Poor people are not beneficial to this country

"I will now "reinforce" the arguments that I made because my opponent currently does not have any." I "do not have any" because it is an unarguable position. It is like asking whether or not a liver is beneficial to a human body. The liver is an inseparable part of the human body, just as lower income people are inseparable from the United States. Without lower income, "poor" people, the economy of this country would be without the means to produce products that are sold on markets. Poor people provide the economic foundation of growth and prosperity. Some poor people become rich and some rich people become poor. Rich and poor people are equally as beneficial to any given nation, not because they are two opposed classes or entities vying for the same resources. Rather, they are two sides of the same coin. The existence of one necessitates the existence of the other. While it may be argued by some Marxists that this is unjust, I do not believe it is so. If rich people are beneficial to this country, as you argue, then poor people must be as well. The fact that the relatively rich need the relatively poor to constitute the means of production makes this true. "However, I found some statistics that are very relevant to this debate. For your refutation of your argument, I found out that the top 1% "rich" people pay 95% of the U.S's taxes. That's 95% v.s 5%. Now I ask you, which side contributes more to our nation?" The 95% vs. 5% shakes down in that fashion not because the poor are given tax breaks while the rich are not. In fact, the rich are given many more tax breaks than the poor(1). It is deceptive to look at the straight total of funds that the rich contribute and compare that to the total of funds that the poor contribute. Obviously, they will be different because they have different amounts to contribute. And it is a fallacy to measure "contribution" simply in terms of tax revenue from certain classes. If we look at the welfare of a nation, there are many factors at play. One important factor is military service. Overwhelmingly, the poorest members of our nation are more likely to join the military in hopes for training and college finance(2). Certainly, this is a better way to contribute to a nation-state than simply paying taxes. In addition, according to a survey, poor people are the most charitable as well. Those with an average income of 10,531 give the largest percent of their income to charities(3). Giving to charities represents a genuine concern for the well-being of a community. Having one's tax money taken away represents little more than a desire not to be jailed for tax evasion(4). "Also, you claim that most people of the poor people work. However, this cannot be compared to the billions of dollars that rich people made for this country." It is true that the rich give jobs to American workers and raise the GDP of the United States. However, like I said, the rich cannot constitute the means of production without lower income people. Without lower income people, the rich cannot produce the products they want to create and sell at a market volume. In the absence of "poor people", the rich cannot become rich. Therefore, it is a mistake to believe that the rich are somehow more beneficial to a society than the masses of poor, when arguably both classes have an existential dependence relationship with one another. "Second, you said that the crimes that rich people cause are taking up much more money than the poor people do. Well, if you talk about in essence of money, of course they do. But, do rob, murder, and rape?" I made no such point. My point was that simply rich people kill and steal much more than poor people, because with their additional resources, they can kill and steal on much larger levels. It is a mistake to transpose your stereotype of a poor person and attach that to all lower income people, while ignoring the clear fact that rich people engage in these same activities (although not in the same ways). When it comes to crime, the rich are no better than the poor (in fact, they are much worse). -------------- (1) = http://www.nytimes.com... (2) = http://arrabi.blogspot.com... (3) = http://www.buzzfeed.com... (4) = http://www.rediff.com... --------------