Capitalism has FAILED the bottom 50%

This is a debate and not a School Sports Day, where you get a prize for last place to make you feel better. If your vanity is so fragile that you cannot start an intellectual discussion, without resorting to emotionalism and playing the "hurt feelings card" then DO NOT start a debate. It seems that unless my response is "oh yes you are so right, look at all the low wage earners we must immediately tax business and wealth creators more to ensure everyone has ice cream"...you will be in some way upset. I have not "bashed you" personally (no ad hominems), but I have dissected your arguments. I find your arguments crass, unsophisticated, uniformed and self-defeating. Going around calling Capitalism a failure, whilst living from its fruits is hardly a consistent approach. On the other hand and rather ironically, you have attacked me personally rather than my arguments. You started this debate with an inflammatory title. You have failed to prove your point and I have given you the counter arguments that demostrates Capitalism is vastly superior for ALL people and not just wealth creators. Any research beyond your superficial appraoch will demonstrate that. You need to accept it or offer better arguments. You now move onto a discussion of low-paid workers in the economy. This is a reflection of the free market. With low paid jobs typically the supply of jobs is less, than the concommitant demand, hence wages are depressed. This means the individuals cannot always access the luxury end of the market, but in keeping with my earlier points they do benefit from the higher dynamism and growth generated by Capitalism in at least 3 ways. Firstly, the growth creates more opportunities to move into higher paid work. Secondly expectations are created around what an acceptable minimum is for people (50 years ago cars were luxury, but now a necissity). Thridly re-training opportunities are abound, and there are no barriers to movement of labour between jobs. If you want to actively better yourself and participate in the economy, you can access resources and be the best that you can be (thereby maximising your potential). The alternative is you tax the people who create wealth more, in turn making them more short-termist and in turn less likely to take risk. You then dish out free hand-outs to the low paid, who in turn are then disincentivised to actively create wealth for themselves fear of losing short term benefits, and in turn become alienated through lack of opportunities and ambition. Eventually this ends in dependency on the state, whereby an "expectancy" culture is generated. In extreme Socialist states you have even less social mobility, as the technocrat central planner, tells you what your job is. So whilst your motion is defeated, I do not think you even have a ghost of a point on the low-paid story you wish to create by patronising the low paid as martyrs and victims. They are humans with dignity and should not be made dependent on hand-outs, but set free to fulfill their potential. It cannot be your primary economic goal to basically make sure everyone is alright first, then wonder how you are going to generate wealth for people to access as a secondary afterthought. Your primary economic goal must be to maximise wealth creation and allow market forces (Adam Smiths "unseen hand"), work out the distribution efficiently. This is Capitalism and it is proven to work.