Labour is better than Conservative (UK Politics)

My opponent proposed that as income, Rights, And other aspects of life become more equal across the board the less poverty there is. In this round I will be specifically refuting his points and presenting new examples to build the Conservatives side. So before I begin presenting my arguments I would like to present a few definitions. . . . Communism is a system of government where all the property is public and the government owns and controls the manufacturing and transportation industries. People share equally from the benefits of labor and they receive the things they need from the government. (http://examples. Yourdictionary. Com/examples-of-communism. Html) With this definition in mind I present the following statement. Conservative Politics across the globe are traditionally, Generally and statistically more successful than Labour Politics or Communism. I aim to show that in this debate. But before we continue we must also define Conservative Politics so that it is clear what I am defending. Fiscal conservatism (also economic conservatism or conservative economics) is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, Reduced government spending and minimal government debt So in essence what I am standing for is less government involvement and what my opponent is advocating, Is increased involvement moving towards complete government involvement which controls everything including the wages of everyone. Now that the parameters of the debate are set I will present my first point. This point is of Dharavi Slums. My opponent used the example of the Dharavi slums. After doing a bit of research I concluded that the reason the crime rate was so low was not necessarily due to the fact that everyone was "poor". This is a simple case of Causation vs. Correlation. Meaning is the fact that everyone is poor the DIRECT cause of the low crime rate. Since this is a debate my opponent has the burden of proof to show that it is indeed the direct cause of the crime rate. But even still I would like to dispute the validity of his statement "There's nothing to get jealous of or angry over because everyone there has around the same amount of money in their pocket. Now compare this to the big gap between the rich and the poor. " This isn't true. In reality the free market and a lot of well of people dwell in the slums contrasted with a large amount of less well of people. So according to my opponent there would be a lot of jealousy. Below I provided a quote from an article to substantiate my claim that THERE ARE RICH AND POOR ALIKE "However, In reality the slums are home to many people who are quite well off. This is largely a product of the fact that many of these slums have now been around for many decades. Families who may have had fewer options when they initially made their homes in the slums have since risen in their financial statuses but remain in the slums either out of a sense of community or because the businesses through which they have achieved that higher status are dependent on the slums. Bottom line: although most slum dwellers live in a state of poverty that is beyond what the average Westerner will ever experience, Some of them are actually pretty well off. " (http://www. Chooseyourlifeadventure. Com/7-surprising-things-dharavi-slums-experience/) What does this mean? This means that my opponents example of the Dharavi Slums is not an accurate analogy to his thesis. With that out of the way I would like to present my second point. This point can be labeled as a system of incentives. What do I mean? Underneath a Fiscal conservative economic system as I have presented there is incentive to succeed. People will want to become doctors because there is a significant monetary incentive to do that. But why are doctors paid so highly? Because they have an important job? I would actually say because they are extremely specialized and require a lot of training. This training takes time and money. Therefore their time is worth a lot more money than someone who has received little or no training such as a janitor. So I have more incentive to become a doctor than to become a janitor. Yet the beauty of the Free Market is that if everyone decides they don't want to be a janitor there will be a significant need for janitors. Everyone has their price. If janitors are in such a demand the rules of supply and demand would indicate that people would be willing to pay more for a janitor. Yet if we parallel this system of incentives with a communist or labour system, We can see that there is no incentive to succeed in life. Even now in the U. S underneath the welfare state there is almost more incentive to not work than to work. Why? Because the government is trying to put people who are disadvantaged on an EQUAL level as those who work hard. This may seem good on the surface but when we look beneath and see the disadvantages of this system we can see that people who can get a job DON'T WANT TO. Why? Because they are getting paid by the government to do nothing. If we take this to the extreme of my opponents thesis of "if we are more equal we can live happier", What happens? In my opponents perfect world everyone makes the same amount of money for different jobs. What incentive would anyone have to become a doctor? What incentive would there be to become a mortician? Can you tell me honestly that someone would willingly say "I want to have a harder job and get payed the same as the guy flipping burgers". This may sound ridiculous but this is what would happen. Simply using the laws of human action we can determine that it wouldn't be worth it to exert more energy than we have to, To receive the same amount of reward. Now my opponent may come back and say "the government will assign people jobs". This is even worse! This would create even more envy and jealousy. A few lucky people would have easy jobs and others would work in the literal sewers. So assuming my opponents point "People kill over jealousy etc. " while my opponent wants to reduce crime he would actually be increasing it. My third and final point is that of taxes. My opponent says. . . "Labour would enforce laws such as reducing the gap between the rich and the poor by raising tax on someone who has over "100, 000 in their bank account " In reality this creates even less incentive. If we tax those who make more higher than those who make less, Than what is the common reaction for those who are rich? Well first lets examine how much of the U. S taxes are ALREADY payed for by the rich. "In 2014, The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, Or 39. 48 percent of all income taxes, While the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, Or 29. 12 percent of all income taxes. " (https://taxfoundation. Org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/) The rich already contribute more to society than the poor. So why should they contribute more? Instead as I mentioned earlier in my definition underneath Fiscal Conservatism that my policy reduces taxes typically. Not just for the top 1%, But for everyone. Making it easier for those of lower status to succeed in life. But this is the money that you made and why is the government taking it at all? In some places taxes get up to 65%! This is ridiculous! At this point the government is making more of your money than you are. Where was the government when you were working to earn that money? Lastly I would like to agree with one point presented by my opponent. I would like to agree that all people should be equal. Men and Women should be equal. Black, White, Red, Purple people should all be equal. But not in the respect that my opponent believes but in that there shouldn't be a law saying that purple people are not allowed to do something while people who are say Blue can do that thing. To conclude. INCENTIVES