The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Income equality is good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SilverColtac has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 348 times Debate No: 121505
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that income equality is better than income inequality, While opponent will be arguing the vice-versa.

I invite my opponent forward to make his or her arguments first.

Best o' luck


There are thousands of jobs that are being done all over the world. Some can be done even by a child, While others you have to study all your life, To be even slightly competent. Now, Why would anyone choose to waste more of their life studying if there is no benefit. They study for many years to become a doctor or something only to get paid as much as someone in retail. Noone would want these jobs and society will suffer.
Debate Round No. 1


The term "income equality" does not in any sense mean Communism. . .

I think I wasn't clear on my terms.

Income inequality is the disproportionite distribution of wealth in a society, That is, A small minority of the population controls a lot or a majority of a country's wealth.

On the other hand, Income equality is simply saying that the middle and lower class get more of the wealth than the top 1%.

This basically means your argument is false.


First of all, You were not and still aren't clear on your terms. You left me to guess what you're talking about.
Second, You have not made any points thus far, You only explained the definition of income equality and pointed out that my argument is false. You have yet to point out why income equality is good.

Here is the thing, Income is a return for labor that is well-invested, Because well-invested labor creates value for others. The rich 1% didn't just gain income out of thin air, They provided a much needed service. Income equality leads to less of these services.

The rich also fund many projects and help these projects become more distributed. For example, When the phone was invented only the rich could afford it. The phones were expensive and so were the calls. However, These rich people were basically guinea pigs. If everyone was too poor to afford phones back then, Than mobile phones wouldn't have become what they are today, An inexpensive luxury for everyone.

Also explain to me how my argument is false. I may not have hit the nail quite on the head but my argument stands. When someone earns more its because they have created value for someone. For example, Surgery is a highly specialised and valuable skill and the market rewards it accordingly. But being a janitor is not such a valuable skill. Anyone can clean, As such it is not rewarded as much by the market.

Income inequality is also not an injustice. Noone is preventing anyone from becoming one of the 1%. What it should be is equality of opportunity, NOT outcome.

I'll finish with:
"The worst thing about Capitalism is that everybody is unequally rich. The best thing about Communism is that everybody is equally poor" - Winston Churchill.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, My terms are now clear. Tell me what is not clear about it.
Second, I shall make points now because I forgot to do it. Thanks for reminding me though. Remind me again for round 3 if i forget again lmao


Con Point 1: Then let me ask you HOW you are able to become a worker for the society. In places like Canada and America, The only way to do this is to receive an education (Elementary school-University or college, Depending on what your proffession is). However, If you were born in a poor family, How DO you get such an education? For example, A doctor is no doubt a high-paying job compared to other jobs. However, You must go through University and college and such to BECOME a doctor. Thus if your family didn't have enough money to pay or such a thing, You would never be able to attend, Even if you were an exceptional doctor in your field.

Con Point 2: The rich actually almost never fund projects. A study from 1896 to 2006 found that over 90% of startups were funded by either the state of the government. This included companies like Apple, Which were first funded by the US government. When the rich DO fund these companies, However, It is mostly because they think it would give them a high return. Thus, An income inequality based society generates a lot of greed. Isn't it a bad thing, Especially since the most powerful and destroy entire economies and societies while they brawl each other for different things?

Con Poin 3: Its false because income equality is not Communism. It is so weird that you guys get Communism and Income Equality mixed up. This goes with that quote you had.



Your terms are clear now. I stated the weren't in the last round due to the lack of an argument on your side about why Income Equality is good.

You are right. To become a worker in society, Education is a must. In most places there are public schools which are free. Of course many high paying jobs require further education. There are many scholarships, Grants and such that can help make college or university affordable. Also, Many students work jobs on the side to help fund their education.

You say that the rich only fund projects for a high return. Well, Obviously. Why does anyone do anything? Because they want something in return. The rich are rich because they were able to provide a service that people needed.
You state that income inequality breeds greed. Do you think that income equality would solve this? A reason that income equality is not feasible is because of human greed.
And how do the rich destroy economies? If anything, The rich help the economy. For example, Jeff bezos, The richest man on earth, Created Amazon. Amazon is a service that allows anyone to pick up just about anything they can get their hands on and sell it for whatever price they wish. Entire companies use Amazon as their sales platforms. It literally takes no skill to sell anything on Amazon and make a huge turnover. This one rich man helped create jobs for millions of people and companies and allows even the average person to become rich.
This service would not have been feasible if he was paid as much as a retail worker.

You keep saying that income equality is not communism. But lets say that income equality was good. How do you determine how much everyone should get. People have different lifestyles and needs. How would you go about bringing income equality?
Debate Round No. 3



Right so you say that my first point was correct. That means that Income inequality prefers people who were merely BORN rich. This means that even though still a baby, He or she can have large amounts of wealth and thus be able to easily become rich and famous just like their parents. Don't you think its unfair that such a big gap between the middle class and the rich (let alone the poor)?

Con Point 1: Income equality does not nessesarily stop people from being greedy. However, It means that people who ARE greedy will pose less of a threat to the society and economy as a whole, As opposed to someone very rich in an income inequality society who can cause a lot of harm. If someone is greedy and he can't do anything, It does not harm the society nor the economy, And him feeling greedy is his own fault. On the other hand, A rich and powerful person in an income inequality based society would be able to have a lot of dominance over a vast area of thing. Thus even though income equality does not stop greed, It makes the actions of those people who are greedy less effective.

You have a good point, But what I'm trying to say is that rich and powerful people pretty much control everything. Take the stock market as an example. Behind every stock, There is some big boss who can essentially control the entire stock. The way he does this is by pronouncing that the stock is bad and its going to fall and everything and then everyone sells their stock. At this new lowered price, The boss then buys this stock massively, And then announces that the stock is great and everything, And people being to buy and the stock skyrockets. He can then sit back and pocket the difference. No matter how good of a stock market player you are, It is near impossible for you to pocket a lot of money. No matter how good you are at reading patterns, Someone always has tricks up his sleeve. It is simply unfair that one person can easily fluctuate the entire stock market and make others lose and himself win just because it was easy for him to get into the position. Keep in mind that many of the rich people right now started off rich before by their parents. Ranging from Ariana Grande or Emma Watson to even Jeff Bezos (as your example). The fact is, Income inequality sides almost only with the rich, And the poor have almost no chance of changing the world greatly, Even if his idea is so much better than Bezos'.


As with income equality and how it would be distributed, There are ways already know. I suggest a google search will do.


It is somewhat unfair that there is such a big gap. But here's the kicker buddy, LIFE'S NOT FAIR.
And in any case, Nothing is stopping people from becoming billionaires. Oprah grew up dirt poor and now has a net worth upwards of 2 billion. You can't say that if you grew poor you stay poor.

You seem to have some idea that The Man exists and controls everything and for all I know it may be true. While not a perfect system Capitalism as it is now, Works and works better than anything that has come before it. There are more benefits too capitalism and Income Inequality. It promotes growth and provides incentive for people to work hard to get what they want.
Also why are we even talking about greed? That isn't a solid argument in any way. It seems to be that this whole debate i've been making arguments and you picking specific parts to contradict while never revealing why Income Equality is so great.
I've written loads of benefits of Income Inequality while you have seemingly refused to reveal the benefits of equality.

Furthermore you haven't revealed if Income Equality is even possible or how you're planning on accomplishing it. You told me to google it, Well NEWS FLASH. This is a DEBATE. You can't expect me to go looking for your facts. You're gonna have to do your own research and present it to me on a platter as I have so conveniently done for you.

Of course rich and powerful people control everything. Because they know how it works. They basically set up everything so the average person doesn't have to bother. And you're example basically says that people just follow others blindly and unknowingly bring wealth to the boss while getting nothing for themselves. That's business. That's how business works.
While many rich people had rich origins, There are many rich people who grew up poor. Oprah, As I've said before, J. K Rowling, Etc.
No-one is being limited by this "inequality". If you are smart, Hard-working and diligent you will get far in this world.

I realise income equality isn't communism, But you have yet to give me an example of income equality that is in action and actually works.

So here are some questions for you:

1: What are the benefits of income equality?

2: How can income equality be implemented into society?

3: Are there any examples of places with income equality? (Other than communist Russia) ;)

4: Did income equality bring the prosperity you claim it will?
Debate Round No. 4


Just because life is not fair doesn't mean it
a) Is good and just and correct.
b) Can't change.
If something is wrong, We try to change it. But a mix of people not wanting to give things up and corruption has made that something very hard to achieve.

If someone is born poor, There are a lot of things and people stopping them from becoming billionaires. Your example are simply ones that are very rare, And thus cannot say for most situations.

I am not saying Capitalism is a bad system. Income equality refers to having most of the money of a country to the middle and lower classes. Nobody has tried income equality yet, And the simple reason is because all the rich people don't want it, And since they have all the power, Everyone else's opinions can essentially be ignored.

The thing about it being possible or not does not matter in this debate. We are debating about whether it is good or not. We are not debating about how we should implement income equality. It is also not true that you will succeed if your smart and hard-working. Even if your smart, You still need to pay for entering contests, For taking classes, For doing this and that. Literally all those "smart" people who win contests and do well in universities and such came from middle class or rich families.

And the rich and powerful control everything but not necessarily for other people's benefit. Of course, If you work for them you still get paid and such, But the system is put in a way that becoming powerful is hard in the situation of the worker.

And to answer the questions:

1. Benefits of income equality:

1. There is obviously a finite amount of wealth in a country, Or there would be massive inflation and stuff. Therefore the more money a small minority of people have, The less money everyone else has, Harming the society overall, While benefiting a few chosen individuals within a country. On the other hand, Income equality benefits everyone; the rich still get to be rich, And still get great luxuries, While the poor and middle class get more money so that the overall HDI and health of a country increases. This will mean that people will live happier and middle and low class people who haven't before had a chance to speak for themselves will now get a chance to and rise up to the middle class. It also means that these people will be able to start up businesses, Or invent new technologies easier, Benefiting the country as a whole.

The British Medical Journal states: "What matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. " This is coming from a full Capitalist and income inequality based society.

2. Again, We are not debating on how to implement income equality into a society. We are debating that income equality is better or worse than income inequality.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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