taxing. My opponent is not making sense, and it's confusing me greatly.
Honestly, his statements make it sound like he doesn't know what liabillity pockets are.
III. Government does not pay into the debt line
Unbelievable. Con doesn't seem to know what he's arguing. Yes, negative taxation pays into a persons debt. The government will pay your taxes directly, and push that back farther than your expense was worth. IE, your tax return will consist of money you didn't make. This is fine, but one must consider both the collateral expenses and the liabillity pockets that develop.
IV. Social Security Liablillity
This has nothing to do with the debate. You should not of brought this up. Yes, I support social security, but that is another time and place, and another example of trying to make this a liberal or conservative debate. (Although negative taxation is a left wing movement).
V. Welfare also discourages work
My opponent completly misunderstood my argument. The US ran two federal studies, with both concluding that people work less under the NIT system compared to welfare. My opponent is trying to cover these studies by scapegoating welfare again. This is the tactic I reffered to in the beggining. He can either address the fact I have gave him, or he can keep trying to change the subject.
VI. Upset over 10,000 income
I quote this, because me and my opponent need to get on the same page. This is not a government aid vs no government aid debate. This is a government aid vs government aid debate, which means, he is only hurting himself by making these arguments. Not to mention, contradicting himself. He keeps stating that government aid is bad, but then goes on to defend the NIT, which also gives citizens 10,000 dollars. It just uses a different system.
VII. Welfare causes collateral expenses
At this point, I highly doubt the opposition is reading my arguments. Welfare does not cause collateral damage in the same way the NIT does. With negative taxation, you have to push back every tax in a persons bill. This means that the government is actually paying more than the persons needed income. If someone were to be raised to the 10,000 line, on welfare they would directly hit the mark. On NIT, they might go over 1000 -2000.
This is a true collateral expense.
VIII. The EITC proves welfare is inept
This contention is extremely silly, and once again, the EITC has nothing to do with welfare. He states that since we put the EITC into effect after welfare, it somehow proves that welfare doesn't work. Lets get something clear. The EITC has a completely different function. It is a minor credit (Meaning it doesn't fullfill all your expenses), for people who earn income. Most of the people on it also get welfare.
What I was actually saying, which my opponent didn't understand, is that if you make NIT's the predominant system, then people with earned income would just recieve a welfare check. My opponent must either support removing earned income credits, which will come with a BOP for that premise, or be in favor of having both welfare and NIT's, which does practically nothing.
IX. NIT's are not welfare
Really? You are paying poor people money they don't have. That is known as welfare. Both systems accomplish the same goal, just with different methods. If my opponent truly understood what he's advocating for, then he would stop making arguments about giving poor people money, because that's exactly what negative taxes do.
X. Welfare costs money
Wow, so does negative taxation. I am going to define it for him, as he doesn't seem to know how you negate taxes.
Definition of 'Negative Income Tax - NIT'
A guaranteed minimum income plan advocated by economist Milton Friedman in 1962 where federal income subsidies are provided to persons or families whose income falls below a certain level. Negative income tax (NIT) would allow claimants to receive income through the simple filing of tax returns rather than through the claiming of welfare benefits, ideally eliminating the need for a complex welfare bureaucracy.
They do the exact same thing. Welfare pays all money below 10,000, and negative taxation pays all money below 10,000. The difference, is that one actually spends above 10,000 because it is also paying for people's taxes.
XI. NIT's are more efficient
My opponent argues that welfare creates a complex beauracracy, that complicates the system. You don't think that NIT's do that as well? You need to increase the IRS budget, because they have to negate all of your taxes, which is just as complex as welfare checks. Even if this were true, which it is not, it hardly weighs against the cons.
XII. Welfare and budgets
This makes little sense. Welfare makes you budget just as much as NIT's. The difference is that with welfare you are are budgeting for a month, and with NIT's, you are litteraly giving someone 10,000 for a year. That is not a good thing. It means that circumstances will drain nearly half of the people of their money by the end of the year, and they wont be given more money until the next year.
While this seems fiscally responcible in a way, their will be a lot of dead and starved children and adults.
XIII. War on poverty is pointless
How are NIT's different. You are still giving people money they don't have. That is also a war on poverty. He is giving emotionally charged rhetoric, although his system does the exact same thing. If this turns into a conservative vs liberal debate, I will be very dissapointed.
This contention should be regarded as holding little to no weight whatsoever.
Con has dropped the arguments of:
A larger amount can be used for capital to actually save money, like buying a freezer, then freezing food while on sale.
My self-described most important argument that government aid would be more transparent. If it shows right there on the tax form, then everyone can see the amount paid, and to how many people.
For example, you can see here exactly how much was spent on EITC, child care tax credits, refundable college credits (all NITs) and even deductions and exemptions. Where are the following breakdown for welfare?
Con has refused to state how large these liabilities are, thus creating boogy-men that cannot be addressed. The only evidence Con stated was that they exist...ed 50 years ago. Further, most of his arguments were spent trying to pigeonhole me, misrepresent me, or defame me.
As far as has been proven, the cost to tax payers is the same with either method, but with NITs, they will be more consolidated, and they will be more transparent.
Con did not negate the former, nor even address the latter.
My opponent seems to have a desire to mislead the audience. There is no effective difference between welfare and NITs. Con says they are not the same thing, which they are different, but not in the sense of fiscal policy. They both are payment by government to others, designed to aid the needy. The only difference is how they are dispersed. This is not a relevant distinction, nor is it enough to warrant a mislabeling of appeal to emotion. It is a simple fact: welfare and NITs are effectively the same thing, and any emotion against welfare would logically be against NITs, as they are with EITC.
It could be true that I don't fully understand what they are, but that is the fault of Pro for not expalaining them, then saying they are not as how he explained them.
This argument is quite clear and misrepresented here.
Before the EITC, there was welfare, and only welfare.
Con states EITC is NIT.
The conclusion is that NITs have phased into the current tax law because welfare, for whatever reason, is undesirable.
Con's failure to understand the arguement is not cause for his dropping the historical fact that NITs have become as favorable, if not more, than welfare.
Con does not seem to understand that taxes are not debt, they are a potential liability, given numerous factors.
NITs do not pay debt, as it is money given.
Welfare, at best, pays for liabiliites, like food or shelter, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as just giving them money to pay the "debt" of food and shelter.
Ergo, instead of paying credit cards to pay for food, the welfare pays for food. Hmmm, seems like NITs might grow the economy a smidge.
Falsely states "another example", which is ad hom regardless.
Social security is welfare. It has a massive liabilty, which is paid by others (via payroll taxes).
Con cannot be spreading the lie that there is no liability when it comes to welfare.
If there is not enough tax revenue to cover the welfare payments, that's a liabilty. It doesn't matter if the liabilty is before taxes are collected or after *(NITs, vs collecting taxes then dispersing them)
First, I am unaware of these studies, as it appeard Con only gave one source, which was about the value of the EITC, which is NIT.
Second, again, I don't need to prove anything, as I have already stated I don't need to claim NITs will provide more work than welfare.
Third, Con dropped the argument regarding collecting welfare while not working.
Fourth, even if the studies were cited in the sources, he did not state the findings. I should not have to search through studies to find the amount that entails "less". For all we know, it could be within the standard deviation.
If I was upset with $10K in welfare being spent, then I’d be upset about $10K in “income” being paid. This was never my argument, as I clearly said I only need to prove that NITs are better than welfare. It was wholly implied that both are government aid.
I also never stated government aid was bad, as that is not relevant to the resolution.
Also, we have no idea what the number would be, nor how many people would opt for the maximum amount.
Further, it makes no sense that people would be less inclined to work. Again, I state that you do not need to work for many types of welfare currently. However, with NITs, the more you work, the more you make.
Assume $10K and 50%. If I do nothing, I get $5K. If I make $2K, I get $4K, which is $6K. If I work some, I get more. Always, up to the point of maxing out.
By the way, what is the point of maxing out for welfare benefits? Oh, that’s right, it depends on what you are applying for…..more complexity, more bureaucracy, and less efficient.
VII. Welfare causes collateral expenses
Con never states these liabilities, nor does Con really state how the collateral damage is different. He admits it requires taxes to fund welfare, yet…somehow direct negative taxation has more collateral damage.
The Dept of Human Services has a budget of $779 billion (page 72) for Medicare and Medicaid. Serving 106 million people. That is $7,351 per person. If enough money is collected in taxes….how is that not an issue? Further, this is about ¼ of the US federal budget. Don’t tell me that doesn’t have repricussions
I’m pretty sure you’ve this is duplicated, or at least so similar, it is redundant.
But, the logic is, welfare failed, so NITs were enacted in the form of EITC.
Stop telling me what I need to argue.
This was taken out of context. I clearly stated that both systems are similar. The distinction was clearly about how the money is paid, and how it was spent.
Con has proven my point, and has not suggested nor provided any evidence that shows that NITs will cost MORE money than welfare.
So, assuming the costs (i.e. benefits paid) are the same, my argument of consolidation of NITs holds, since the administration costs would be less.
Does Con really not see the difference in efficiency?
NIT = I file a tax return and get my aid.
Welfare – I go to the Dept of Agriculture to get my food stamps.
I go to the Department of Housing and Development to get rent vouchers.
I go to the Department of Human Resources to get insurance.
I go to the Social Security Administration to get my disability payments.
That is four agencies doing what one could. How is that not inefficient? Besides the duplicated efforts, laws, labor, and time, there is the red tape that must be sorted out between different departments that can cause issues. The IRS can streamline all government aid with various schedules and forms to be completed.
It is clearly more efficient to have one deal with everything, than at least four, plus the IRS for EITC.
First, there currently are dead and starved children and adults. This is not proof that NITs are worse than welfare.
Second, this is false information, as we do not know what the minimum tax refund amount would be. In 1962, and in examples, it was stated $10,000. We do not know the current amount. However, the amount is irrelevant, as whether it was $10K or $100K, the issue is principle, not amount.
Third, there is no reason to assume the money is eliminated after half of the year. This figure has no basis.
Lastly, Con is conveniently ignoring the ability of friends, family, and charity to chip in.
Forcing fiscal responsibility, even on the destitute, is not a bad thing.
I never said the war on poverty was pointless. This is, yet again, another misrepresentation of my arguments. I said it wasn’t working. I said welfare has proven unable to solve the problem, as evidenced by the use of NITs currently.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|