Redistribution of Wealth

Are we talking about within the United States, or we talking globally? If it's just within the United States, there are only 442 billionaires within the United States (using your same source). If it's globally, it's important to understand the various types of governments in existence. China is "communist" (read: authoritarian capitalist), and most governments in Europe play a larger role in the lives of daily citisens than the American one. In this round, I will bring up three main arguments against seizing the wealth from billionaires and distributing it to the impoverished. Contention 1: Philanthropy. For the sake of clarity, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines philanthropy as "the practice of giving money and time to help make life better for other people" [1]. According to Forbes, Bill Gates is the second richest person in the world [2]. One thing Bill Gates is known for is his philanthropy. For example. the Huffington Post reported on how Bill Gates invested $35 million into ResearchGate, a Berlin-based organization aiming to combat diseases [3]. Additionally, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (the fourth-richest person) signed the Giving Pledge, a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals "to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy" [4]. Other names on this pledge also appear on Forbes. A small sample include: Michael Bloomberg (the 13th richest person) Paul Allen (the 53rd richest person) Mark Zuckerberg (the 66th richest person) Ray Dalio (the 76th richest person) Eli Broad (the 191st richest person) John Paul DeJoria (the 329th richest person) John Arnold (the 503rd richest person) John Doerr (the 527th richest person) Nicolas Berggruen (the 736th richest person) Arthur Blank (the 931st richest person) Manoj Bhargava (the 974th richest person) Steve Case (the 1,031st richest person) Sara Blakely (the 1,342nd richest person) And many more. The Giving Pledge represent a clear effort by what my opponent calls the really, really rich to use their wealth to help other people of their own volition. If billionaires like Gates and Buffet were forced to relinquish the money that they worked hard to possess,, they would be much less likely to invest in charities and support other philanthropic work. Contention 2: Work Ethic Many of the rich worked hard to earn their money. In fact, Forbes notes that, out of the 400 members on their exclusive billionaires list, 273 of them were self-made, becoming billionaires through their own work [5]. While that leaves some billionaires who inherited or otherwise obtained money, it proves that a substantial amount - a majority, in this case, earned their money. This makes it their property, and any forced redistribution of that wealth is theft. Additionally, if this wealth were redistributed and given to the poor, why would either the poor or the billionaires continue to work? Money is getting taken from the richest, taking away their incentives to work and reinvest their money into the economy, and money is raining onto the poor, taking away their incentives to work and earn money. This is not to argue that hard work is the only factor in success - I acknowledge the role of circumstance and chance - but hard work is a factor in financial stability. Contention 3: Harm to the poor. Consider the impoverished person. Their lives are certainly difficult, and money would, at first, appear to ease that. However, let's consider this for a moment. Most of these impoverished people have little experience with managing money. It's the same concept behind why people who win the lottery go bankrupt [6]. People suddenly have access to all this cash that they didn't before. So they go on spending sprees, they find themselves drawn toward luxury without having a consistent income to support that. Before too long, the money is gone, and they're back to square one. As the old saying goes, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime" (common quotation, but I'll cite it anyway) [7]. It's the same concept with money. The poor and impoverished need to be supported with avenues for them to earn their own wealth, not given the wealth of others. For the reasons I have argued above, redistribution of wealth would negatively impact a society that enacted it. Look at the societies that (supposedly) lived under a communist state. The Soviet Union collapsed financially, unable to keep up with a freer economy, and North Korea is not exactly one of the strongest economies in the world. I look forward to my opponent's responses in the next round! I anticipate a great debate! [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.forbes.com... [3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] . http://givingpledge.org... [5] . http://www.forbes.com... [6] . http://www.marketwatch.com... [7] . http://www.quotationspage.com...