Instigator / Pro
3
1500
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#4449
Tax the rich to provide for the poor
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
coolguy1234
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
What I mean by providing for the poor is that the money used by the taxes on the rich should be used to expand welfare.
Pro says we should tax the rich to provide for the poor
Con says we shouldn't tax the rich to provide for the poor
Round 1
[1] Introduction
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. What I mean by taxing the rich is that we should tax them at a higher rate than it is now. Now lets get to my arguments.
[2] Taxing the rich is a must
If the rich are taxed the same (or even less) than the middle and lower classes, then the vicious cycle continues. The cycle where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which means that children who grow up poor will not have the same chance at succeeding as a child with a wealthy parent, which is unfair. If we don't expand welfare, then the poor are just stuck. Eventually, due to less people spending, the economy will go down and income inequality will rise.
[3] Economic benefits of taxing the rich and increasing welfare
Higher income taxes on the rich have increased economic growth.[1] Increased welfare, paid for by the taxes on the rich, increases the GDP of a country.[2] Welfare also brings people out of poverty.[3] Overall, taxing the rich, is beneficial to a country's population and it's economy.
[4] The negative effects of not taxing the rich
Major tax cuts for the rich result in economic decline, not economic growth. It also leads to a decrease in the quality of life for a country.[4] Also, many affluent people often make their riches by using tax loopholes. Not closing these loopholes will lead to higher rates of tax evasion, which decreases income that can be used to fund schools, hospitals, and much more.
[5] Conclusion
Overall, taxing the rich to increase welfare is a necessity, one needed to stimulate the economy and increase the quality of life in a country. Not taxing the rich will lead to a stagnant economy, lower living standards, and much more negative aspects. Taxing the rich is needed.
[6] Sources
Tax the rich to provide for the poor
The purpose of CON is to prove why this is not a good policy, essentially.
Con says we shouldn't tax the rich to provide for the poor
Exactly. Even if CON intends to, in some way, enforce a progressive tax system to balance financial inequality to some extent, it would not be anything implied by this exact wording. You will see what I mean.
Argument 1: Unclear?
How rich? How poor? We may never know, not with this wording. Suppose a policy of this exact wording is enacted. This would raise several questions:
- How much money counts as "rich"? What is the percentage of taxation?
- How little income qualifies as "poor"?
- Suppose there is an arbitrary line that is definite, and my friend Jerry is $1 under the line of determination of "rich", he receives more than $1 of transfer payment in his account, making him "rich", does he get automatically taxed? What are the rules here?
The fact that the line between rich and "not rich" is not even defined or even brought up in the argument renders this as a policy that should not be enacted unless the wording is perfected.
Round 2
- How little income qualifies as "poor"?
Anything below the US poverty line of $12,880, however, it depends on how many people live in a household.
1: $12,880
2: $17,420
3: $21,690
4: 31,040
5: $31,040
6: $35,580
7: $40,120
8: $44,660
For families/households with more than 8 people, add $4,540 for each additional person.
How much money counts as "rich"?
$500,000
- Suppose there is an arbitrary line that is definite, and my friend Jerry is $1 under the line of determination of "rich", he receives more than $1 of transfer payment in his account, making him "rich", does he get automatically taxed? What are the rules here?
Yes, Jerry does get taxed.
What is the percentage of taxation?
Enough to provide for the poor.
Forfeited
Round 3
Vote Pro
oh ok
I guess the debate ends now.
