Instigator / Pro
1
1482
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

should the US Government create a $20,000 refundable tax credit for homemakers

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
1
2

With 3 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
2
1614
rating
349
debates
65.47%
won
Description
~ 276 / 5,000

should the United Sates Government create a $20,000 tax credit for homemakers for the sake of this argument homemakers will include housewives and stay at home moms I will be arguing pro I think we can pay for it by taxing porn profits as well as liquor and tobacco products

Round 1
Pro
Opening  statement:   I would  like to start by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject as well as the site mods and voters on this debate for making it all possible
 


I think this is a really important subject it is undeniable that family is the strength of a society and the mothers and children are at the center of the family this proposal would in the long term decrease both poverty and crime and make these United States a safer more prosperous place to live right now any moms can not spend the kind of time they used to with their kids many would say women are more free than ever but who here wants to approach the mother who is forced to work a 9-5 office Job where they are sexually harassed just to make ends meet and tell them they are liberated ???

what we have is a total mismanagement of the economy by the establishment politicians which has led to the breaking apart of the family for the benefit of large  mulita national corporations wages have been stagnant since the 1970s with a small exception in 2019 this combined with inflation has made the rich richer and the poor poorer this proposal would encourage less single motherhood which as then senator Barak  Obama said " we all know these statistics children who grow up without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crimes 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison " this plan would give the choice of being a stay at home mom the so many working class moms 
Con
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
since you did not respond I have nothing to counter you did not even post an opening statement so I shall just reiterate what I said before 



 I think this is a really important subject it is undeniable that family is the strength of a society and the mothers and children are at the center of the family this proposal would in the long term decrease both poverty and crime and make these United States a safer more prosperous place to live right now any moms can not spend the kind of time they used to with their kids many would say women are more free than ever but who here wants to approach the mother who is forced to work a 9-5 office Job where they are sexually harassed just to make ends meet and tell them they are liberated ???

what we have is a total mismanagement of the economy by the establishment politicians which has led to the breaking apart of the family for the benefit of large  mulita national corporations wages have been stagnant since the 1970s with a small exception in 2019 this combined with inflation has made the rich richer and the poor poorer this proposal would encourage less single motherhood which as then senator Barak  Obama said " we all know these statistics children who grow up without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crimes 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison " this plan would give the choice of being a stay at home mom the so many working class moms 


Con
Sexism

I am in a way happy I didn't post a reply to my opponent's Round 1 as it may have seemed presumptive. In the comments section someone even pointed out to me how reasonable it is to mistakenly mention housewives and stay-at-home moms since that's the majority. In Round 2, on top of in the debate's description, my opponent explicitly makes it clear how sexist this policy is and it no longer can be misconstrued to be an unfair attack by me.

This policy would not assist stay-at-home fathers whatsoever, not even if it were a single father who had found himself unemployed. That's a glaring issue with the policy and extremely strong moral grounds to oppose its grandstanding as some saviour of all housewife and househusband households (it doesn't respect the latter).

Also, what of genderqueer households with a parent that doesn't identify as male or female?

==

Impractical enforcement and basis

The basis of this policy is ironically very much the opposite of Pro's username and stated agenda. Pro claims to be a far-right advocate and insofar as the sexism is concerned, he fits the bill (his profile says he is male so I'm not assuming the 'he'). Pro's stated agenda is problematic for the three primary reasons that follow:

  1. It seems to completely treat rich/high-income households with one parent who isn't employed as identical to low-income households that can barely cope.
  2. It creates every incentive for females to remain unemployed if they feel like doing so.
  3. Rather than come from income tax or corporate tax, it is solely to be funded by products Pro deems immoral and unnecessary (porn, alcohol, tobacco etc) as per the description. The proportion of cost will make these products so extremely expensive they end up bankrupting any business that tries to deal in them.
There is something very odd about Pro's case, it doesn't outline who is to be affected or why, in terms of how desperately they need government assistance.

Do you understand how expensive it will be for any American producer of pornography, alcohol products and tobacco products? Who will even buy their products? The rich would buy from abroad as they easily have the reach to do so, noone would purchase them, the poor would merely not have access to them and suffer withdrawal symptoms if they're addicted or simply have less to enjoy in life than before (I presume this isn't just those products, it probably is also sex toys, erotic fiction and basically anything Pro deems goes against strict religious teachings since that appears to be the theme).

The sexist element of this is clearly to encourage males of low-income households to need to find employment because all females can supposedly sit back and relax since their (I presume annual) taxes are paid off at least $20,000 and the rest is confusing because this wouldn't really help anyway as they have no actual money whatsoever, they just owe less in tax...

Now, I will list further issues with it:

  1. It's a tax credit yet you are somehow 'paying it' to the unemployed who have no income tax
Ironically, this issue really highlights how self-defeating the means and feasibility of this 'project' and/or policy are. An unemployed single mother will struggle severely regardless, I guess Pro knows this as he states the agenda is to make them have a little more time to find a suitable husband to fill the 'father' role for their household. An unemployed male in any situation can't benefit whatsoever from this, even if he wants to be a stay-at-home father with a working wife.

This entire policy doesn't even make sense at all since the tax credit is given to the parent in the household who isn't earning income and paying income tax.

There are so many loopholes and issues with it, I am perplexed how Pro can even conceive any positive elements of this at all. Neither wing of politics would back this, it is a pseudo-left-wing actually-sexist agenda.

If anyone would benefit, it's high-income households where the stay-at-home parent isn't even doing much since they've hired a maid, cleaner, gardener and secretary to organise (the chores a stay-at-home parent of lower income households would do). Such a household pays a lot of income-tax and 20k reduction would help... Except again, the issue that it's the other parent who pays income tax and earns the income comes into play.
Round 3
Pro
it is a refundable A nonrefundable tax credit means you get a refund only up to the amount you owe. A refundable tax credit means you get a refund, even if it's more than what you owe
source:

so if you owe $0 in taxes you get $20,000 from the Government (this is how Activision Blizzard gets millions from the government every year) so no doesn't matter how much you made  so this would logically help the working class as the mother may need a job in order to make ends meet and why do you care if it allows women not to work if they don't want to  is the left not the party of let people do what they want? "oh no women having a choice well we cant have that"


question :
why would you want people to consume porn ? it has no purpose except turning women into sex objects it is Evil 


and no the rich would not buy abroad as if it is sold to an American in America it would be subject to the tax as well as import duties 

the reason my argument in round 2 is exactly the same as  in round 1 is because it is a copy paste because con did not post an argument     



and if it is a single unemployed dad ok make a argument for that   is not what this debate is about this is about the credit in question not ant other program you are just spouting things and hoping that it makes sense


and there is no none binary I am sorry but there are only 2 sexes the sky is blue and facts don't care about your feelings 
Con
Pro exolained what refundable tax is, however didn't exolain why that would apply to the one who doesnt earn income and pay income tax. If it doesn't, them it doesn't encourage the nuclear family household he claims to want to push society towards.

Other than that I find no rebuttals and do confess to being very busy IRL at this moment in time.

I'll conclude in the final Round, I just see questions and no arguments relating to the topic nor rebuttals to my Round 2, in Pro's Round 3.

Round 4
Pro
because it would probably   apply to the bread winners tax returns because they would be the one filing   
Con
Forfeited