CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Capitalism is based on the idea of gaining profits at all costs - of personal gain above everything else.
The poorest in society, the working classes, have been forced to work for lower and lower wages and buy products that are more and more expensive. Capitalism has left them destitute and desperate - rising prices combined with cut welfare exposes the capitalists desire for profit at the expense of all else. The end goal of the capitalists is profit and therefore we cannot trust it to help the poor.
We only need to look at the economic and social status of the working classes in capitalist countries to realise that capitalism has well and truly failed the poor
How has socialism failed? I live in Germany. Some people give up to 40 percent of their income in tax but we are happy. Wages are generally high, everyone has free vocational training including university studies. We also have a first class healthcare system... Transport.. What else do you need in life? No one needs to earn more than 40k or so a year
So, your response to the argument is to suggest that no one needs to earn more than $40k per annum, roars of laughter from the back stalls.
Well, now that you've solved that long running global sociology problem you may wish to take a little time out from solving the world's problems and check out the difference between socialism and communism. ''Google it'' and find out.
Don't spend too much time at that complicated task though as there are many other pressing issues requiring your urgent attention such as the Middle east crisis, Russian aggression in the Baltic, not forgetting the disease and hunger in Africa.
Well off you go now, if you start right away you'll be all finished by teatime.
So, your response to the argument is to suggest that no one needs to earn more than $40k per annum, roars of laughter from the back stalls
What amount would make you happy? However you choose to measure happiness (self reporting, prevalence of depression, ability for maintain stable relationships etc etc) there is no statistical difference between the people that earn 40k a year and that's that earn 400k. Why? Because a government that solely bolsters your ability to buy material goods does a happy society make.
If you've been in your present location long enough you will have been in the ideal position to observe the difference between communist East Germany and Capitalist West germany.
Still there's none so blind as those who do want to see.
Can you not understand that there are people with strong driving ambitions who will never cease striving to achieve their goals and in the process create a fortune for themselves and relative wealth for millions of others?
These people include, Mr.,Rolls and Mr.,Royce, Mr. Henry Ford, Bill Gates and 10s of 1000s of others.
Who do you work for?
I would very much doubt that your employers have the same shallow outlook and lack of ambition as you.
Why do you not feel that you have the ability to own a mansion, a Villa in the South of France overlooking your yacht moored in the marina at Saint Jean Cap-Ferrat?
While there are spineless sheep like you the wolves will stay happy.
If you've been in your present location long enough you will have been in the ideal position to observe the difference between communist East Germany and Capitalist West Germany.
No, I wasn't in Germany prior to 1989. How old do I seem? Yes the quality of life was generally higher in West Germany than the DDR. I don't advocate communism. I suppose my views are my in line with welfarism and social democracy.
These people include, Mr.,Rolls and Mr.,Royce, Mr. Henry Ford, Bill Gates and 10s of 1000s of others.
Can you not understand that there are people with strong driving ambitions who will never cease striving to achieve their goals and in the process create a fortune for themselves and relative wealth for millions of others?
People have various goals. One is to make as much money as possible as buy as many things as possible. The people you speak of sacrificed everything to that end. I am not sure those should be the powerful people in society nor role models for what makes a person happy.
Who do you work for?
I would very much doubt that your employers have the same shallow outlook and lack of ambition as you.
I am self employed. By the end of this year I will have taken 3 months of vacation and seen 7 different countries. I do not earn a huge amount but enough to be able to afford my expenses.
Why do you not feel that you have the ability to own a mansion, a Villa in the South of France overlooking your yacht moored in the marina at Saint Jean Cap-Ferrat?
Ah the American delusion. How wonderful. Treat your citizens like shit but keep them believing that one day they might own a yacht. I guess then they won't focus so much on their reality. I have spent quite a bit of time in the South of France, although I prefer Spain.
While there are spineless sheep like you the wolves will stay happy.
Haha the sheepish thing to do is to spend your own life thinking that most people are stupid and deserves nothing from you while grinding unhappily to make as much money as you can. The brave thing to do is the share what you have and to search for alternative means of happiness that are not to do with buying things.
Somebody better earn more than 40k or all the other people who didn't earn it will be left without the benefit. Which is to say socialism works fine as long as there's enough of other peoples money.
Yes, given his comment that no one needs to earn more than 40k. People absolutely have to earn more than 40k if their income is limited to that amount. Otherwise no one will enjoy the public benefits derived from taking that which is earned in excess of 40k.
When taxation is seen as the thing to be limited, it doesn't mean anything to say that gross must be higher than net. When income is seen as the thing to be limited, it's worth pointing out that everyone else relies on someone being significantly more productive than their income.
Based on the fact that you falsely that I was saying the government should or could control everyones wage to be 40k, I am not sure you are up to the task of critically evaluating what I do and do not understand.
A business could generate a large amount of money but the final income of the owner can be regulated by factors other than limiting the profitability of the business (income tax, mansion tax, minimum wages, maximum working hours etc) .
Yes, given his comment that no one needs to earn more than 40k. People absolutely have to earn more than 40k if their income is limited to that amount.
So this is false. Unless you are using "earn" to mean something I don't understand.
If gross income represents what a person actually earns, and net income represents actual income or what the person keeps, then a society that limits a persons income to 40k would necessitate people earning more than 40k. The alternative is destitution.
It's unfortunate that income inequality is seen as a bad thing. It's necessary and good.
If gross income represents what a person actually earns, and net income represents actual income or what the person keeps, then a society that limits a persons income to 40k would necessitate people earning more than 40k. The alternative is destitution.
I don't agree. If an individual owns a company that makes 1 million a year. He could be paying 600k in wages with the company paying company tax of 350k which leaves him with only 50k. The profit the company makes is better seen as a collective effort of everyone that works there rather than merely the person that owns it.
I don't agree. If an individual owns a company that makes 1 million a year. He could be paying 600k in wages with the company paying company tax of 350k which leaves him with only 50k. The profit the company makes is better seen as a collective effort of everyone that works there rather than merely the person that owns it.
It feels good to talk about how a company is a team effort, it resonates. But another fact of any company is that some people are more replaceable than others. It tends to be the case that the higher a person is in a company, the more unique or specialized is their skill set. The people who are less replaceable are bringing something more rare and thus more valuable to the company. This leaves aside the situations (many small businesses) where the whole enterprise was primarily the vision of one person and where capping their potential income would relegate the whole thing to an unrealized idea.
I think it is telling that the example you presented is one wherein the limiting of income to 40k looks more like a regular (20%) for the CEO. But this small business wouldn't exist in your world. The reason is because it would rely on very large businesses (with very large stakes) that just wouldn't be there. People wouldn't do it.
This small business would rely on a whole host of business services that are highly specialized, dangerous, or otherwise rare that would not exist. They would not exist because people are often attracted to them based on having dreams much larger than 40K would allow for. This isn't a simply statement of greed or profit motive. Maybe the person merely dreams of living in New York City where 40k is poverty. Or maybe they want to own a yacht or two. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but it keeps the smaller enterprise yacht building a realistic idea.
Enforcing a tax code that caps income ultimately ends up with people making much much less. Income may still be 40K for everyone, but it won't be worth what it was when they started the whole scheme. This seriously has been tried before. Countering this fact by implying that I am merely crying "red red red!" negates a history of economic destruction.
He seems to have taken stage fright and sneaked out the rear door.
You see, if you've got a detailed vision of how to improve the status quo, you present your manifesto showing the details of your ideology and if it stands up to scrutiny and it's merits outshines the established practices then it's a winner.
But to bellow about what's wrong the way things are without a feasible alternative is kindergarten stuff.
Your opinion on the thread is outstandingly profound, persuasive and very well presented.
You should publish this brilliant piece of radical and original political dogma and watch the economies of the world adopt your model for global prosperity.
People are poor because either they're stupid, lazy, lack entrepreneurial enterprise, or all of these.
A number of previously poor nations such as China and India adopted and adapted capitalism to suit their national characteristics and this has led to a dramatic improvement in their living standards.
Capitalism isn't an animate being with a will and volition, it's a philosophy the individual embraces, or doesn't; it can't lift you without your help. If you choose not to participate, you will be left behind.
The poor have failed to succeed in our Free Market, capitalist economy.
Some of those people would fuck-up a free lunch.
In this great country of ours, anybody with half a brain and a desire to succeed and work hard can do so. Thus successfully navigating thru and utilizing our economic system. The American Dream is far from dead. It is still alive and well for those willing to work at it.
But with the absurd and meteoric rise of the Entitlement Mindset in our country, driven by eight years of Socialist regime mentality under Hussein Obama, the poor nowadays often feel that they don't need to work hard at the Dream, since the Nanny State will take them into its loving arms.
Saying that Capitalism has failed the poor is like saying adulthood has failed young people. The only way to save our young people from a cruel adultist world is to keep them in their parents house as long as possible.
Freedom doesn't fail anybody. People sometimes fail when they are free.
There are always poor people. Poverty is always used as a reason for more Socialism, but there is still always poverty. Especially when poverty is measured in relative terms. Relative poverty in more Capitalist nations can sometimes increase, even though real, absolute poverty generally decreases. Notice that "income inequality" is the big problem in the developed world rather than simply income. It didn't used to concern people so much.
Capitalism runs the developed world. The poor are much less poor in the developed world. No one has ever come into the developed world without Capitalism (to greater or lesser degrees). However, plenty of countries remain undeveloped under Socialism.
Just to be clear, this does not mean I am in favor of a free market; I just agree with the fact that "a free market means free people." Does it mean it is the best form of economy the U.S. can have? Who the hell knows; socialism has yet to work in any other country, but that is entirely just because the leaders of any socialist country is usually a tyrant (or something of equivalent nature). This is not to mean that if there was a successful socialist reform in the U.S. that there would be a tyrannical socialist leader, but it is to say that we have yet to see a large number of successful, without tyranny or otherwise, socialist economies. Of course, free market itself has crippled the poor, but have you thought just what a socialist movement would do? It would force us to change our entire economical system (obviously) in the span of years, which may seem like a lot of time or little (depending on your knowledge of economic reforms), but that amount of time with the amount of changes needed means a large load of debt to be added to the already suffering U.S. economy; such a tremendous debt, in fact, that it would be near-impossible to recover from. Of course, I am not in favor of capitalism, but I am also not in favor of making those whom live without a home suffer even further.
All very fine and noble sounding sentiments, but you haven't made any effort whatsoever to present an economic system which could replace capitalism.
We can all occupy the moral high ground, wring our hands and bellow on about the terrible plight of the poor, but that's about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
The Biblical quote, ''the poor ye shall have with thee always'' is as true today as it was 2000 years ago.
The fact that the American people are buying cheap and shoddy foreign goods is the reason why the balance of payment is so eye-wateringly awful and the national debt is really way beyond recovery.
If I had a good answer to replace capitalism, believe me, I would present it. Regardless, switching to anything socialist won't have the presented effect that Americans want unless we try it out first. If a socialist change was possible without presenting such a major toll, I would support it through-and-through, but I have yet to see socialism getting us out of debt or assisting the U.S.'s economy more than just continuing on the road of Capitalism. Though, I truly do see pros and cons to both sides of the argument, so I have no reason to argue with either side, and a form of socialism would be the only type of economy, from my understanding of the term, that would have any chance of replacing capitalism with any chance of success.
I guess we're all very disillusioned with our corrupt and incompetent politicians and would like to see, either an administration which would make capitalism work for everyone' or a change of tack altogether.
The latter is pretty well out of the question so we're all going to rely on Clinton or Trump to fine tune and or modify capitalism so it's benefits trickle down top more of those at the bottom.
At least you're concerned and giving the issue some thought.
That's more than most people do, and your expression of anxiousness at the present state of the economy is well justified.
It is not money that makes people happy but rather poverty that makes people unhappy. The states job is to work to prevent hardship - financial hardship being the most obvious.
It is not money that makes people happy but rather poverty that makes people unhappy
Actual poverty; or relative poverty?
Money is means. Having no means to move ones life in a given direction is cause for unhappiness. Having that means is necessary to achieve happiness.
The states job is to work to prevent hardship
Bullshit. That's the kind of misguided thinking that leads to Utopian pipe dreams. It's the pretense that fuels tyrants, especially when applied to finances.
Money is means. Having no means to move ones life in a given direction is cause for unhappiness. Having that means is necessary to achieve happiness.
Right, that is why I am not suggesting everyone lives on 10k a year. 40k a year is enough to pursue what you wish to do. This is why studies consistently show that there is no real difference in happiness between those that earn 40k and 400k.
Bullshit. That's the kind of misguided thinking that leads to Utopian pipe dreams. It's the pretense that fuels tyrants, especially when applied to finances.
Right, that is why I am not suggesting everyone lives on 10k a year. 40k a year is enough to pursue what you wish to do
Wrong. It's enough to pursue what you wish. It is not sufficient to meet everyone's ends. It is more than sufficient to meet the ends of some. It is borderline poverty in some locations. It is upper middle class income in other locations. Above all though, it would be an outrageous injustice if/when anyone tries/tried to make this sort of thing a reality.
"Red! Red! Red!" I see
This was your non-response to my assertion that your view on government has historically lead to tyranny. While this line of argument is compelling for some, you may find it insufficient to convince those who don't already agree with you.
It is not the role of government to prevent hardship. It can't. It can shift hardship, it cannot prevent it. What it can do to a significant (though not complete) degree is protect peoples rights. When a people have a thorough understanding that a governments proper role is to protect their rights, they tend to hold their government to the task. When a people believe the government is there to prevent hardship, they will endure all manner of violations upon them in the name of preventing their own hardship. Especially when it is financial in nature, which it almost always is.
All societies are a blend. The US is neither capitalist nor socialist but somewhere in the middle, and we're still further toward the capitalism side than our European counterparts.
Societies with civil rights, and laws against monopolies or unsafe work places or cheats in business, all already have reasonable restrictions placed on capitalism which combined help the poor and less fortunate.
