All people should receive the same income

-->>Rebuttals: A little more is required from Pro for them to actually *affirm* their resolution and provide a convincing case, merely answering to the questions that I've provided is not quite satisfactory and Pro should (technically) extend their main arguments further. Anyway, I will respond to each of Pros answers in full: #1 'It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty.' Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that governments (especially those in poorer countries, as Pro didn't say anything about this being exclusive to the U.S) would be able to afford $25 per hour, specifically when taking into account all of the resources that governments must prioritize~~such as health care, education, etc. While these areas are not presently ideal, they would suffer even more as a result of businesses/governments paying such high wages for each working individual. In fact, millions would inevitably be spent and the ultimate result would likely be recession and extreme debt. Also, there is very limited justification for a the previous example (a beauty therapist) receiving the same amount as a doctor. In addition, on the contrary to Pros assertion that $48,000 a year would enable people to be debt-free and able to pay their bills~~it would likely actually lead to further spending (and more debt) from those who are not able to manage their wages wisely. #2 'That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work.' Pro asserts that my question is somehow 'subjective' when there were two different (clearly objective) options given~~moreover, they have failed to explain *why* it was subjective. As indicted in round one by myself, Pro is taking an extreme approach to a problem that requires addressing moderately. As well as that, they have made claims about there existing further incentives to work without supporting them. Clearly Pro is failing to see the 'realities' that would be involved. Regarding hospital workers, to suggest that you can have (untrained) staff assisting people's medical requirements is nothing less than absurd and *if* actually ever practiced, ultimately very dangerous. To qualify as a nurse, one must receive training and have the correct mental competence. They cannot just be anybody doing the job because they simply feel like that~~standards and technicalities exist in order for someone to actually be (proven) as capable. #3 'Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all.' Pro has essentially contradicted their own argument(s) as they did specify that any minimum/maximum wage would apply. Rather, they explicitly stated that all people would receive $25 per hour, regardless of education/experience/job. #4 'In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.' Pro makes a valid contention regarding military spending (one that I personally agree with), however, this still doesn't answer why everyone should receive the same wage~~especially a high one. And while improvements should be made, taxes already go towards things like education. I will reiterate once more that I understand Pros main point~~which is that people should be treated equally, and that the poor should be looked after, etc. In fact this is a belief that I mostly share, however, there are more balanced and financially sensible methods of approaching such a reform.