CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
17
They probably need it No! Not okay
Debate Score:35
Arguments:36
Total Votes:39
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 They probably need it (11)
 
 No! Not okay (8)

Debate Creator

shoutoutloud(4227) pic



Is it okay that over 90% of the money in the world is in the hands of a couple of people?

While the majority of the world's population is in poverty and hunger, a couple of rich bastards own 90% of the money in the world.

 

Is this okay?

They probably need it

Side Score: 18
VS.

No! Not okay

Side Score: 17
3 points

What are the worlds starving families going to do with a fiat currency that has long since failed to represent the resources meant to establish its value?

Let the fat cats keep their money… the rest of us just need help in convincing each other that money is what makes us poor in the first place.

Side: They probably need it
2 points

If they worked for it then that is their money. If a country is in such poverty then the rich can voluntarily donate funds to assist the country, but they have no obligation to do so.

Side: They probably need it
1 point

Do you know that the first world countries take way more money from the third world countries than they give? The money that are donated to these countries is like a drop of water in the pacific ocean, compared to what they take.

Do you know that the first world countries actually take advantage of their own superiority to make money of the third world countries?

And to respond your first sentence ''If they worked for it'' - Personally I feel like that is a .. ridiculous, sorry my choice of words, to say, because no matter how hard you work, it is not worth the hundred thousands lives that are sacrifised each day.

Side: No! Not okay
Paradox44(736) Disputed
1 point

Do you know that the first world countries take way more money from the third world countries than they give? The money that are donated to these countries is like a drop of water in the pacific ocean, compared to what they take.

Okay, but is it your money? If you didn't earn the money it isn't yours to spend. If I own a diamond business and go to Africa and start mining and make billions I get to decide what I want to do with those billions. Not you.

Do you know that the first world countries actually take advantage of their own superiority to make money of the third world countries?

Yes, I don't feel any different knowing it either. The rich have no obligation to give up there money that they earned. Forcing them to donate is coercion.

And to respond your first sentence ''If they worked for it'' - Personally I feel like that is a .. ridiculous, sorry my choice of words, to say, because no matter how hard you work, it is not worth the hundred thousands lives that are sacrificed each day.

So you wish to put value on humans? What makes a human being more valuable than a pen or a brick or a dog? On what basis will you determine human worth? If you also believe humans are all equal then equal in what regards? On what basis is this equality founded? So, what basis is this value founded? If everything is relative then your moral opinion on donating has no difference on my opinion.

Second, saying "they worked for it" is only fitting. If I want to be rich I must work for it and then if I want my descendants to be rich then I must work harder. You have no authority to tell me to donate money to causes I don't feel like donating to simply because you feel as if it's only moral to do so. Can I take your money and donate it to Google in hopes that they stay strong? Can I take your money and donate it to Starbucks in support of good coffee? No. It's impractical. You must voluntarily contribute to causes you wish to donate to or agree to pay amends on the basis of an established contract. Either that me taxation or mere personal payments. In the end a person should not be forced to donate to any cause unless they voluntarily wish to do so.

Also what about all the money that has already been donated? Why is it that my money hasn't fixed anything yet? I'm sure we can genetically modify vegetable and fruits to grow in the conditions in places of poverty so that people may cultivate and feed their people. How come you didn't bring this up? What good does a paper bill do in the eyes of a person whose currency is salt and goats?

Instead of demanding donations from the rich we should be researching ways to help those in poverty. Starting with basic meeds such as food and water, and then moving up the scale to things such as education and emotional needs. This is a much more effective method of dealing with this situation. Doesn't it seem futile to ask a rich man to donate when he himself barely wishes to pay taxes?

Side: They probably need it

As long as rich people do not take taxes from my paycheck as Government does to pander to it's elections, I have no problem with them. They create most of our jobs.

I have a much bigger problem with welfare addicts who refuse to live responsibly & live off my high property taxes. 70% of my property taxes go to paying for welfare.

If you want to sleep around, get pregnant, then do so on your own dime. When you run to social services to live off my sweat, then I get angry. If you don't want people butting in your lives, don't ask us for money to bail you out of your idiot choices in life.

Side: They probably need it
AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
2 points

As long as rich people do not take taxes from my paycheck as Government does to pander to it's elections, I have no problem with them. They create most of our jobs.

Election money doesnt come from your taxes you moron it comes from donations from people and corporations hence why these elected officials then are forced to govern by the needs of their highest donors and not by the people they represent. They taxes youre whining about go to things you probably dont care about like, eh, national defence, healthcare, public utilities, space exploration, postal system, fire/police, ect. You know, stupid shit.

Also no, cutting taxes on the rich does not logically lead to jobs. Trickle down economics doesnt work and has been shown to not work. The reason its pushed by conservatives is because that groups is dominated by the rich who are puppeting it in an attempt to get their own interests to gain popularity.

I have a much bigger problem with welfare addicts who refuse to live responsibly & live off my high property taxes. 70% of my property taxes go to paying for welfare.

Sure there are some who abuse it but even those people hardly cost you anything. Go live on 500% a week with a 50$ a week food budget and tell me how comfortable you are. Go ahead ill wait.

If you want to sleep around, get pregnant, then do so on your own dime. When you run to social services to live off my sweat, then I get angry. If you don't want people butting in your lives, don't ask us for money to bail you out of your idiot choices in life.

Ignoring the fact that your taxes do not pay for abortions: when you get old and can no longer work why the fuck should the money i pay into social security go to help your useless lazy ass? You get out what you pay into. You not liking it doesnt make it a bad system. Grow up you spoiled greedy fuck

Side: No! Not okay
1 point

I don't really know how to answer this. It'd be easier if I had some idea of why it wouldn't be okay.

Side: They probably need it
shoutoutloud(4227) Clarified
1 point

Because the majority of the world lives in extreme poverty, and thousands starve to death every day.

Side: They probably need it
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

What does that have to do with the 90% with all the money?

Side: They probably need it

Redistributing money is dangerous, we need to find a slower solution to ending poverty.

Side: They probably need it
1 point

Redistributing money is only dangerous if it is forced on you. Rich people need to recognize that they are taking too big a cut from the profits. They need to figure out how to pay their employees more because the current system is making it tough for workers.

Side: They probably need it
3 points

This could be helped greatly if we just put some simple laws into place banning off shore banking to avoid paying taxes, increased taxes on the rich to a much higher percentage, and created term limits for congressmen. But none of these very obvious and very much needed bills would ever be passed because who controls the government? The rich. And theyre not about to let restrictions be placed on them.

Side: No! Not okay
0 points

It would be better to limit taxation to a ten percent income tax.

Side: They probably need it
AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
4 points

So Jonny Poverty has to pay 10% of his 500$/week paycheck while Mary MiddleClass has to pay 10% of her 50,000$/year salary and Bobby Big Business only has to pay 10% of his 1.2 billion/year salary? We need a bracketing system based on income to determine what is fair yet when you do something like that logically you would make the high income bracket a larger percentage and when you do that its: "CLASS WARFARE OH NO THEYRE PERSECUTING THE RICH WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN DREAM?!?!"

Side: No! Not okay
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
4 points

What if, hypothetically, an individuals tax burden would be 10% of whatever income they have above the poverty line?

For example, the current poverty line for a single-person household in most of the US is $11,670. In this model, a person earning $20,000 per year would be taxed 10% of the $8,330 difference, or $833. A person earning $50,000 per year would be taxed 10% of the $38,330 difference, or $3,833. A person earning $100,000 per year would be taxed 10% of the $88,330 difference, or $8833.

Of course, what actually constitutes the poverty line would need to be adjusted year to year, but I imagine this would be workable at both ends.

Side: They probably need it