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

Wealth redistributed

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
Bluecoffe has forfeited round #4.
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: 7/14/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 93714
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




inequality has been increasing in America for a while. which isn't necessarily a problem as long as growth in the economy increases with it. So even though the rich people are getting a bigger share of the wealth as long it theirs more wealth to go around we will all benefit. However growth hasn't been strong especially these last few year with the great recession and slow growth rates. ill argue that some measures to redistribute wealth should be taken.


Thank you Pro for instigating this debate. I'd like to establish that Pro does have the burden of proof as the instigator.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


ok so I just want to take this round and argue a little loosely and expand my argument and view on the issue a little bit so I'm not going to use sources just yet. don't get caught up in any numbers I use I'm just trying to get a concept across.

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.


Thank you for your response.

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.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


tax brackets exist and you almost make it sound like that they don't and it would be considered stealing if they did. the rich already pay more in taxes. what I'm asking is that the people who are really rich pay more because theirs a great disparity between the two. At some point it actually matters how much more rich a person is. Which is something con doesn't adequately addressee. its not that they just have more its that they have absurdly much more compared to everyone else. it can be morally justified if theirs a need for it. lets say Bill Gates and you where on a island and he ate plenty of food and could store some for months. meanwhile your starving because you cant catch any food because bill gates already caught a bunch of it. At some point doesn't it becomes immoral not to give and split some of the resources again I'm not saying they would have to be split 50/50. instead of hording food what if bill Gates gave you some so you have strength and provided 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 and you could spend time doing other things like trying to find a way to get rescued. in a system where most of the wealth is going to a small group its harder for people to climb out of poverty. what I'm proposing is that we redistribute the wealth so people have more opportunities to climb up. especially when we have enough capital and resources to do it.

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 correctly pointed out that the rich pay the majority of the taxes. But this is already so without wealth redistribution. Whatever tax it is, flat or progressive, the rich will no doubt be paying the large majority of it. Pro has repeated several issues that I am going to try and address again.

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:(
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ASG 2 years ago
for PRO.

if you are starving and dying, and you are part of my society, something is wrong.
redistribution is not a rule. it is grace. wages are usually efficient. your debate is faltering.

Amanbir Singh Grewal.
Posted by migmag 2 years ago
Please IGNORE the LAST line of my previous posts, though let me correct DBruce's statement
DBruce, I'm sure your PARENTS WISH YOU were "better than that" Regarding your ROTTEN attitude towards the POOR and LOW Income! IF employers ALLOWED their employees a BETTER chance at ADVANCEMENT, then EVERY employee would DO BETTER each year and GET PROMOTED etc, that RARELY happens any more and the RICH have WAY too much power and CONTROL!
Posted by migmag 2 years ago
What is TRULY sad is that you ACTUALLY favor BILLIONAIRES over helping the HOMELESS and EXTREMELY POOR! You SAY you are "not" in favor of a massive wealth gap, yet THAT is EXACTLY what we have! HOW can making the HOMELESS be able to have HOMES, "even worse", HOW can making the STARVING and HUNGRY be fed "even worse", How can raising someone's wage from FIVE dollars an hour to 10 or 15, be "even worse" while there are people who have 100 BILLION dollars and Corporations who have TRILLIONS while their LOWEST paid employees get FIVE to NINE dollars an hour!!! SERIOUSLY!!
How about the EXTORTION that takes place when employers ONLY offer their new employees FIVE to TEN dollars an hour and NO BENEFITS!!!! How about being HONEST about your income, do you make SIX figures a year, SEVEN? Almost NO ONE who makes LESS than 100K agrees with you!!! WHY should someone who has BILLIONS TAKE ANYTHING back out of the system? And DONT forget BILLIONAIRES TAKE PLENTY! Do they pay for the ROADS or the BRIDGES or the POWER GRIDS or the RAILROADS? Give us a break! If you make OVER 100K a year, you are in the TOP 25% and I have NO sympathy for you, the BOTTOM 50% make LESS than $15/hour!!!!

I just thought that the American people were better than that. We were the dreamers who admired success. Now we want to tear it down and pillage the remains.
Posted by dbruce35 2 years ago
It really is sad to see the thought processes of some when it comes to this topic. I am not in favor of a massive wealth gap, but the alternative is even worse. To "redistribute" someone's wealth, is basically legal extortion. The mob's biggest money maker is extortion. They use threats and force to make business owners pay for their right to operate in their territory. Does that sound familiar? The IRS is the government's muscle. They threaten you to pay taxes or you will be punished and then every year they want more. Do tax payers have a say in where their money goes? Nope. You are just required to pay it.

I have started to think of it as an American membership that costs my family over 20% of our income to stay in the club. And the fact is, those who pay the most taxes, get the least of the benefits offered. If you make over $100k per year, you pay 80% of all taxes. So, in my mind, the rich are already paying.

I just thought that the American people were better than that. We were the dreamers who admired success. Now we want to tear it down and pillage the remains.
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
Every dumb small tax affects the poor more than the rich. The poor pay for the soda tax in NY, not the rich. The poor pay for parking meters in NY, not the rich. The poor pay for the lottery, not the rich.

Every time a new small tax is passed you can be sure the poor pay the vast majority of the money.

Is this not wealth redistribution? Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

The wealthy are greedy. They have all they can use in their entire lives. They pass on their wealth for generations. They still try to take all they can from the rest of the world. All they care about is how to increase their scoreboard.

The rich will do anything to increase their wealth and to keep it. They give a tiny portion away for PR reasons (Bill Gates!).

Should the 1% of the rich pay for 1% of the taxes or should those who own 99% of the wealth pay for 99% of the country?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a term coined by the wealthy. It was created to "market" the idea that they should take everything they can and keep it all.

I saw we should Robin Hood this thing! Take from the rich. Give to the poor. The wealthy have all of the money so they should pay for everything....literally everything. Stop taxes. Just make a law that every legal driver gets a free car paid for by the rich!
Posted by Bluecoffe 2 years ago
having more money to spend would give you a better quality of life so I think people would benefit from it. are you saying it would be better for a small amount of the population to control most of the resources while some people are just struggling to get by? Its much easier to obtain more wealth and improve your life when your not worried about feeding yourself and paying all your bills. why not provide people who need money with money so they can afford school and stuff to improve their lives.
Posted by WAM 2 years ago
There is a reason why most rich (or lets even just put this to 'well off' or upper middle class) people are where they are in life, and there is a reason why most poor (or less well off) people are where they are. Redistributing wealth will not change their social status over the long term and will not really benefit anyone.
This debate has 0 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.