Debate Round Forfeited
Bluecoffe has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||428 times||Debate No:||93714|
Debate Rounds (4)
To begin, I'd like to first explain why wealth distribution is ineffective. I am going to argue something that is actually pretty revolutionary to many people. That is that individuals make decisions and there are consequences for those decisions. I am very much against the way this debate was framed by Pro. Which brings me to my next point. I do not look at these issues as an inequality problem but rather a poverty problem. Equality is something more fit for a socialist society as oppose to a capitalist one. I understand that you said that you have more arguments but I have some challenges for you that you need to prove to fulfill your burden of proof. Firstly, why would wealth distribution stop people from being poor? I believe it is precisely the opposite especially in a capitalist society. Capitalism is based on people forcing themselves to work out of incentive as oppose to the government forcing them out of their own incentive. In other words, I would starve myself if I don't provide something of value to society in capitalism. This is would allows people to be productive. Redistributing wealth to the poor essentially removes that incentive at least to a certain degree. As someone involved in business I'd like to give a very basic rule from it: You tell people something is free they attribute no value to it. We can't tell people money is free because it ruins the whole basis of capitalism. Again, refer back to the basis of socialism which is that you are entitled to something because you exist whereas capitalism is you have to contribute to society.
This brings me to my moral argument against which I feel resonates more with people. As mentioned before, socialism believes you are entitled to benefits. In our capitalist society the only thing we are really entitled to are certain rights. And those rights include the right to your earnings. No one has the right to take someone's money and this deems them a bad person. If you, I, and Bill Gates are in the room and we vote to take his money, that makes us nothing other than thieves.
I outlined my challenges to you Pro and I await your response.
so what I propose is we set another tax bracket for higher wage earners that would only be directed at those who are super rich. like make over a million dollars a year rich. we already have a system where the more you make the higher your taxed yet it doesn't crush peoples incentive. I'm also proposing a small change for wealth to be redistributed I'm not asking for a huge amount of capital to just be given to people. The situation didn't get like this over night and ant be fixed overnight. I also don't expect this to eliminate all of poverty just that it could help improve the current situation.
when your earnings are over 400k you live a very different lifestyle. the most important thing about this life style is that you can take remaining money you haven't spend and invest it and use it to gain even more earning. where as when you earning are low your mostly spending your money and its much harder to save. well what if a someone's whos making a million dollars a year gives up 20,000 dollars in their income and gave it to someone who was making under 20,000. the rich persons lifestyle probably wouldn't change much while the person who was struggling to get by now has a significantly increased quality of life. I think that when your in a state of poverty its can be difficult to climb out of it. not that its completely impossible but I think we need to take this money and redistribute to some the people
I also want to take a little bit of time and discuss the future of where things are heading. right now I think its around that the top 10 percent controls almost 50 of the nations income and that number has been increasing for a while. now is their no point at which we distribute wealth? if the top 10 percent trolled 80 percent of the income would that still be fair to make sense to allow that? especially if your wage hasn't raised and due to inflation your income doesn't buy what it used it. at what point is it ok to step in and start redistributing wealth. I think where at that point when the middle class starts shrinking and we have many more people slipping into poverty and only a few making a ton more money.
now where not a purely capitalist society we do have social programs and they make sense. when we have a public school systems everyone benefits even if you don't have a child. for example it can keep kids of the street and stop them from committing crimes. if we where to try and implement a program aimed at reducing poverty and increasing the quality of lives of people wouldn't everyone benefit.
A lot of what Pro argues in this round is applicable to what I said in the previous round. For example, his idea of a specific tax bracket. His justification was that they make over a million dollars. That doesn't change anything as I said last round. Nobody is entitled to somebody else's money just because they make more. I gave a hypothetical situation with Bill Gates which I think explains the point. You can't force people to give somebody else their own money. If you yourself want to make the decision to give money to the poor that is completely fine and praiseworthy. But you can't force me to give my money to somebody else.
I also think you partially misunderstood my point about incentive. The reason it lowers incentive is not just because the poor look at the rich being penalized and it reduces their desire to be there, but rather that they don't need to work more if the money is being given to them. I will repeat the rule in business I said last round: If you tell someone something is free, they attribute no value to it. What's worse is you are giving people benefits to being poor. This is all part of a culture that has been developing that increases poverty. Welfare and the war on poverty is also relevant to this where under Lyndon Johnson people went door to door offering welfare provided that there is no man in the house. All this did was increase single motherhood rates. http://dailysignal.com...
This is what I mean by incentive. People have an incentive to stay where they are because they are receiving benefits so they don't want to leave that state.
Pro continues along the lines that it's okay to redistribute wealth if people are very rich. I want to reiterate that it doesn't make it any more moral or justified to steal somebody else's money.
Pro was actually on to something at the end of his arguments but then he sways away from it. You mention schools as an example but this can be a possible solution for poverty more funding for these schools. Because many of the poor people do not finish High School. Even to this though I have the same point I first argued last round and that is about people making individual decisions and maintaining personal responsibility. It is not the governments job to ensure you are not poor.
yes individuals matter but maybe we can set up a program to help prevent them form dropping out. what if that individual made a bad choice and now would like to go back to school to and try to make a better life for themselves. it could be difficult trying to get back on track. if its really difficult to climb up some people are going to see it as not worth pursuing. after all you could still get your degree and then be in crippling debt and not be able to find to start paying it all back.
well the point I'm going to make is that you can give people benefits without making them free and destroying incentives.
for example if you made school free they still would have to put in work and show up to class in order to receive any benefit. its not as if people will stop going to school and valuing it because it doesn't cost any money. surely by removing a barrier to entry more people would go to school. actually school doesn't even need to be more in order for their to be a benefit we could just make it cheaper for students to afford and make it more appealing. its not as if living in poverty is the desired state of being. people ant going to say I was going to go school but now that's its free and education is worthless.
you could also provide job opportunities by setting up a program to repair infrastructure we could use it. again you use the money to provide people with opportunities and make it so its easier to do better in life. its not a exactly a free handout so the value isn't lost.
Pro keeps bringing up the gap and inequality. I want to redirect you to my first challenge. Why do you look at this as an issue of income inequality and not simply an issue of poverty? Doing so is once again more fit for socialism. Inequality is simply a reality. Poverty is also to a certain extent but often times there are ways one can climb out of poverty. The real way to do this is not to just hand people money. I proved this previously in greater detail about free money. The way to that, and I think Pro will agree, is jobs. In order for that to be done we actually need the wealthy to spend more to create businesses and invest in them. This is less effective if you take money away from the rich. If you allow the productive people to be productive and you don't penalize them for being productive through regulation or taxes, this allows the economy to prosper. Income redistribution just shifts the burden from those who are less productive onto those who are more productive.
Next, I'd like to address your Bill Gates analogy: First of all I don't think this is a fair comparison and I think this gets down to the root of this debate. Proponents of income redistribution really only focus on nothing else other than equality of outcome. Now I would like to say that I agree with you Pro on a moral level that Bill Gates should definitely give some food to the other person the same way I would agree that a rich man should give some money to the poor. What is morally wrong is to put a gun to someone's head and force them to give the money they earned to somebody else. But what is really happening is that Bill Gates caught the food and the poor man should have known what he was dealing with and catch food before this happens. Pro is once again on to something though that I can agree with you.
Pro explains that Bill Gates should provide "and education in how to hunt or do something else that can benefit you both. then you wouldn't be as reliant on Bill gates for resources". But the more restrictions you put on Bill Gates this stops this from happening. Bill Gates can team up with this man and perhaps pay him to hunt. Just imagine it with more people. Of course the economy isn't quite this simple but it boils down the way one thinks. But Pro wouldn't you agree that it is better for people to be reliant on the people they are working for than to be reliant on the government while they do nothing to earn it? Income redistribution stops the opportunity for people to CLIMB out of poverty as you mentioned.
What agreement is more effective? One from the government a third party that has nothing to do with it? Or one from the actual parties involved? No more space:(
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.