The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unitomic
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Unitomic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,031 times Debate No: 67043
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

I'm looking to have a short but concise debate.

The full topic is "We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class in the USA through additional taxation."

Wealth redistribution will incur an extra 10% tax per dollar earned over the existing income tax rate to the wealthiest 1% to be redistributed to the lower-middle class.

First round is for acceptance.
Unitomic

Con

I accept. I will be arguing on Economic and Rational Lines against the idea of Distribution of the Wealthiest Members of Society to provide to the Lower-Middle Class.

==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Increased GDP

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

C = consumption spending and accounts for 70% of our economic growth [1]. Thus, the more consumption spending there is in the economy, the higher GDP will be. GDP is the measure of the value of all goods + services produced in the economy in one year.

The marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is the concept that an increase in consumption occurs with an increase in disposable income. The ultra rich have a lower MPC than the lower-middle class [2] meaning that for ever dollar redistributed to a person with a higher MPC, more consumption will occur (+C) and result in a higher GDP.

By taxing the top 1% at an additional 10% per dollar earned over the existing tax rate and redistributing this money to the less affluent with a higher MPC, more spending rather than saving will occur and GDP will increase.

[1] http://m.mic.com...
[2] http://web.stanford.edu...
Unitomic

Con

Case I: Affect on Ambition.
Once the 1% lose their wealth, the next to be targeted would lose theirs. And So on. This would be needed to fuel the bubble economy I mention in the Counter-Case. With the rich being targeted, no one would try to become wealthy, especially since you get paid for being in the lower classes. When you discourage wealth and encourage poverty, the economy suffers greatly.

Counter-Case I
Pro tells us how increasing the wealth of the poor would increase spending and thus increase economy. In truth it would create a bubble economy, since the poor would not remake the money they spent (unsustainable spending). When the money runs out, the economy crashes. Besides, wealth would just reaccumulate in the hands of the wealthy again. Would we just keep the cycle going? And thus discourage anyone from being ambitious? It doesn't help that much of the wealth of the rich isn't in forms we can tax, such as stock and Real Estate.{1}

1] http://tinyurl.com...

==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

Ambition:

Con overstates the disincentive that an extra 10% tax per dollar earned will have. Current tax brackets tax at the margin. So once someone reaches the top 1% of earners ($380,000+) only then will they be taxed at an additional 10% per dollar earned. This is a marginal increase that wouldn't scare people away from becoming rich.

Counter:

Con treats the money that would be spent by the poor as lost money. Not true. Money idle in a savings account is money not distributed throughout the economy while consumption spending accounts for 70% of GDP. More of this money would be spent by the less affluent because they have a higher MPC. More consumption spending = higher demand for goods and services = more business revenue = lower unemployment rate to keep up with demand = higher GDP. Okuns law shows that increases in the unemployment rate and GDP share an inverse relationship [1].

Vote pro & thanks for the debate!

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
Unitomic

Con

Counter-Case I: Ambition
Pro has dropped half my argument. I brought up that people were less likely to become ambitious if the Government would simply tax it all away (Pro treats 10% as though it's a small amount on top of a substantial percentage already) when they would get paid nicely to just exist in lower classes. My argument about how most of the money couldn't even be taxed was dropped entirely.

Counter-Case II: Counter
Pro shows that GDP and Unemployment has an adverse relation, ignoring how complicated that relationship is. Pro doesn't realize that adding a variable such as being paid to be poor would discourage high-paying employment, and therefore Unemployment would not increase. Pro mistakes the point of my earlier argument. The bubble economy will be the result of inflation. When the average person suddenly goes from 20k to 50k the value of each dollar plummets. Like printing money.

==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
Mmm a shame
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
I didn't save my previous RFD, and I don't feel like redoing what I already did once.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
Not certain. Revote with a more indepth RFV
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
Why was my vote deleted?
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
You dropped my point about where most of the wealth of these people are. You dropped half my argument about discouragement. You focused on the part where I said taxing would discourage, and ignored where I said giving free money would discourage. Both higher taxes and free handouts at the bottom worked together to discourage, not just the higher taxes.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
I don't see where I dropped any arguments other than the point made about deferring income but this point would be trivial since it exists under our current tax system just the same.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
None of these votes have given a valid RFD so far
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
Sure we can redo the debate with a higher char limit :)
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
@Benshapori

Give me a week or so to finish up some things, and if you want, we can redo the debate with a higher character limit.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
"and therefore Unemployment would not increase. "

I meant to say Unemployment would not Decrease. Damn.

Thate aside, I would like to thank my opponent for being the first one to both finish the debate and not give some rude comment in the comment section lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
BenshapiroUnitomicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO dropped a significant amount of PRO's argument. PRO seems to argue that if you give money from the wealthy to the poor, people become better off. However, as con notes, it is much more complicated as that, and that redistribution would be a disincentive towards high paying jobs, meaning that over time this 1% would shrink, and less money would be distributed, leading to a poorer world.