Question: Should everyone get a universal basic income?

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says "And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled "Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket." And in this article they explain what negative income tax is "The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate"which is to say, the IRS would pay them." Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty." The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. "Automation Is Killing These Jobs." Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. "1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future." CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. "The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income." FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. "Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. "Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny." Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. ""Universal Basic Income" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket." Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.

Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The "public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state " and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into "real freedom" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals" "power to say no", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, "This unpaid work is valuable and"UBI is recognition of that." Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. "There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers"" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.

Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: You have still failed to identify my main point... a UBI system is not a feasible replacement for welfare. The truth is, ordinary middle class, working citizens in their prime working age range DO NOT require the payment from a UBI system. It baffles me how you have failed to understand why currently, there is no country who has even begun to seriously consider this. The only country so far to pass a referendum is Switzerland, in which it was rejected 3 to 1. You claim to be Australian, I am as well. However, in your last argument, you failed to tell me how I was misinformed on the Aboriginal debate. Over the last 5 years, I have worked closely with a school foundation providing not financial funds, but things such as toiletries and access to health and nutritional education to a small town community with a large percentile of Aboriginal residents. We have seen that these provisions seem to have led to a greater improvement in the overall health of the community and we have even begun to get in close contact with some of the elders. But, back to the UBI point, I will once again enlighten you on reality. The truth is, many citizens in civilisation are born disadvantaged. Some children have parents with a bad influence, others have faced abused as young children and in many cases, these people end up broken mentally the homeless people on streets living off welfare. It is not that they are lazy and refuse to work. They were never taught the work ethic and never experienced a feeling of belonging to our society. These are the members of society who require the help of welfare. You seem to be overly confident that you have found a feasible UBI solution. However, you fail to realise that if you, genuinely, had found a practical, feasible UBI solution, you would not be on debate.org arguing. The popularity of a notion is directly correlated to how practical and real it is for the rest of society.

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Well to that, I will simply reply... Your first point is actually a very reasonable and valid solution, however, proposing such a tax reform and welfare slash would definitely NOT be popular with the public. This is evident in Switzerland wherein 2016, a UBI referendum was rejected. Trials are being run in many countries in Africa along with Finland, however, countries such as Australia and America have yet to seriously consider this. In Australia, a $20 000 UBI was proposed. The cost of this would be twice the current cost of the current welfare system. Additionally, regarding your point on homeless people and their spending, in Australia, there is a huge cultural debate on Aboriginal welfare. In fact, in many towns, the government has begun to introduce an income card/ food voucher system. The reality is, disadvantaged members of society in both America and Australia receive generously from the welfare system. These provisions are enough to provide basic housing, food and water. However, despite this, these people still sleep on streets and beg for money for food. Alcohol and drugs are a huge reason behind this. There is debate trying to push a nation-wide income card system for welfare receivers, however, this is argued to be a breach of human rights with no supporting evidence. The main problem is, there is lack of public funding to support an investigation which would be both lengthy and costly. In fact, if the government would manage (somehow) to pass a tax reform on private industries, the money would be much better off refining the current welfare system instead of abolishing it completely and replacing it with an impractical UBI system. The main aim of welfare is to aid disadvantaged members of society, not to make government money distribution equal.

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: As someone who lives in Australia and has personal experience with the Aboriginal debate, you are again misinformed. I will now lay out my rebuttal Rebuttal Popularity Difference between income card and UBI Abolish not refine Addressing your point on popularity. This debate is about whether they should do so, not how the government would get it through Parliament. Besides, your reason for the popularity was a $20,000 proposal. However, I am proposing a $10,000 UBI, which as logic entails is the correct amount of the budget. You pointed out that the income card doesn't work. This is true, but that is not what we are suggesting, isn't a card to control what you spend your welfare on, which is what an income card is, we are suggesting we give them money free for them to spend. You said that we should refine the welfare instead of replacing it with completely different system, however, the welfare program has been proven not to work as any amount above it's small benefit window and you lose the welfare leaving you with less. In conclusion, UBI is a better system, as opposed to normal welfare. This debate is not about getting it through Parliament, or what completely different systems do. This debate is about, what has already been proven as the better system, UBI.

Title: Poverty can and should be eradicated Content: I believe we can {and afford} to ensure the income of every adult is over the poverty line {be it through welfare payments or something else}. I believe we can also ensure that everyone has access to adequate amounts of what is commonly viewed as the necessities of life. Food, clothing and can provide adequate long-term shelter. I don't believe the statements that some people choose to be poor or do not take personal responsibility means we can't help them out of poverty. We still have in place mechanisms to ensure they don't live in poverty and have access to food, clothing and shelter.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: I thank you for your interesting response. I still believe you are incorrect in this matter. If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. That would make that worker's income actually less than those of the increased incomes of all of the welfare recipients in the house should he quit. This is not how we create a productive society; neither is welfare. But if people are going to need welfare, it shouldn't be taxed. And if it were taxed, what makes you think the amount given would increase to compensate? The only way this concept wouldn't just be fader for confusion is in the situation of a family. A household that has a sufficient income to support everyone yet some members of the household still receive welfare. I don't think this is a case for tax-reform but more a case for the government being more conservative with welfare in general.

Title: Capitalism is better than socialism. Content: A "everyone wins" situation is indeed possible, they just need a large computer to find a average wealth and than tax and give money until that is reached, and every payday just enough is made to sustain that goal, and than the leftover is used to help those who used more money. Yes, there is a reason that the little man can't strive to elevate himself, if he is stuck in the projects of a bad city, and he nor his family can afford education, or their taxes, than they have a son who makes $7.50 an hour flipping burger at a McDonald's. yes there would be burger flippers, but they would get paid more and could live better. Yes benefits are available, but they don't cover everybody fully. I believe you said it "Not everybody needs, or indeed deserves to live a life of luxury." If we don't need it the government can have it, and spread the wealth. One should be glad that they have worked hard to help others. Yes there would be those who are dragged down, but there also will be those who are brought up it is unfair to sum but fair to others. Yea the freedom of speech is a good thing, but few people listen. The government needs to take control because as I said before "So many people are incompetent" and can make the wrong choice, that is why a good ruler in important, if the ruler isn't good than eliminate him. No we don't like to be told what to do, but we need to be lead. We can take control of our lives under the government, there are just limits, and nothing could go wrong and life will be good. I didn't say spelling, I understand that in the UK though we all speak English we have different words, like you cay "earnt" we have words like "hecka" and "borne," you don't use the word borne?

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? "Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these "welfare bums" actually reenter the job market. ---"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. "Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. "The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. " [4]----"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...

Title: Is a Flat Tax Fair Content: Everyone paying the same percentage in taxes would be fair if everyone worked about as hard as each other. If everyone works equally hard, then I agree a flat tax should be used. However, this is far from reality. Those in the top percentages of incomes consistently have to do very little work to maintain their same income. Those who are poor, however, often expend a great deal of effort just trying to find a job. While big business tycoons can relax in their corporate headquarters knowing they're making dollars per second, the poor may have to work all day or all night just to make less than enough money to live on. It's not fair that these two incredibly different groups of people should have to pay the same percentages. The rich can afford to pay significantly higher taxes, as it doesn't affect them nearly as much since they have such high incomes. The poor can't, since they have so little.

Title: Minimum Wages Laws Having Economic Effect Should Be Abolished Content: There are two ways to determine "what people deserve." On way is to let the free market decide. In that case, the resolution is affirmed. Another way is for a democratic society to determine some arbitrary standard. If an arbitrary amount is determined by society, then the population as a whole should make the payment, and no attempt should be made to transfer society's burden to an individual employer. Society should provide welfare benefits, if that is to be done. All other arguments in favor of the resolution stand unrefuted.

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach "climax" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a "bad thing" for the moment.

Title: welfare promotes laziness Content: The basis of my argument is that by giving people the option to welfare by human nature they will rely on government aid as long as it is offered. Let us first look at the number of people drawing welfare which in 1994 was around 15 million people, and is obviously risen a significant amount since that time. During my extensive research of this topic one thing has became aware to me, that if given the option people will allow others to do the work for them without themselves doing anything. Lets use logic for a moment, if someone offered you the chance to have everything you need payed by another person, who would decline? There are no circumstances that someone would not decline to that proposition. There are a several ways in today's age that people can obtain some sort of government help. Out of all these options there are "loop holes" in everyone that would allow some one to get away from having to work. That is my opening argument, its not in depth but i will wait for my opponent to argue his view of the topic.

Title: Money is killing us Content: Thank you for the response 😀 reading your response it is clear that you are prioritising money in your arguments, I agree with a few things you said, people should work hard and earn to support their family, but my topic is not on this subject, it is on prioritising basic human rights (water, food, shelter, clothing) first, over anything, then the rest can fall into place. It has now been almost half a century since we put man on the moon just think of how advanced we are now, has poverty advanced? We are responsible for this planet and its growth not money.

Title: Laws supporting certain individual groups shouldn't be implemented permanently. Content: Let's start things off with the basic factor that I should get out of the way, I don't disagree with the idea that individuals should be receiving equal treatment, Along with equal opportunities, But what I do disagree with is that every individual, No matter the background, Should be equal to everyone else. In theory, Many would like to assume that this idea is pushing towards the pinnacle achievement of supporting minorities and the ones in peril as many people in the world don't have the fortunes that some have acquired through the means of family benefit or heritage. It's important to implement the necessary means in helping these people but to allow some individual groups to acquire certain benefits that are easily abusable to certain people I think is dangerous and should be taken down without much hesitation. Since this is the start I would like my views a bit broad since I do not wish to reveal my strong arguments yet, Along with the reason of allowing open opportunities for plausible arguments. Thank you. The floor may go to the Opposition.

Title: The Negative Income Tax Content: I accept your challenge over this very interesting subject.I've been following with interest the Swiss debate over introducing a guaranteed minimum revenue. To be honest I'm still undecided myself over this issue. However I do have a bunch of rational arguments against it. Furthermore, as I currently live in a country, Belgium, where there is already a huge welfare coverage (guaranteed income for everyone (about 400 € pm), Generous child benefits or the state topping up revenue as an incentive for employment) I will not just list arguments why a country should not apply "Negative Income Tax". I will also try to analyze factual negative results of it being enforced (Socially and Economically) Having said that, good luck and may the best win

Title: The Minimum Wage should be abolished. Content: I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage. Your response?

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.

Title: Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools Content: There's no reason to treat this any different from the other basic needs like housing, food, water etc. and we still have to pay for those as well. Instead we should just make sure that the situation where there are people with too little money to even pay for these basic needs cannot occur, for example by paying decent unemployment benefits.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more "buIIshit jobs" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the "negative incentives" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These "negative incentives" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered "below" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...

Title: Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society Content: There are many things we consume but can’t be measured, healthcare, national defence and education, for example. How do we decide how much everyone should pay for them? To answer just one of the points raised, the childless should pay for other people's children to be educated because education does not just benefit the individual - the benefits a literate worker brings to the economy are such that everyone benefits. A direct tax is fair and progressive, because it demonstrates that we all have equal responsibility for the welfare of others. We live in a state where we believe in helping each other, rather than being selfish and helping only ourselves. That is why we have free public transport for the over-60s and the disabled, that's why we have state education, and why we formed the NHS sixty years ago. None of these would be possible without direct taxation.

Title: Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life. Content: Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.

Title: disabled ppl must pay more taxes Content: You aren't giving much of an argument, So I don't have much to work with. If you could give me a clear argument, Then I can debate with you easier. I personally disagree because I believe everyone should have an equal opportunity, As you may be born into a life of such disabilities. Why do you believe the disabled should pay more taxes?

Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: :If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. Example: a husband's income, who cares for his stay-at-home wife and three adult children, will be the sole qualifying income of any of the five members of this household. If the husband makes more than the threshold, then NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD is eligible for welfare. This is how welfare works, currently.Furthermore, if Pro had his way, the welfare would only be taxable to the one who receives it, not to any other member of the household, regardless if they have income or not, thus one could still have zero taxable income. I must reiterate that HOUSEHOLD income is a factor for welfare, not just the individual's income. So, if I live with my parents, and they buy me food and whatnot, then our combined three incomes are used to qualify. However, if they let me live there, but they do not feed me, then only my income is used to qualify because we are not a household "unit", we just simply live together. So, Con's claim that I am missing something obvious is false, as one income does, in fact, taint all the welfare available to those in his household. Because expenses are the driving factor, not wealth, a wealthy man, living off his non-interest-bearing savings account, could receive welfare to buy his food. Are we to reward him for refusing to spend his money?None of my points have been refuted:1. The effect of taxing welfare is unknown, but we know that at worst, it has minimal effect. However, if the vast majority has no income, then they have a negative taxable income. So part, if not all of the welfare, would be not taxed.2. Welfare is paid due to choices (i.e. expenses), and if someone wants to retain their wealth or maintain their lifestyle, it is only fair that they potentially pay taxes on this benefit. Similarly, if they choose not to work as much as they could, choose to keep the children they can't afford, choose to drive the car they can't afford, or choose to maintain a residence they can't afford, they should potentially pay taxes on any welfare received.3. My opponent has refused to comment on why aid to the elderly (social security), divorced (alimony), children (child support), and unemployed (UI payments) are taxed, but aid to the poor is not. This is not equal treatment under the law.For these reasons, judges must vote Pro. The only counter-argument offered was one of emotion (the plight of the poor), but no evidence was offered to support this claim, only the generalization of the poor and the fallacious conclusions drawn from them.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Title: There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone Content: Right but you missed my point - I'm not saying there should be a set amount that everybody pays. I'm saying there should be one percentage. By the very nature of a percentage, the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less. If everybody pays 15% then someone who earns $20,000 a year is going to pay $3000 in tax and someone who earns $150,000 is going to pay $22,500. Therefore, I fail to see why gradually increasing the actual percentage someone pays is the only means by which the rich pay more and the poor pay less. The only fair system, where everybody pays their actual share of their actual wage, is that the same percentage applies to everybody. I didn't advocate for a flat tax. I advocated for one tax bracket.

Title: Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed. Content: So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need

Title: The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives Content: I believe the Welfare state, the government rule giving benefits to those in need of support through benefit payments and services, is outdated and in need of a replacement. First of all the welfare state is about merit goods i.e. goods that give significant benefits to the individual consuming them and to society as a whole. However people undervalue these and what I mean by that is that if these goods/services cost they wouldn't be bought by everybody. A few examples come to mind for example, education. It is free but some people wouldn't buy it if it did cost. So, the costs to the government or the nation as a whole for that matter. The welfare state costs an awful lot of money to the government, peoples hard earned income is being distributed to some people who claim to have a disability or in desperate need of income but in actual fact are taking advantage of this badly formed concept and claiming benefits they don't need. Also I believe some people may be overlooked by the government when they do meet the criteria to gain these benefits because the background search of some people is not thorough enough. This has become a problem as a lot of people have discovered this 'loophole' and are taking advantage of it. The alternatives to the welfare state include increasing the role of the voluntary sector. This means making people responsible for other people and caring for each other as a community. This may not seem like it would work but I believe a system could be put in place so everyone has to contribute to the community. I also believe some adjustments could be made to the welfare state such as making it universal although this does have its drawbacks. In conclusion I think everyone should play a bigger role in shaping our community and caring for the elderly and the unable instead of just giving them a bit of money in which the government expect them to know what to use it for.

Title: Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works Content: I believe that the second option is viable. The state should provide an income safety net for those who, through sickness (physical or mental), age, or disability, cannot work; and those who can, but for whom no jobs are available. There are many people in the current economy who cannot find work despite having the ability to do work; it is not their fault.The opponent's plan isn't feasible, because then the government would be artifically creating jobs and thereby dominate the job market. Such an action would allow the government to greatly influence the market. This would lead to a system that is far more socialist than our country strives to be, leaving the current market vulnerable to harsh government intervention.

Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: I am not going to provide any definitive arguments until the second round after my opponent clarifies his premise.Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.Why does everyone need to be covered under a universal system, be it Medicare or single-payer? Once, my opponent answers this, I will offer all of my arguments in Round 2.

Title: Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the standard of living of all households. ... Content: Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the standard of living of all households. There is an absolute minimum quality of life, below which families should not fall. A minimum wage that had no effect on employment would be unnecessary, especially as the wage rate is not necessarily the main consideration of employers when hiring workers.

Title: I Should Stop Working and Go on Welfare Content: I accept the above listed rules and round outline. In addition: I would like to note that I am pleased this topic was suggested in the private exchange Kescarte_DeJudica and I have been engaged in, and that he views me as the most suitable opponent for this debate. As we have both agreed, debating the topic of welfare as it specifically relates to one person will provide a unique and refreshing insight into the Pro and Con arguments. Rather than arguing for the collective, we will be arguing for the individual. This debate will not propose what is best for society, but what is best for Kescarte_DeJudica. Naturally, I intend to show that on balance, the detriments to him receiving welfare as opposed to earning an income through employment are greater than any assumed benefits. My arguments will follow in an orderly fashion, and will comprise of clear and well-presented points throughout. I ask that judges keep one primary question in mind whilst voting: who has the strongest arguments and counter-arguments? Similarly to my opponent, I expect this debate to be both entertaining and educational. I look forward to reading his arguments, and I wish him good luck!

Title: The Affordable Health Care Act Content: I refer you back to the point I made about very hard-working people that do fundamental jobs but are on a low income- even if you compare nurses, who I am sure you agree are more than essential in the very healthcare we are discussing, are on relatively low incomes compared to many other jobs, for example executive managers. The fact of the matter is that some career lines have higher potential incomes than others and there is no way for everybody to earn the same amount of money, even if every person in the world put in the same amount of effort, yet you are suggesting that they should be penalised for that. In truth, if every person were able to earn the same wage, then money would be useless. The tax system as it is, where you pay a proportion of your wage, is much fairer than to say that every person must pay the same amount- if you consider that 10% of the population holds 50% of the worlds wealth, I'm sure that you would end up paying more. As it stands, the higher your income, the more you pay in tax, but you also take home more than anybody with a lower income. You also appear to be implying that the only thing that encourages people to work is healthcare when in reality there are much bigger issues at hand such as paying for a roof over your head and food to fill your stomach. People that choose not to work are a whole separate matter; paying their healthcare will make a negligible difference to them deciding whether to work or not. However the issue lies with those that are stuck in low paying jobs, positions that every economy needs to be filled in order for the country to continue to run smoothly, but that don't give much room for advancement as these people make up a significant proportion of the population whereas the higher tax for the richest of the population is not likely to make a significant difference to their income.

Title: Captialism Is Good Content: What I am saying is the redistribution of wealth is tantamount to building a fairer society. Without going into my political and economic aspirations, the system is broken and the already wealthy are exploiting everyone below them creating an ever increasing inequality gap by doing the very thing your proposing we all should do. I have visions of a Dickensian style Distopian future were we all keep what we earn whilst the world around us falls into a decay of broken health services, street sweepers rusting in a ditch, and orphaned children roaming the streets in search of food all because you kept what you earned and did not give some to someone else. We all have to pay our way to maintain society. We all have to work together. Call it an all inclusive ticket to cohesion. It does not necessarily mean more government, although, if governments were what they are supposed to be and that is our servants and not try to be our rulers then i"m sure more government would be fine. Actually the more people with power would mean the power is not centralized like it is now, making it much less corrupting. Why should the private sector grow to give more money to the government if we should all keep what we get? No more government jobs will create more jobs, i don"t see which social and economic structures are at risk. Can you elaborate? More government in the conventional way does equal less freedom, i agree completely, however, imagine a world in which we were all part of the government, all with equal say in how the country should be run, now wouldn"t that be better?

Title: All people should receive the same income Content: Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.

Title: Families with food stamps should get more money. Content: Has someone with many friends on welfare who can't survive off it and the rising of the prices of everything, I think we should raise the amount they earn from food stamps because there is heavy inflation and the amount they earn hasn't increased much at all. Welfare should keep people above the poverty line unconditionally.

Title: Welfare/Redistribution is actually harmful for poor people Content: While i agree with my opponent that minimum wage can be harmful where small business is concerned i don't see how we cannot raise it $7.25 an hour is simply not livable anymore not with the cost of things. We have people barely able to make ends meet that with a higher minimum wage could make bills on time i also disagree about welfare welfare in it's current state has been misused welfare was intended as a temporary means to financial troubles. But instead you have people living off of it which i why i think there should be some kind of reform we need to make it so that welfare is not a lifetime endeavor. however i will argue that welfare is necessary and if done away with would lead a lot of people into poverty all you have to do is look at 3rd world countries to see that. Redistribution is absolutely necessary it ensures that the top 1% do not end up with all or most of the money and that the poor and middle class get a share in it the economy can only grow if everybody is playing their part and i fear if we didn't do it we would become like India or some other 3rd world area with virtually no middle class.

Title: Redistribution of Wealth Content: You know what? You're right. The foul, greedy, selfish, evil nature of human behavior would ensure that this redistribution would never happen. Now that I think about it, most billionaires WOULDN'T be satisfied with a mere billion dollars. They probably WOULD be greedy enough to want all the money to themselves rather than see it being used for the good of humanity. They probably WOULD be stubborn enough to "go on strike" if the government were to force them to use their money in a way that doesn't serve their own personal gain. I still believe that a redistribution SHOULD happen, since I don't give a crap about billionaires' rights when half the world has virtually no money, but you are right in saying that such a thing is not realistically possible. due to how twisted human nature is. I suppose this means I automatically lose the debate, since I got convinced by my opponents arguments.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: Minimum wage should be passed because it would help people out of poverty. Try to debate me on it.

Title: Universal healthcare Content: Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?

Title: The Negative Income Tax Content: Thank you Olark for accepting, and as you said: may the best win. One of the main reasons why I support a negative income tax is that it's a very cheap and yet effective way to end poverty. My alibi is the "Mincome" project that was conducted back in the 70's in the 2 towns in Manitoba, Canada; the town of Dauphin and Winnipeg: http://america.aljazeera.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://basicincome.org.uk... Those below the fixed poverty line received a monthly cheque that allowed them to survive. In the beginning, the researchers predicted that this would encourage people to be lazy and that it would cost a lot of money. But in the end, none of the above turned out to be true. From those who benefited from this project, only pregnant mothers and students worked substantially less. This by the way, resulted in a higher number of students graduating. Also hospitalization and domestic abuse went down. The project started in 1975 but was ended in 1979, when a centre-right government came to power. For many years the results of this project have been forgotten, until a few years ago it caught the attention of Prof. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba. Now you might say that that these were small towns and that such a project couldn't work on a nation-wide level and that the people of Winnipeg and Dauphin feared that this project would end some day. Well for the nation-wide thing, I don't know to be honest. It has never been tested on such a large scale. But "I don"t find the "temporary program" argument very compelling. If people are irresponsible, will they really project four years into the future to decide how to behave?" (quote from Prof. Evelyn Forget) Contrary to most basic income models, the negative income tax, would only give the amounted of money needed to the people who need it. That's why it would be a cheap way to de facto implement a basic income. There have also been other basic income (BI) experiments, like in Otjivero, Namibia and in Uganda, India and even In the US: http://www.spiegel.de... http://usbig.net... https://www.opendemocracy.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Namibian project also caught my attention for the following reasons: In 2 years, -the percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 76 to 36% -the percentage of under-nourished children went from +50% to less than 10% -the percentage of young adults graduating went from 60 to 90% -crime went down significantly Another interesting project is "Bolsa familia" in Brazil. Basically it's a negative income tax for poor families IF they send their kids to School: http://web.worldbank.org... As for the BI initiative in Switzerland, I'm crossing my fingers since I live there ;) It would be really useful for me since in a few years I will be going to University.

Title: Welfare Content: These days, the price of basic necessities is getting higher because of the economic recession. According to the National Poverty Center, "In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty."(1) The only food that the poor can afford to buy is McDonald's, and is that building a better society? We need to support the poor so they don't have to life such a hard life. You say that you think charity should be the sole giver, but there are so many charities for so many different things. How do you expect charities to give to the poor alone. They need government assistance. Say a mother had a child and the father left. How would she be able to support herself without welfare? If welfare was not in place there would be even further economic disparity in the United States. In my hometown, you could see some extremely rich suburbs but if you go to the "hood" you just see a bunch of old dilapidated houses and closed down stores. That is where most of the crime happens. Why? Because you have uneducated poor people who have no way of getting real income except breaking into houses and selling the items at pawn shops. That's how people turn into career criminals and make money. Uneducated people might even have to start selling drugs to make their money and as we all know, that can turn a whole society upside-down. The bottom line is if we don't have welfare, the poor won't have a way to support themselves. I do believe that we can wean people off of welfare using other methods, but if welfare is cut off, severe repercussions will happen. I do understand that people might not want to pay for other's expenses, but, if we did not pay, my house would get broken into in the next five minutes. Pay the taxes, give the welfare, steer clear of the consequences. (1) http://www.npc.umich.edu...

Title: We should introduce a flat tax. Content: Scrapping all existing income tax and replacing them with a single "flat tax" is a very simple idea. But does it work? Anyone willing to participate will be taking the for side of this debate. I will let you make the first point.

Title: Welfare Content: It would appear that Con has missed his opportunity to respond.In closing, I have contended that welfare serves a role in reducing poverty, creating mobility, and acting as a safety net. In my arguments, I have proven that welfare does reduce poverty, create mobility, and act as a safety net. Con and I are in agreement that reforms are direly needed. I believe that welfare, as it stands today, could and should be strengthened to allow a greater rebound for people who fall under economic hardships, instead of providing the bare minimum to keep them from poverty. Con has done little more than hurl attack at those who need these social safety nets. Fact is, we aren't all born the same. Some of us were born into different circumstances than others. Some of us came from wealth, or came from a great school. Some of us didn't. Some of us can do everything right in life and still live at poverty level. For the sake of society, we should all work to ensure nobody goes to bed hungry in what is the greatest nation on earth. We shouldn't stand for the high level of poverty in what is supposed to be the richest nation on earth. I'll end my debate with a quote from President Obama. “Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.” I agree. Vote Pro!Also, here's a fun song for everybody to enjoy. http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Make Income Tax Rates Flat Content: I believe that a flat income tax rate would help the overall economy and is fairer for everybody. Let's set some terms before we begin. Rules: 1) No trolling or insults. 2) If you forfeit, you automatically lose. 3) You don't have to cite sources for common knowledge, although it would be preferred. If something is not common knowledge, cite it. A general rule of thumb is that something is "common knowledge" if you can find it in three or more sources. Debate period: Round 1: Just greetings and acceptance. Round 2: Main arguments (no rebuttals yet). Round 3: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 4: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 5: Conclusion of argument.

Title: People on welfare and who have any financial government support should have to work for their money Content: All Citizens on Welfare, besides disability, should have to work to receive their checks. Everyone has heard stories of people exploiting the welfare system, or lazy people lounging around all day collecting checks. These people should have to work for this money. If they are on welfare, they cannot support themselves financial. This is most likely accounted for by the fact that they can't get jobs, or they have some sort of disability. If they are able to work, they should have to work for their money. They aren't doing anything important with their time, and taxpayer's money should not be given to an unjustifiable cause. If they can work picking up trash, or just doing simple jobs to improve communities, it would benefit the country substantially. Asking people on welfare to pick up trash is much more acceptable than asking criminals to pick it up!

Title: Social Security tax cap should be eliminated Content: I completely disagree with this. I beleive that we should have a system that allows social security to be used in a decent manner, such as better applications. Without this tax, the entire system would collapse, leaving many disabled without a source of income. Even though most people pay this tax, these same people pay for the roads we drive on, the education we, and our family, received. In addition to this, many people who have paid the tax will be unruly against the government due to the unfairness of inequality in taxation between generations.

Title: Welfare should be completely transformed. Content: I'm not saying it should be abolished. I just believe that it showed be reformed. There is no encouragement to make your life better if you're getting free money, free food, free health insurance. With a job, you have to work to afford all that. Also, it may be true that people with jobs spend more than people on welfare, but that's because they have more money. Do you know of the percentages of spending for people with a job versus without? All of that assistance together makes for one easy living, especially since none of it is taxed. With the combined public assistance, it's easier to have money given to you, rather than work for it. Con, your first source is an extremely skewed to the left. This YouTube source is a first hand documentation of how people can consistently live off of the government's aid. She even said she has no desire to work because she gets everything for free. http://nypost.com...

Title: Minimum Wages Laws Having Economic Effect Should Be Abolished Content: i think people should get payed what they deserve. if you are not working then you need to get payed what you deserve.

Title: It would be too complex and radical to instate Content: The welfare system as it stands is currently quite wide reaching and complex. The negative income tax system would only work if all other benefits are removed or if they are set against the subsidy that people receive. In this transition, some people will inevitably lose out or be lost in the cracks of the system. It will also require an enormous amount of bureaucracy to check that everyone is receiving the correct amount of money.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: Individuals should rise and fall to their own accord regardless of wealth status. Minimum wage wrongfully obstructs and makes someone else pay for another's consequences.

Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Again: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.I will await my opponent to reply one more time before I go and post my arguments.

Title: Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! Content: "You honestly expect the readers in here to agree with you that it's okay that most employees who make less than $15/hour do not get offered benefits?" The definition I provided states that entry level employment relates to a low-level job where the employee gains experience (http://www.dictionary.com...). It is not fair that someone with no initial experience and no initial skill, who is not YET seen as a valuable asset to the company should be given higher pay and the same benefits. What I'm saying is that employees should prove themselves to their employers and EARN the benefits and the higher pay. "Also what "false" information do you claim that I made? that statement I just made is common and every poll ever taken will agree with me!!!" Well then SHOW me ONE poll, that's all I want, ONE CURRENT POLL from a source with equal to greater credibility to my own that proves your point. You haven't provided any sources for the entire debate! "EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY physical exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE!" I KNOW, I said that too!!! "Americans do need healthcare." -me in Round 2, first paragraph. It's not like I'm arguing that employers should not offer healthcare, I'm arguing that entry level employees should prove themselves to their employers before receiving benefits. And I'm not hostile or selfish to the poor; I just think they should earn employee benefits just as everyone else does. "EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars. HOW do someone making MINIMUM WAGE afford healthcare WITHOUT government assistance? " Actually, we're talking about wages and benefits of entry-level employees, not government programs like universal healthcare. I brought up the concept of Obamacare (it's not racist, it's the president's last name followed by the word 'care') and single-payer healthcare to show how unfavorable they have become overall after the Affordable Care Act was implemented. "By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources." The information I provided from Cornell Law University (my first source) was a quote of the tenth amendment of the US Constitution and a little bit of information as to what it means; I highly doubt they're conservative, and even if they are, I only took non-biased facts. My second source is literally called Physicians for a National Health Program, that's the exact OPPOSITE of Conservative. MOST of they're articles are in support of a universal healthcare program, the one I found was about how support for universal healthcare drastically declined in recent years.

Title: A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea Content: I will be arguing for the position that a single Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would make good economic sense and resolve a whole host of social and economic problems. I would also extend this idea to possible application in other countries. Some opening clarifications: The 2000 GBP payment per year would replace standard jobseeker-style benefits (disability/childcare etc benefits would remain intact) and public pensions. From the ages of 1 to 18, 2000 GBP per year would be held in a locked account. By the age of 18, this fund would have grown to 36,000 GBP. From the ages of 18 to 36, the recipient would receive 2000 GBP per year from this fund, PLUS the 2000 GBP per year that he or she is entitled to as a matter of course. Thus, from the ages of 1 to 18, citizens recieve no direct payments. From the ages of 18 to 36, citizens recieve 4000 GBP per year. From the age of 36 until death, citizens recieve the basic 2000 GBP per year.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal "Workfare" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of "roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- "The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries "overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...

Title: We Should Create a New Tax Code Content: Okay, my opponent didn't show again. Listen up, voters: Please read my arguments. I think I make a sensible argument against the income tax that even liberals could agree to. Heck, even socialists. Thanks.

Title: There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more Content: There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more. I saw this comment from Spartan9876, so I copied and pasted here to start a debate. Are you up challenge? In your comment you state: I argue that it is not just to have a society that has such inequalities (I am looking at you USA); there is no justification whatsoever for people to be left destitute while others have billions. There are two ways to correct such an issue: 1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or 2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class. I will prove that your theory is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better.

Title: Neoliberalism is the answer for international development. Content: Yes, we can be satisfied with the lesser of two evils. In the end, not everybody would get wealthy off of the system, but MORE people WOULD get wealthy off the system. And if it weren't for the multinational corporations in India, poverty would probably hover about 75% or more and 90% of the population couldn't read. And as you said before, there are not large pieces of pie for everyone. But with this system, MORE people get a LARGER piece of pie, instead of highly regulated economies where ONLY THE GOVERNMENT gets the large pieces of pie and the people suffer for it. Is THAT how you want it to be?

Title: Why a flat tax is fairer Content: In a welfare state such as the United Kingdom, everyone enjoys the same access to services provided by the government, and so it should stand to reason that everyone should also contribute equally to the funding of those services. As not all individuals are equal in their wealth and income, it is impossible to do this on the basis of everyone paying in the exact same numerical amount of money. However, this parity can be achieved by everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax to the government, and this is exactly what a flat tax is, and so equality in contribution to government services (mirroring equality in access to government services) is achieved. This principle of equality is important for two reasons: firstly, if wealthier citizens feel they are being unfairly burdened by the current requirement that they pay higher percentages of their income to fund government services than those on lower incomes, they may feel a disincentive to work hard (which creates wealth for the whole economy), or may even be driven abroad to states with lower rates of taxation or to tax havens.[1] Secondly this removes the ability of the majority of a population to engage in what the French economist Bastiat called 'legalized plunder', where they (as the majority of voters) assign higher percentages of income tax to the wealthy in order that the state may appropriate and redistribute it to them for their own use.[2] With a flat tax in place, there would be no ability for anyone to vote for a tax rise simply on other people and not on themselves, and thus such policies would receive more consideration and not be used by the majority simply to appropriate the property of others through the law. Thus a flat tax is fairer as it equalized the basis on which everyone pays for access to equal services, and prevents a poorer majority from victimizing a wealthier minority through punitive rates of income tax for the wealthy, which may cause them to flee the country for other states with less taxation. [1] Ramos, Joanne “Places in the Sun”. The Economist. Feb 22nd 2007 http://www.economist.com/node/8695139?story_id=8695139 [2] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2007

Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: Regardless, there are three main points to consider.1. There is little or no effect for these individuals who are truly needy. Con actually made this point by stating that these people have no taxable income. If this is true, then there would be little to no additional taxes owed by these individuals by taxing their welfare. Additionally, there are tax credits that also help these people, so even if there is taxable income, these individuals will likely not pay the taxman one dime.2. “Skin in the game”In case you did not know, welfare is based on a household’s expenses, not their income per se. There are thresholds for income to qualify, but expenses affect the amount of welfare received (at least for EBT in MN). Because choices can be made that increase welfare AND quality of life, these funds should be considered income. So, the truly needy are living modestly off the government, while paying no taxes. However, we have people that choose to seek welfare instead of using their wealth or cutting their expenses [3]. If people want to keep their house and their possessions and go on welfare, they should pay taxes on it. Is it fair that if my cable bill rises, I may cancel because I can’t afford it, but if one is on welfare, they may get MORE benefits? These benefits should be taxed as if they were ordinary income, because these people (and those that abuse/defraud welfare) are maintaining, possibly even improving, their quality of life. We also have people that live “high on the hog” on welfare. Not to say these people live like kings, but they live comfortably given their financial situation, receiving thousands in benefits per month. Why is it too much to ask that they pay taxes to help others out too, and maintain the system that has helped them out so much? In short, those that are “getting by” pay no taxes due to their circumstances, but those that are living like the rest of us should be paying taxes, like the rest of us. By having skin in the game, they may miraculously suddenly have an opinion on the amount of fraud that occurs, or waste in the government, or how that money is spent. 3. Fairness and equality under the law. It is unfair and unequal for income from the government to aid the needy to not be taxed, but if I give money to the needy directly, it is taxed. In fact, if I give more than the allowable annual gift, I also have to pay the gift tax for the donee, because a gift of that magnitude ($13,000) is considered income [1]. Either way, because there is no deduction for these direct payments, income taxes are paid on this “welfare”, sometimes even twice. Furthermore, take medical expenses. If I am without insurance and go to the hospital and do not pay, they will (after quite some time) write off the debt. When they do this, I will receive a 1099-C, saying there was a cancelation of debt and this is considered taxable income. Why is it legal to tax me on medical services I could not afford, yet those who cannot afford their own bills are not taxed on those very same services? Other sources of income that are taxed (to be paid by someone) are: alimony, child support, gifts (like giving a bum some cash or buying a poor neighbor’s kids presents for Christmas), gains from illegal activities, losses on hobbies, any cancellation of debt, Christmas bonuses, gambling winnings, charity raffle winnings, and various others [2]. Why is child support from an estranged father taxable (to the father), alimony is taxable to the spouse who receives it, but support from the state is not taxed? How is this equality under the law? Now, if Con is going to counter with “Government is a non-profit, and thus an exception is made”. Non-profit charities’ payments to others are not taxed, and neither are any contributions. Let’s explore that. The following government payments may be taxable: social security, interest from U. S. and municipal bonds, unemployment benefits, jury duty pay, and rewards (e. g. FBI or IRS whistleblower) [2]. These aid programs are taxed, so why not welfare? Furthermore, while a contribution to a charity is not taxed (but direct giving is…), the following expenses may be considered taxable income to the recipient: scholarships, wages paid (some charities like Goodwill specifically hire “undesirable” people), prizes and “thank-you gifts”, and income from anything given that produces income. But since we are dealing with the government’s welfare payments, this is food for thought.1. . http://www.irs.gov...2. . http://www.irs.gov...3. . http://www.heritage.org...

Title: Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions Content: Thanks to my opponent for this opportunity for debate. I will be arguing that implementing universal healthcare is a good idea at this time, and my opponent will be arguing against me.

Title: The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea. Content: The Job Guarantee would guarantee everyone was offered a job. The government could do this by funding the expansion of the public sector, creating the jobs to do, expanding not for profit employment etc. I currently believe this would be better than things like Job-share, natural private market job creation and the current public system of helping people get work. It might also be cheaper than some other approaches. I am arguing that this should be included in the government's response to unemployment. It is not a silver bullet but I think it should be a major part of it. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System. Content: I affirm the resolution that the USFG should create a universal health care system similar to Britain's NHS. I believe that this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy. With this plan, people will not have to work as much to pay off outrages medical bills. Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs; "A Happy employee is a good employee." Lastly, with less people in debt, the keynesian savings ratio of 90/10 (spend 90% of the income and save 10%) can find its way back into the fiscal society.

Title: It would be much simpler and fairer Content: There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.

Title: A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. Content: I am for the statement that ‘A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. ’ Prelude: Different countries and areas have different numerical values for a minimum wage. In this debate, we will not be arguing for a specific minimum wage value, as can be seen from the resolution, but from a mostly philosophical view that it is moral or right for all workers to receive a minimum living wage. This should clear up any issues both Con and or the audience may have had. As following the agreed-upon round structure, I shall make my points now and await my next round for rebuttals. Contentions: C1) Jobs Would a just society allow citizens, who are ready and willing to work but are without qualifications, to go by- without a salary, a way to provide for themselves? Jobs with less skills and qualifications necessary are usually minimum wage jobs. Although these workers don’t earn much, they are able to get a job! Employers can afford to pay workers, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get a job because of a lack of a degree, connections, or advanced skills. Through these jobs, workers gain an opportunity to learn valuable skills and acquire hands on working experience, to compete for even better jobs, or advance within a company. C1B) Increase in jobs With these workers employed, there is a reduction in unemployment. Without minimum wage jobs, these people wouldn’t have this opportunity. At least, with these workers employed, their labour can be used productively, instead of resorting to illegal methods to obtain living conditions or giving up completely. “In the monopsony model, employers are unlikely to pay higher wages in order to fill vacancies because they would then have to raise the pay of their existing workers to match the pay offered to their last hire. As a result, in monopsonistic settings, employers habitually operate with unfilled vacancies, rather than raising the wage for their entire workforce. In this context, raising the minimum wage can actually increase employment by raising the wages of the existing workforce to the "competitive" level (no existing jobs are lost because these workers were being paid below their "marginal product") and filling existing vacancies (which increases overall employment). ”[1] Therefore minimum living wages creates jobs, or fills job vacancies, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and raising the quality of life and standard of living. Would it then be just for workers to not be paid minimum living wages? C2) Character Growth As said before, people working for minimum living wages don’t earn much, and usually have no other profession to resort to. Therefore, they value it a lot- they would work more, come in for extra time to try to make more money, and try to develop closer relationships with fellow workers. These people benefit from learning about the experience of hands-on work, independence, reliability, accountability, assiduous labour and responsibility. ‘Today’s job market is extremely competitive and demands the most from jobseekers. Particularly for students, a minimum wage job provides a great opportunity to prepare for the challenges they will face searching for their ideal career aftergraduation. To get ahead one has to be assertive and a minimum wage job provides a chance to do that. ’[2] Therefore, the jobs attained with a minimum wage offer character growth. Would it not be fair to allow workers to benefit from character growth attained by the minimum wage? C3) Narrowing the rich-poor gap - Helping low-income families Poor families have a way of making money, by minimum wage, though it may not be much. This wage, added on to the income that breadwinners may attain, may help provide for the family. Minimum wage alleviates poverty, worker are able to gain an income. Now the poor have a chance at obtaining an income, no matter how small it is. Moreover, more money is generated into the economy since low income families are able to spend more. Also, this shrinks government programs e. g. food stamps, thereby allowing the reallocation of resources elsewhere. If people work hard, should they not be paid at least the minimum wage to be able to provide for themselves, and maybe their family? C4) Egalitarianism and Utilarianism ‘Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favours equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. ’[3] ‘The principle of utility [Utilarianism] is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. ’[4] By the laws of egalitarianism- that all people are equal- these workers should be given a wage for their work. By Utilarianism, it is *just* that these people get paid, if they are going to put in their labour, working. If they are paid, they can afford the basic necessities and generate money into the economy to stimulate it. Why should we NOT allow these people to get an income? Why should we prevent someone who is WILLING to work to establish a way to support himself? C5) John Rawls- The Principles of Justice as Fairness (Rawls’s name for the set of principles) “[The veil of ignorance] assures that each party to the choice is equally or symmetrically situated, with none enjoying greater power (or “threat advantage”) than any other . .. It also isolates the parties’ choice from the contingencies—the sheer luck—underlying the variations in people’s natural abilities and talents, their social backgrounds, and their particular society’s historical circumstances. ”[5] -First Principle: Rights and Liberties ‘Society must assure each citizen “an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all. ”’[5] -Difference Principle: Income and Wealth “Social and economic inequalities … are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. ” [5] From the First Principle, we can see that it is just for each citizen to gain their equal rights – the right to a job, of their choice. ‘What you reap, you sew. ’ [6] If these workers are using their physical and mental capacities to provide a labour force for their employers, they should be paid for their efforts. “The … informal argument for the difference principle: because equality is an ideal fundamentally relevant to the idea of fair cooperation, the OP situates the parties symmetrically and deprives them of information that could distinguish them or allow one to gain bargaining advantage over another. Given this set-up, the parties will consider the situation of equal distribution a reasonable starting point in their deliberations. .. [Instituting] a system of social rules that differentially reward the especially productive, could achieve results that are better for everyone … This is the kind of inequality that the Difference Principle allows and requires: departures from full equality that make some better off and no one worse off. ”[5] In other words, The Difference Principle allows those who are less advantaged to become better off, but no one becomes worse off. In conclusion, it is of my firm belief that a just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. It is fair as the employees, employers, society and the economy benefit. Moreover, from a philosophical egalitarian view- using Utilarianism and John Rawls’ Principles of Justice as Fairness. Sources: [1]- . http://www.cepr.net... [2]- . http://theundercurrent.org... [3]- . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4]- . http://caae.phil.cmu.edu... [5]- . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [6]- Proverb . http://papers.ssrn.com...

Title: Able-bodied people should not receive welfare if they don't work Content: The whole point of working is to provide a service or produce something that benefits some group of people in some way. When people don't contribute to that system, they should not get to reap its benefits. I am referring to the welfare 'leeches' especially prominent in European countries like Sweden, aka "Welfare Paradise" If welfare were to be a thing, the recipients should be required to work for it in some way, like public services. Provided they are able-bodied, of course. If I spend my time working to improve society such as working in sanitation, real estate, or any other job, a part of my paycheck should not go to some lazy person who sits at home and is basically a leech to society. The system should be a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system, not "it doesn't matter whether you work or not, you still get money" If you accept, please provide a few reasons why my proposed system is wrong/bad.

Title: The United States should adopt a negative income tax. Content: This round was written by Shab, and I will write the next round. Contention 1 - Negative income tax would reduce the size of bureaucracy Are we willing to be optimistic enough to believe that, without specifying what welfare money must be spent on, the poor will choose wisely? (More in Contention 2) The issue is not “that people need money” – or, at least, not the one the Government ought to try and solve. The issue is that people are going without certain necessities and are unable to live securely. To ensure that these needs are met, there is nothing wrong with complicated systems. The current system is elaborate, there is no question. It has to be. In order to ensure that welfare goes only to those who need it, and is spent only on those things that they need, there is no solution other than a complex series of rules, regulations, and agencies. This is not a bad thing. The aeroplane is not disadvantaged compared to the horse because it is more complex. Each part plays its purpose, and the whole is indisputably better at fulfilling its function. This point is, therefore, completely irrelevant; unless our opponents can show that NIT does what it sets out to do better than any other system, not just that it is simpler, they have not fulfilled their BOP. Contention 2 - A negative income tax is better for the economy Accountability is not “shifted to individuals” when a government imposes a NIT. In fact, the opposite happens: individuals are less accountable. Under a normal welfare system, there is no incentive to waste money, since the money is bound to particular necessities. One can’t (easily) spend food stamps on televisions. When the government gives people money, however, that money is very easy to squander. What must be done when someone, after having blown their cheque on liquor, is in danger of starvation? Would the government not be obligated to help them further and make sure that they don’t… die? If so, there would be no negative repercussions to spending the money in senseless ways, since there would always be a traditional welfare safety net underneath the people. Unless our opponents advocate eliminating such safety nets altogether, in which case I find it hard to believe that they’re for any welfare whatsoever, then he must admit that granting people money with no strings attached and no accountability makes them more prone to act foolishly. On the topic of businesses, our opponents do not explain why it’s better for a business to be paid by individuals who are paid by the government rather than by the government itself. This step is necessary. Contention 3- The negative income tax allows better working conditions Here, our opponents assume two things: 1.) That the NIT uniquely grants workers leverage; 2.) That granting workers such leverage is beneficial. 1.) is very hard for Pro to prove. It stands to reason that, under even as inefficient a system as our current one, most workers will not have to live in fear of starvation. The point of a welfare system is to provide workers with their basic needs, such that they will never go unfulfilled. What else would Pro want? 2.) is even more of a problem for our opponents. Having the ability to essentially quit at any time and not only survive (for anyone can survive under the current system, so Pro must have something more in mind) but live at a standard that is acceptable is exactly the kind of incentive that causes people to refuse to work. If a worker can just stop working and be fine, why work at all? Contention 4 - The negative income tax encoruages and rewards work This contention is flat-out false. Our opponents claim that someone who earns enough to no longer receive the benefits from NIT wouldn’t “lose any net money”. This is absurd; even if the new income earned precisely covers the amount that would have otherwise been granted by the government, the person is still massively disadvantaged by losing said benefits, for now they also have to factor in labour. “Earning more” is not the same as “being granted more money”, for the former, in almost all cases, implies an incredible investment of time/capital. Note that we do not have to advocate for the current welfare system – in fact, we don’t have to affirm the existence of welfare at all. All we must do here is show that the NIT would be, at best, equal to, or, at worst, more detrimental than, any alternatives. If equality is established, any additional arguments we win against NIT would be enough to fulfill our BOP. Therefore, our opponents must show how NIT is uniquely beneficial. Contention 5 - The current welfare system defies logic; the negative income tax embraces logic This is not a unique contention. It’s essentially a wholesale combination of contentions 1 and 2. As such, we refer the readers to our responses to those points individually.

Title: The rich should be taxed more than the poor. Content: People shouldn't be taxed because they have more money. If someone has earned their money, they shouldn't have to pay more than everyone else just because they are more successful, that is just wrong.

Title: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Content: Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare? Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person in the USA if missing two paychecks could be homeless. Without welfare their would be a lot more homeless people and alot more empty houses, to put it short homeless people don't do well in job interviews. Maybe your argument is favorable to the tax paying citizens? The average tax payer in the US pays $13,000 dollars anually in tax, 1,820 of that goes to welfare. This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate. For example it happens 74 time a day in mexico and 91 times a day in Brazil, and if you make people desperate it will happen in the US aswell.

Title: Progressives assign too much value to money in individual welfare Content: Money is not the end all be all of success, welfare, and happiness. Attempting to equalize income through progressive taxation as a means to increasing [and possibly equalizing] welfare, therefore, is not a tenable position.

Title: National Sales Tax Content: I already mentioned how the states would make money. The poor would get richer if they didn't have an income tax on them in the first place. And no, businesses would not have to face financial hardships, if this were the only tax in place. We need to take steps in implementing the NRST, such as elimination of all the services the government does that the private sector can do better, and not to mention stopping corruption and cutting pork. States would not lose money with the use of the system I have proposed. So, it's a win-win situation: The government gets more revenue and the populace gets wealthier.

Title: Flat Tax is Good for the Economy Content: "Under this system that would mean that taxes for EVERYONE would be reduced and hence people would be freer to spend their money on the free market and stimulate the economy that way." Who is everyone since those who do not pay the actual tax rate of 28% would be probably not everyone who saves money? While avoiding a discussion on the income disparity as shown in a previous source the majority of households make beneath the 30% mark for taxation which again was shown in the real 2015 IRS percentage charts in the source by Forbes. Why do I make that point? The notion that everyone wins is completely false. As a matter of fact it's almost the direct opposite; all cash flows are eventually taxed at a flat rate meaning that the concept of everyone winning is at best a falsehood esp. for households that do not earn a lot of money and therefore do not have capital to save for the "saving deduction" in my opponent's source:"Personal saving would be deducted immediately and would remain tax exempt until spent on consumption." This is nothing more than a pseudo Tradiational IRA system [1] and in turn has no real tax benefit as a deduction for low income workers who simply do not have the capacity to save 28% of their tax dollars due to basic cost of living without inclusion for unexpected events or damages.Also, let's redo the math under the 28% tax rule using the real rates of the IRS in 2015 tax season as shown prior for millionaires to accurately gauge the weight. 20,000 * .08 = 1,600, the increase in the liability from current tax rates for lower class working citizens and looking at our millionaire the difference between the actual 39.6% and 28% would be 116,000. So for one millionaire you need 72.5 worker's wages to make up for that tax. There are a real 10.1 millionaires so you need a real 732,500,000 lower class to compensate. Again that's just one tax class figure of only exactly a million and does not incorporate any other group which would get a fundamental tax cut including those who are say high earners 250,000-500,000 which could potentially include bankers, surgeons, lawyers, engineers, accountants and financial workers, etc."To further this, the flat taxation system would end up keeping the Earned Income Tax Credit system, or EITC, which both Liberals and Conservatives support as this reduces poverty rates, especially for single mothers and single parents."There are two problems here:1. The source doesn't explain how it works in the new tax system only what it is. All credits would have to modified since the credits themselves only work within current brackets and are based on income brackets themselves as well as number of dependents, specifically children in most cases, but the earned income credit tables [2] are extremely low. Ironically because the flat tax increases taxation for those who would normally not even pay tax by flattening it across the board the EIC would be probably rendered worthless under it's current model.2. The next problem is a simple math problem. In the first round I purposefully left out credits and deductions so that the reader could easily see the effects on collected taxes, which of course pay for social services, grants, and various other necessities that the government runs including state dispersments and budgeting. All systems suffer because credits and deductions lower taxes and in the case of say, millionaires, putting 28% of your income into savings to avoid paying taxes is really quite easy but on the next front we also have:"The only remaining deductions are for higher education, gifts and charitable contributions, and an optional home mortgage interest deduction."Gifts to charity."More than 80 percent of those worth $25 million or more give at least $10,000 a year to charity, and 21 percent give more than $100,000 a year to charity." From the CNBC source in my first proposal over 21% of millionaires cut their taxes under this model by almost half. Regularly. So now it's just donate and save for the wealthy and never pay taxes again? Well compensating for the difference in one millionaire who does pay tax is one thing but compensating for one that simply uses elegant tax planning strategum and avoids taxation altogether is another. It would take 175 working class to compensate up from 72.5 for just one "smart millionaire" who took the saving's account deduction."The recent studdies have shown that this New Flat Tax system would create economic growth. They've shown that there will be 0.143 percentage points increase to our nations economy." If recent was 2003 and if it was using the same model as the Heritage plan which it isn't, and furthermore if one reads the conclusion's second paragraph, which cannot simply be copied and pasted due to the formatting of the document itself, it clearly states that it is an oversimplified plan that does not account for sudden income changes or contingencies. The source itself is hypothetical in a perfect world not accounting for many real-world issues including a major loss of financing or financial crisis related to certain economic principles that do occur in the real world. It also cites a previous paper from 1995 that had the same issues.Furthermore lowering the GDP is not equivalent to lowering the GPP [3] and my opponent read the source wrong. The value of investments would drop by 16.9% and with fewer taxes being collected the GDP of course drops but does the GPP drop? That's the real question relative to taxation.The graphic itself is just outright wrong. This is based likely on AGI before credits and deductions just like my own simplified model for understanding taxes and tax rate differentials. In 2011 46% didn't pay taxes but under normal circumstances about 40% of the population does not pay FIT [4] and there are a myriad of other factors that are not being taken into consideration; in essence you save nothing under the flat tax because it doesn't actually have a standard deduction anymore. Or would it work like that of Clinton's design eliminaing tax liabiliy for most of the population anyway? [5]3. The reality is that the taxation sysem has been complicated by the changing economic climate in the country adding over 75,000 articles since the major revision in 1987. The idea of a very simple taxation sysem in a governemntal climate based entirely on serving it's populace where a massive chunk of he citizenry do not pay taxes is, at best, whimsical. Tax planning and legal maters involving situations regarding flat tax are still massive even in Russia [6] it's not as simple as flicking a switch and understanding. Furthermore it's 13% flat for residents but a whopping 30% for EXPATs and non-residents [6] which effectively covers the rates of he citizenry and their low GDP is a result but Russia does no have the proposed economic growth promised [7] by flat tax. It is not that simple.It is criical to look at the whole situation of a country before using it as an example as with the Russian Tax Revenue including EXPATS at 30% and the increased accessibility to the country in general in the last few years there is more to this than it would seem.1.http://www.rothira.com...2. http://www.irs.gov...3.https://mises.org...4. http://www.cbpp.org...5. http://www.forbes.com...6.http://www.whitecase.com...6http://russia.angloinfo.com...7.http://www.economist.com...

Title: Universal healthcare Content: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens

Title: while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue Content: Your argument that it would better help distribute property to everyone is more of a socialistic theory and would require more than a hike in property tax. Let the people work and earn their property. Most people don't want/need the property. People will pay to get what they want/need. If you wanted to really increase the progressive type tax on property taxes everybody would be selling and not buying. That can create a huge problem and we have already seen that. You also stated that property tax should be the main source of revenue, i again argued that it shouldn't and that the main source of revenue should be going to the federal government, regardless of whether or not everyone should have property. The circumstances of everyone getting property just doesn't fit the current fiscal situation this country is in. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Title: seriusly important politics Content: I hope this debate will be interesting. Now, let's get the ball rolling! Contention 1: Everyone should uphold equality. No matter how ugly a person is, he still have to work and earn money. While you might say that they are born ugly and cannot help being ugly, it must be noted that ugly people have a choice to work unlike some disable people who wants to work but do not have a chance to do so. Besides, what about the less ugly people, isn't it unfair for them to work and earn lesser money than a ugly man who does not work at all? There is a saying that goes " You reap what you sow " We should credit a person based on his achievements, working attitudes and his hard work, not on his appearance. If what you have said was implemented, it would cause a lot of chaos and disagreement. This might even cause riots. Contention 2: If what you said was true, there would be a economic depression. As we all know, a person need to have some money for him or her to be elected as a government. If a ugly person who earns a lot of money without doing anything, was to be elected due to his wealth, it would cause a country to literally collapse! We should all earn money based on our qualification, thus, it is ridiculous to give money or important jobs to lazy and incapable ugly people who earns money by sitting all day. Contention 3: You are supposed to elaborate on who determines the ugliness of a person, however, you asked me the exact same question. Voters, this shows that my opponent is not sure about his claim. In conclusion, I find this claim rather ridiculous has this claim promotes inequality, laziness, and prejudice. Thus, with greater understanding of this topic, one would agree with me and find that this claim has more cons than pros and is ridiculous.

Title: A good last ditch way of getting money. Content: Most people have organs, and there are much more people who can't get work, who are in serious poverty and don't have anything else they can sell. Organs go for thousands of pounds - easily enough to get someone enough food to last them for a few months and somewhere to sleep while they sort their lives out Regarding the "no" arguments: First, I agree that it is terrible that people live in poverty - but simply saying that they "should be helped" doesn't really cut the mustard - how do you plan to remove all poverty? Second - although illegal organ sales in countries such as India have demonstrated that the money received isn't enough to remove them from poverty (because the amounts received are around £3-5k if that!), the amounts that could be paid in a developed country like the UK may indeed be enough to pay off debts, put down a deposit, rent a flat for a few months - £15k can achieve a lot!

Title: Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished Content: Hello daley, and hello everyone else. I will argue that welfare should be abolished, worldwide, and should not be introduced anywhere. 1.) I will argue that it (a)disincentives production, (b)incentives underemployment and unemployment, which (c)contribute to poverty 2.) I will argue that there is no negative causal relationship, direct or indirect, between welfare and crime. 3.)Furthermore I will argue that it cannot help people get a basic standard of living. If welfare can be achieved in any event, potential recipients would have been better off in a capitalist economy an an unregulated labor market. I hope to have a civil and productive debate, and hopefully we'll both learn something.

Title: Minimum wages lead to unemployment Content: On the contrary, minimum wage does help to in improving the social mobility of those affected most in adverse conditions, in such, it would provide them a living wage enough not just to survive but to secure extra income to afford the much-needed provisions for their family and livelihoods. Examples such as obtaining a basic income of $2,000 per month which would be enough to pay for the rental, car fuel, child's education, income tax, and much more. Had there not been a minimum wage, and given the ample supply of labours in the market, the private sector being profit-driven would drive down the prices of wages to, say $1000, leaving the worker in the lurch. He would then be socially, physiologically, & physically drained from all the work that would be placed on him in the name of producing the firms' profit. According to the Socialist Labour Party website, "(t)he richest 20% of the world's population receive each year 86% of the world's wealth - while the poorest 20% of the world's population exist on just 1% of the world's annual wealth." Is is not about time that society demands a fair share from these MNEs to distribute the wealth to the people? Without adequate laws or legislation, the people would be exposed of being egregiously exploited by top MNEs. By placing the right form of law, such as minimum wage, it would ensure that it would secure the livelihoods of the people and this, in turn, would secure a proper social foundation of an economy. This, in turn, would create a 'virtuous cycle of growth' needed to generate a bigger middle class, a stronger consumer market, a greater demand for products, and therefore bigger business opportunities for young firms to capitalise on. It is through these cycles that would help to generate greater economic activity in the form of the setting up of new businesses, and this, in turn, would create more employment. Minimum wage therefore does not lead to unemployment. Source(s): http://www.socialistparty.org.uk... http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk...

Title: There should be a progressive tax system Content: I belive there should be a progressive tax rate becuase someone who is sucsseful in socitey should give more back to help others that are less sucsseful. It would also benifit the middle and working class, while lowering income inequility. This is especially true if taxation is used to fund progressive government spending such as transfer payments and social safety nets. Studys also show that countrys with a prpgresive tax system are happier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: While I am against welfare in general, if it's going to be provided it shouldn't be taxable income. The money comes from the government in the first place to provide for people who are unable or unwilling to work. To tax this money makes no sense as it comes from the government. To tax it, would just be effectively giving less welfare money as its source is the same as the place the tax revenue would end up at. Technically, these people's incomes are zero. There is nothing to tax. The money given is thought to be what they need, and nothing more. I support the notion that people on welfare should have to work or do something productive set-up by the government to collect their checks. That tax would actually contribute to society rather than money being circular. Taxing people who get their money from the tax collectors is pure sophism and should not be implemented.

Title: welfare Content: Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov...

Title: Welfare is important to the economy Content: I just got back from a class debate on welfare, and my team won by two. I'll be using some of their arguments this time. 1 in 6 people are living in poverty, so that's a lot of people, that if they lose their jobs, must accept welfare from the government, if they want to legally eat. Also, we're human beings. We have dominated this planet, and are taking everything from it. Yet, we divide ourselves by how much money we have. If we can't pay money, for basically everything, we're expected to just leave. So, the person who thought it wasn't fair to do that, ran for mayor to try to make a change, but all it took was a dumb rumor, and nobody was on their side.

Title: progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax Content: the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.

Title: progressive tax is fairer than flat tax Content: the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.

Title: The United States Needs to Discontinue Welfare Content: That's your argument? Ok... Well I know that there are thousands of people on welfare today. I predict the if the government suddenly said "We're stopping welfare today" everyone would actually start looking for jobs and would be quite successful. I don't think people would just sit around and wait to die! I also know that not everyone on welfare is lazy. There are many people who do work, but don't make enough. Still, though, it's not the government's responsibility if people can't afford to eat. If people die from starvation, it will be a wake up call for the rest of the country. People will suddenly realize "Wow, I should really start working so that I don't die, too."

Title: If we have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage. Content: Every top has its bottom and if we are going to have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage. If there is no maximum it leaves the question "Is it okay for one person to obtain all the capital in the world. Surely that can't happen so a maximum must exist we just refuse to recognize it. Having a maximum wage should be put into place to allow fairness to what one person is allowed to take from the world in accordance to how many people there are and the limits that possesses on the plant.

Title: Capitalism. Content: Welfare Business owners earn more money than they need to survive. Giving some of that money to people who can't find jobs, can't survive on their minimum wage jobs, or are unable to work (disabled people, mostly,) is a good thing. Everyone deserves enough money to eat and pay rent, no matter how little they work. In a capitalist society, anyone who doesn't have a good job is left to die. Supporting Capitalism is only one step above suggesting that we just kill all the poor people since they're getting in the way. We need to give less money to people who already have more than enough and more money to people who are living in poverty. Capitalist Governments Only Care About The Rich I don't care if cutting taxes would be beneficial to the government. My problem with capitalism in the first place is that it's only set up to benefit politicians and the rich. The government is supposed to be there to represent the citizens. It may boost entrepreneurship and productivity but, again, that only benefits big business owners. What the majority of America needs is not for the richest 1% of society to have even more money. What the majority of America needs is to not have to worry about how they'll pay their rent this month or how they're going to feed their children. We need more money being given to the poor, not more money being given to the rich. If we stop taxing the rich, who do you think is going to suffer from that? The poor. Tax money goes towards health care, and yet there's still poor people dying because they can't afford hospital visits or treatment. We need more tax money going towards that, not less. It goes to food stamps and free school lunches, and yet there's still people who are barely scraping by on a few calories a day. We need more tax money going towards that, too. Sources: http://www.dailyfinance.com...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, "ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. " By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum "amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. " [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. "In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. " [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. "Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. " [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. "Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. " [8] "Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. " [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. "Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. " Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...