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

The wealth of the 1% should be distributed between the working classes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DialecticalData has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 95212
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Acceptance
2: Opening statement
3: Rebuttals
4: Response to rebuttals
5: Closing statements

I do not think that the wealth of the 1% should be distributed to the working classes.

Pro has to argue that the wealth ought to be redistributed.

Good luck!


I accept this debate. My opponent is allowed to present their opening statements first.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate.

The 1% do not tend to keep their wealth in the bank. Indeed most people keep their personal fortunes in the safe keeping of a bank or premium bonds for example, the very rich instead store their wealth in a different way. When we talk about the very rich, we don't tend to talk about them having a lot of money spare. Although of course they do, we instead say that they are 'worth' a lot of money. That is, their wealth is spread out in investments. They invest their money in other businesses, into factories, into the services that everyone uses. Consequently their money does a lot more than just sit in a vault, leaving the poor empty handed.

If the wealth of these people was to be redistributed, the consequence would be the investments that the very rich make would stop. The businesses and services that thrive on these investments would stop. This would be disastrous for the general public, who would then have to rely on government action for society to function; something that always leads to problems.

Moreover the incentive to work hard, particularly in finance and other high stress-high pay professions will disappear. It is the goal of many people to reach a point in their lives when they don't have to worry about bills, and can buy anything that they want. Consequently many people go into professions like business, or law. The result of the destruction of the 1% would be for that incentive to work hard to be destroyed too. In an ideal world, people would work hard for the good of everyone. In reality, people are greedy. People want to give themselves alone as much comfort as possible. To eliminate the 1% would be to destroy this ambition, inevitably leading to fewer people in finance and business and law.

To conclude my opening statement, the 1% don't only provide luxury for themselves. They also provide luxury for others in their investments which support the private sector, which is home to enormous numbers of jobs and services. Consequently in trying to help the working classes, those who would do away with the 1% will in fact condemn them.


When we speak of wealth inequality, it is absolutely necessary we address the severity of wealth inequality, and the repercussions of this disparity , before we resign ourselves to this idea that deliberate inaction is the best recourse. Credit Suisse, a financial services company, published a report that highlighted the global 1% have more wealth than the other 99% combined. The 62 richest individuals possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion. Since 2010, those 62 individuals saw an estimated 542 billion dollar increase in their wealth. Now, we can assume the bottom 99% experienced at least some measure of increase in their wealth, right? No. The complete and utter opposite happened, with the bottom 99% suffering an estimated 1 trillion dollar loss in their wealth. If the major idea behind supply-side economics, is that the rich are prone to reinvest, which in turn provides the bottom 99% with greater avenues for wealth, then why has the latter seen a decrease in their wealth?

There is more to wealth solely than income in terms of data, but the latter has influence over the former. For that matter, income in itself is necessary for further gains in income, with the most immediate example being a formal education, a luxury few obtain without accumulating debt. Consequentially, student loan debt has an inverse effect on economic growth, as income which would normally recirculate into the economic, is now funneled into paying off these debts. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are commonly put forward to counter the assertion that an education is necessary, but both came from families whose incomes afforded them opportunities most working class individuals do not have access to.

In proposing wealth distribution, it must be made crystal clear the goal is not an equalization of outcome, but an equalization of opportunity. In a race, it is unlikely that a determination can be made on who possesses merit, when the starting line is radically different. Redistribution of wealth is a means to achieve this end.

Individuals ought to reap the fruits of their labor, but under current circumstances, that can not be true. As opposed to receiving pay in accordance to their productivity, members of the working class predominately receive a fixed wage. The amount the working class is paid is not equal to the amount of profit generated for their bosses, thereby creating an inherently exploitative system. The Top 1% are, in actuality, accumulating their wealth through taking the fruits of other people's labor. How is anyone able to characterize pilfering the profits made by the people below them as hard work?
Debate Round No. 2


'Credit Suisse, a financial services company, published a report'

Please cite the report as without any proof I can't argue against what you say, although I will try regardless. Now you say that the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 99% combined. You also say that the richest 62 saw their wealth increase whilst the others did not. Now this may very well be true. However we must ask ourselves why. Why is it that the wealth of the poorest in society has fallen by such an enormous amount? Is it because the rich stole their money? Of course not, for starters the numbers don't add up. The top 1% saw an increase in wealth of 542 billion, however the poor lost 1 trillion. That is 458 billion dollars unaccounted for. Where did the money go?

I propose that the money was lost in the bureaucracy of big government. Attempts by government to increase wealth and opportunity have inevitably failed. State schools are turning out people with awful qualifications, if any. Wealth is made by opportunity as you alluded to in your second paragraph, however this opportunity very often is regulated by the government. It is no use saying that we must simply throw more money at the system. After all, who would redistribute wealth but the government that has already failed its people?

'student loan debt has an inverse effect on economic growth'

Student loan does indeed affect economic growth, but why? Many US universities are public universities and so the debt graduates have are paid to the government, which then procedes to waste it. Private universities however are able to improve their services and provide a better education by the tuition fees. Indeed the working classes have a lot of difficulty, especially in the black community, to get the education they need and so the qualifications required to start on the job ladder. However this will not be helped by simply throwing money at them. Schools need radical improvement, which is a failure of government, not the top 1%. To say we must then take the money from the 1% is silly, as there is no guarantee it would lead to better schools.

'members of the working class predominately receive a fixed wage'

Any proof? Plus if you aspire to higher pay, high productivity will often lead to promotions and so higher pay. Hard work in a private company can definitely lead to higher pay. Are you honestly saying that a job in the public sector pays you more, the more work you do? Can you honestly say that a job in the local council will pay you more than another for putting in a bit more work? The only extra pay you can expect for hard work in the public sector, which so happens to be the same in the private sector, is being paid more for working overtime.

To conclude, in spite of money being pilfered by bosses, can you deny that those who work for the company have a better quality of life than those in other countries? Is the system that we have not infinitely better than that in say the Soviet Union? You complain that people are being robbed, all the while their quality of life is getting better and better every century.

I would repeat the point that a rich man who invests his money in other companies increases the number of jobs they can provide, and improves their output, which in turn provides services for the people. To take away their money would do nothing but have it wasted in government bureaucracy and decimate the private sector, leading to fewer jobs, and fewer services.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Samcoder1 1 year ago
Haha, thank you.
Posted by TheDeAndreOglesby 1 year ago
You'll probably be arguing against an SJW. Good luck with that.
This debate has 4 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.