Redistribution of Wealth

It's worth pointing out that my opponent has fallen into refutations with rebuilding his own points. My opponent argues that redistributing wealth "It isn't really robbing billionaires of their money." Whether or not it is done for a good cause, it is still theft. The private property of one person is being taken from them against their will with no return benefit to them. This is theft. I followed your first link and was led to an error page. My opponent admits a blatant disregard for the liberty of other individuals. This is an infringement on what is commonly considered a fundamental right - the right to property. In effect, my opponent appears to be arguing for a socialistic or communistic response. We all know what happened to nations that implemented communism. A major problem in the Soviet Union was, because of the redistribution of wealth, there was no incentive to work. Russian economist Grigory Yavlinsky said that "the Soviet system is not working because the workers are not working" [1]. Even if we don't adopt a full redistribution of wealth, even if we cap earnings at $1 billion - more than enough to last a lifetime - people will still lose incentive to work. Selfishness, for good or ill, is a fundamental aspect of human nature. This is why capitalist systems work. It is true that there are many people living in poverty. But it is equally important to note the changes over time. When we consider China, many people strongly condemn the exploitation of workers for cheap labour. But these people forget changes over time. Prior to exploitation, these people were paid nothing. They are in a phase much like the West was during the Industrial Revolution. As time goes on, the pay of those workers will rise, as will their standard of living. Some companies are already raising wages [2]. It is also important to note that costs in areas like China are lower. And, as the Huffington Post reports, not only is the standard of living in China about half that of America, but American workers are also more productive than both Chinese and German ones [3]. Germany has a government much closer to socialist than America, and China is nominally communist. As a capitalist system with very little in regard to redistributing wealth, America offers workers many incentives, and thus the workers are more productive. So because you don't see how something is acceptable, it is not acceptable? Should we make laws based on the preference of one person? Assuming you live in the West, you live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. As Gallop reports, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the government should focus on improving economic conditions within the United States and NOT redistribute wealth more evenly among them [4]. My opponent now picks up the second half of my second contention. However, I argue that people still would be de-incentivized. Why would people want to work if their ambitions were stifled? The rich, as they near the $1 billion cap, would lose all incentive to continue working. They would stop reinvesting in the economy and stop hiring workers. As all the money flows outward, assuming this operation proceeds smoothly, without fraud or corruption, it becomes less and less until none of it remains in the economy. The rich lose the will to be rich; the poor lose the will to be rich; and production and work gradually come to a halt. It is a tragic fact that people desire more than they need, and if that hope is removed, they feel no drive to work for it My opponent boldly states that "we don't need billionaires to practise philanthropy if we already have the majority of their money." Money is limited. You will run out of their money, and you will have nothing to replace it with because you took away their incentive to keep making money. Fraud and corruption are rampant. For example, CNN reported on the Kids Wish Network, a charity dedicated to raising millions in donations to help dying children and their families and discovered that the network spent less than 3 cents from each dollar on helping kids. Much of the rest was given to corporate sponsors - around $110 million [5]. My opponent attributes the agency for wealth redistribution to the United Nations. The UN suffers from severe inefficiencies. Most obvious is the demonstrated ability of Russia and China to oppose the US and thus bring everything to a gridlock. But the UN has also been proven inefficient in financial matters. One major reason it mishandles foreign aid is because many departments counter each other and duplicate each other's efforts. For example, in Pakistan, the UN devised "75 programme goals without consulting the government" [6]. Part of the Giving Pledge stipulates that billionaires give away at least 50% of their wealth throughout their lifetime or upon death. Those who have not yet given away donations in the billions still have ample time to do so. Private philanthropy from the US alone was around $37 billion - two thirds larger than government aid at $21.8 billion, not to mention private remittances at $79 billion [7] (page 24). And again, all of this private aid flows from the United States alone. If the resolution applies globally, it must also be remembered the many people in other countries also practice philanthropy of their own free will. Perhaps it is not morally fair, as my opponent states. But there's an infamous saying - life isn't fair. In an ideal world, we would all start out with the same economic opportunities. People would not be discriminated against based on immutable and non-harmful characteristics. Sadly, idealism and reality seldom travel together. We can always work to make the world a better place, but what kind of world would it be if the government had 100% control over your spending liberties if you exceeded a set sum? What kind of world would it be where we could make people do something or live a certain way just because we thought they should? As we enter the 4th round, I thank my opponent for his arguments and this great debate, and I look forward to the next two rounds! [1] http://www.sjsu.edu... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.gallup.com... [5] http://www.cnn.com... [6] http://www.theguardian.com... [7] http://www.hudson.org...