Instigator / Pro

1500

rating

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

Winner

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

coolguy1234

Tags

Politics

Economics

Parameters

Publication date: 04.30.2023 12:27AM
Last updated date: 07.03.2023 11:51PM
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

Intelligence_06

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

coolguy1234

05.02.2023 09:27PM

Pro

[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

[1]https://equitablegrowth.org/the-relationship-between-taxation-and-u-s-economic-growth/

[2]https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2018/03/07/welfare-versus-gdp-what-makes-people-better-off

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

[4]https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315

Intelligence_06

05.16.2023 03:24PM

Con

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

coolguy1234

05.20.2023 09:44PM

Pro

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.

Intelligence_06

06.03.2023 09:44PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

coolguy1234

06.14.2023 07:34PM

Pro

Vote Pro

Intelligence_06

06.26.2023 11:51PM

Con

oh ok

I guess the debate ends now.

DavidAZ

06.27.2023 04:10PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

This was a Pro win. Con does not debate the issue except asks a few questions on what would determine the status of rich or poor. Con then missed a round and then his closing argument was that the debate is done.

Savant

06.27.2023 03:53PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro makes a detailed argument. Con asks Pro a question, which Pro answers.

Slainte

06.27.2023 03:51PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro gave an argument. Con responded with questions. Pro answered the questions. Con never responded to the answers. Pro wins.