However, as the point "Not the elimination of billionaires but more adequate taxation" clarifies, the objective is not to abolish billionaires. Instead, it's about establishing fairer and more progressive taxation policies.
The title of the argument is "Billionaires should not be allowed to accumulate extreme wealth." Billionaires account for 0.00000003% of the global population. In order to eliminate this wealth gap, we'd need to eliminate billionaires in the first place. This isn't to insult your intentions or intelligence, but just to point out your argument is flawed in regards to the topic.
Now, on your arguments in round 2:
This approach acknowledges the role of large capital holders but asserts that their immense wealth also entails societal obligations.
While it isn't unreasonable to think that the wealthy should provide for society, I don't believe it is correct.
The only difference between a poor man and a rich man is the amount of money they have, so why should we treat them so differently? If one works to aquire wealth, it isn't fair that they should be punished for their success. The reason philanthropy is such a noble and respected trait is the fact that it isn't *required* of the wealthy, but that they *choose* to do it anyway. Furthermore, billionaires already contribute to society, by building jobs and distributing their wealth via investments that help the working class gain more wealth themselves.
This involves policies like progressive taxation and, internationally, advocating for fair trade agreements and development aid.
Again, in an ideal world, this would work. However, real life people are too unpredictable and selfish.
A) Progressive taxation only works if all countries tax equally. If one country has progressive taxation and another doesn't, billionaires and the wealthy will simply move elsewhere, which doesn't help in the grand scheme of things.
B) Time and time again we've seen countries that take aid from richer countries and individuals and use that for the benefit of their own richer class. Throwing more money at a poorer country has never been an effective way to deal with poverty.
The overwhelming influence of money in politics, through lobbying and campaign donations, significantly distorts democratic processes.
Lobbying and campaign donations do not inherently distort democratic processes. In fact, campaign donations are necessary for poorer candidates to keep up with richer, more influential ones. Furthermore, lobbying also doesn't distort political processes, bribery does. Lobbying is often innocent and simply pushing for policies that people want.
A system with less concentrated wealth could potentially prioritize long-term ecological health over short-term financial gain.
The keywords in your argument here are "could potentially." A system with a smaller wealth gap bas no logical reason to protect the environment over one with a larger wealth gap. My example in round one of the US vs China works excellently here. The US has much more wealth and billionaires than China, and yet the US's environmental protections are leaps and bounds ahead of China's. This isn't because of billionaires, this is because of the government trying to maximize production. A system without billionaires has just as much reason to destroy the environment as one with billionaires does.
Furthermore, your assertion "In an ideal system people would not be greedy. The super-rich are already not!" presents a contradiction. If the "super-rich" are not greedy, why such extreme wealth concentration and resistance to equitable policies?
You have a very flawed understanding of my argument. For starters, I never said or implied that the wealthy are not greedy. My point was that a system that splits power between the rich, the working class, and the government, will inherently have more workers' rights than a system with the power in just the government (eg. The US vs China). Secondly, as I previously mentioned, a system without billionaires has just as much reason to ignore workers rights as a system with billionaires would. This is because both systems prioritize production. There is not a single economic system one could devise that wouldn't prioritize profit, the trick is finding a way to balance that drive with the demands of the people, and this can only be done through a system of split power.
The goal is not to abolish billionaires or completely dismantle the free market, but to create a system where wealth serves society.
Again, these are nice words and Ideals, but without a distinct plan, impossible to accomplish.
You lay out some ideas on how this can work, but I'll do the dirty work of figuring out their effectiveness.
This can be achieved through effective progressive taxation.
As previously mentioned, progressive taxation will simply drive away business from an area, which will not only not help, but will actively hurt that region's economy.
stronger regulatory frameworks
This may work, so long as the regulations don't drive away businesses like progressive taxation would, but this is more the jobs of the unions, and regulations wouldn't help much to bridge a wealth gap, only to fix environmental/worker protections.
robust social programs
Social programs must be funded, which can be done if the wealthy pay more taxes, true, but that will also drive away business, making this very difficult to put in practice.
fostering economic models that prioritize collective well-being. Marx's observation that "England needed labor in other parts of the world" reminds us that economic systems are global and interconnected
I agree that economic systems are interconnected, which is why building a system to regulate them is near impossible. The economy in Russia is very different from the economy in the US, and only through private trading and investments can these systems be connected. If the countries themselves were to try, the economy would be slowed down by sanctions, politics, and disagreements over prices. The solution to the issue of "collective well being" is much more difficult than bridging the wealth gap, as the working class is both helped and hindered by the existence of the very wealthy.
oh thank god finally 🙏
"I will freeze my arguments if LucyStarfire accepts."
Dont worry, I wont violate your debate.