The Instigator
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
screenjack
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Income equality is better than income inequality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 121667
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

Ya yeet

I will be arguing that income equality is better than income inequality
My opponent will be arguing that income inequality is better than income equality.

To win you must refute the other person's points AND give points of your own.

I invite my opponent to give their arguments first.
screenjack

Con

You fail to define income inequality in your claim. I'm going to start with the broadest definition: two people making different amounts of money. This is a good thing because different jobs require different amounts of effort, Responsibility, And intelligence. Paying all workers the same creates a lack of incentive to accomplish more or take on harder jobs.

My claim would be that everyone deserves equal employment opportunities based on merit. This means that different jobs have different rates. In this way people will be rewarded for harder, More profitable, And essential work.

Good luck in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

Shoot sorry!

Income inequality refers to the disproportionate amount of wealth distributed within a society, That is, A small minority of people holding close to or most of a country's wealth. Examples include Canada and America.

Income equality, On the other hand, Is when most of the society has most of a country's wealth. Although the rich still get to be "rich", They are slightly more poor than before.
screenjack

Con

We can use that definition of income inequality but income inequality can mean something completely different depending on the country you're from. I would also say that focusing on first world countries like the USA and Canada is a bit different than the income inequality in China or India.

I'll start by saying that in the USA only 5. 8% of the people who make it to the 1% will stay their for more than 2 years. 11% of the population will make it into the 1% at some point in their lives. That's a lot of status changing. So saying that the top 1% needs to be taxed is discouraging the top 10% from investing. The effects should be obvious.
Debate Round No. 2
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

First off, I'll take your word in your statistics. Second off, It does not discourage people. The thing is, Just because there is income equality doesn't mean the rich won't want to be rich anymore. It's like saying someone would give up first place just because they were only a bit further ahead and the 2rd and 3rd place. Also, It is an incentive to be very, Very rich. When your super rich, You are able to manage your wealth more and you get more financial stability. Its completely not true that people will simple be discouraged.

Now, I'll add one point of my own into the round:

In any society, There is obviously a limited amount of wealth. I mean, You can't have infinite money, Or your money would be worthless. Anyways, The more a small minority has (in this case, The richest people, Like the top 1-10%), The less money everyone else has, Damaging society as a whole. On the other hand, If there is income equality, Most of the society has most of the wealth, Benefiting the society as a whole, As apposed to only benefiting a select minority of people over an entire country.
screenjack

Con

I agree that rich people will still want to be rich. If the USA wants corporations to remain in the states we have to stay competitive. Rich people will move their investment's and assets to cheaper places. Happens all the time. You aren't discouraging them from trying to be rich you're discouraging them from investing in the states.

so your second point lacks pragmatism. How are you planning on redistributing wealth? You also make a point about how having a top 10% makes the world worse for the rest of us. How? In what way is this concentration of wealth affecting our market economy?

The number of people living in poverty in the U. S is around 12% right now. Of that only 7% enter poverty because they're born into it. Only 5% are in poverty because of raising needs. So How badly is this top percent affecting the bottom? Compare that to 25% of poverty entry being because of change of head of house/wife.
Debate Round No. 3
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

Since I'm not familiar with economics, Why don't you tell me specifically WHY this will happen?


I also have no need for pragmatism. This debate is about whether income equality is better than income inequality, Not how to implement income equality in a society. I am also not saying that having a top 10% is bad. I suggest you learn to read and interprete english correctly. I am essentially trying to say that since there is a finite amount of wealth in a society, The more a minority of people have(the top 1%), The less everyone else has, Thus hurting the society overall. But in an income equality based society, Most wealth goes to the society as a whole. Not only does this benefit the society as a whole, But it also keeps the rich rich, Meaning that rich people won't be affected largely by this change.


12% is a lot of people. Just because its only 12% doesn't deny the fact that many people suffer.

screenjack

Con

Why are you trying to debate economics if you aren't familiar with economics? I also don't understand your question in the first paragraph. Why what will happen?

Are you really telling me you have no need for pragmatism? If none of this has to be pragmatic then why don't we make our financial policy "everyone gets everything for free. Always. " I mean, If we aren't taking into account real world applications we might as well make our new currency unicorn farts. If you don't want to look at the data I'm presenting then I don't know how I can convince you that your idea of a perfect economy isn't the reality of our economy. Ideologues are responsible for the worlds greatest tragedies because they attempt to apply perfect concepts to an imperfect world.

12% isn't 22% like it was in the 50's. Just like the 1% there is also movement in and out of poverty. Our current welfare program is enough to get most people out of poverty within a year.
Debate Round No. 4
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT

Pro

You don't need to be a pro in economics to know what income equality and inequality are. Also, I was asking why "Rich people will move their investment's and assets to cheaper places. Happens all the time. You aren't discouraging them from trying to be rich you're discouraging them from investing in the states. "




There is a difference between arguing that income equality is better than income inequality and that "everyone gets everything free". Even without any pragmatism, You have plenty of arguments against the case of "everyone gets everything for free". Again, We are not arguing about how hard it is to implement income equality into a society. The simple fact that it is possible without needing to use HUGE amounts of resources is good enough. The thing about pragmatism is that it is irrelavent in a debate. For example, If you were debating about whether an utopia was good or bad, You wouldn't argue about PRAGMATISM would you?



Holy smokes where do you get your info. Our welfare program IS NOT ENOUGH to get most people out of poverty WITHIN A FREAKIN' YEAR. I would like to see what sites you get your information from, And hopefully its not some sketchy news site by Trump Propaganda or some sh*t.
screenjack

Con

You might not need to be a pro you just need to watch more than one media source. Just because you think something means one thing doesn't mean I do. It doesn't mean other people define it differently as well. The reason they will move their money is because it would be a cheaper and more profitable investment.

Somebody clearly didn't listen to why I wanted a pragmatic argument because now I'm just going to make a joke out of your argument. I purpose that income inequality is better than equality because money doesn't matter in a utopia. In a utopia the right person is always going to end up the ruler. . . Because it's a utopia. So in my utopia all the money is owned by a single God emperor and given to people according to their needs. This will work because with single centralized power he will be able to address all grievances with supreme authority. While we're at it I think I'll make that person me cause it's a utopia and it might as well be mine. There won't be any infighting because I'll be the sole judge of morality and change it as I see fit. See how debating about unreal things is pointless?

"The exit rate from poverty is 56 percent after just one year poor. " ( https://poverty. Ucdavis. Edu/policy-brief/transitions-out-poverty-united-states ) If you read this article it gives some accurate and definitely not one sided statistics about poverty. Now I won't sit here and say poverty isn't a problem but the ideas behind implementing income equality won't help. You don't care about pragmatism anyway so none of these statistics should matter to you.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
lol mb my dyslexic as read that backwards.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.