Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

This is a PF debate. I expect my opponent to be familiar with the rules of PF. Good luck. ------------- Income disparities appear to be the essence of inequality. How can people who earn minimum wage compare to those that earn six-figure salaries? How does the fact that some can't afford insurance, and some don't need insurance, suggest equality? While those that earn more certainly have more, does that necessarily mean that they are better than others, and that it is impossible for democracy to function while the income gap exists? Today's resolution, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals, seeks to answer the previous question. My partner and I firmly disagree with the resolved. Income disparities are natural, are not part of the government's will, and do not produce unequal distribution of political power. Contention 1: Income disparities are natural Income disparities have been around since man first used money. All civilizations, even democratic ones, have had rich people and poor people. The rich were generally those that had some degree of education, thus making them more useful to the leaders of their nations. Since they were more valuable to their governments, they were paid more. In today's world, education plays an even greater role in income. People who are more valuable to their companies and possess skills that other people lack get hundreds of times more pay. Income disparity is very logical and has naturally occurred throughout history. If something as common and natural as income disparity hurts democracy, there would be no democracies in the modern world. Contention 2: The government does not favor the rich People who believe that current income disparities hurt democracy do so for one of two reasons: either they believe that the US government favors the rich and thus doesn't truly represent the people, or they believe that an individual's income determines his or her political power. In my second contention I will address the former reason. Many people believe that the government is helping big business at the public's expense. The government gives bailout funds to businesses that are supposedly too-big-to-fail. The bailout funds are supposed to help businesses keep old employees and possibly hire new ones. However, bailout funds are used not to hire new workers, but to add bonus money for a few elite employees. Who should we blame: the government whose good intentions fall flat, or the corporations who greedily spend public money? The answer to this question depends entirely on whether the government care to do anything about the bonuses. Yale professor John Macey writes: "Politicians are frustrated because they are virtually powerless to stop the flow of bonus payments to bankers. Rep. Dennis Kucinich thinks that the U.S. should levy heavy taxes on bonuses. While such action might placate some people, it is the shareholders, not the banks, who will end up paying this tax. Worse, this sort of tax will not affect banker behavior, because it will not reduce (and probably will increase) the government's proclivity to bail out banks that have made bad bets." It is clear that politicians are against large bonuses and are working towards a solution. Current US politicians are keen to the public's interests and follow the people's will as they should in a democratic government. It is big business, and not the government, that we should blame for such large income disparities. Contention 3: Income does not influence political power My third contention will address the second reason for believing that income disparities hurt democracy: that money can be used as leverage in the voting system. During the Gilded Age, some rich people got richer by bribing people to vote for a candidate and having the candidate cater to them after he wins the election. If in the US such corruption has happened in the past, it could happen very well happen today, or could it? I would like to point out that the corruption mentioned previously is from the past, which means that at some point the corruption ended. Why did the corruption end? A probable reason is the switch to a secret ballot. Bribing a person to cast a certain vote only works if you have a way of knowing if that person followed through on his side of the bribe. The secret ballot made it impossible to verify that a bribe worked and thus corruption was rendered ineffective. Today, the secret ballot still exists and corruption is still ineffective, so there is no fear that rich individuals will use their economic leverage to influence the government and the outcomes of elections. Current income disparities are thus not a threat to democratic ideals because they natural, are not part of the government's will, and do not influence political power. Thank you and I urge a con ballot.