We should decrease cash handouts.

My opponent thinks that cash handouts should be decreased. For this debate I will consider 'cash handouts' comprise of at least two things. One that cash or other equivalent to monetary payment is given to individuals or groups. And two that it is a 'handout', in other words given without contract or obligation such as a contractually arranged bonus, dividend or payment for goods and services. Cash handouts are a useful tool for alleviating poverty, and providing substance to people who need it the most. A tool that is needed more than ever in the last few years as rising income inequality worldwide has made the poor poorer and the rich richer (1). In the world one quarter of all people subsist on just 1% of world income (1). The problem is not getting better. The income inequality problem is not indigenous to people within nations either. The 'gini coefficient between nations' which measures the disparity of income between different counties has grown over the last 60 years from ~.44 to ~.55 (2). And even in those rich nations that would supposedly be beneficiaries, the gini coefficient among the inhabitants has been worsening even faster. Globally in 1980 the richest 1% shared about 10% of world income. More recently they share almost 20% of world income. (3) All these facts show that the idea of giving to the poor or middle class cash handouts is not an idea that threatens the security or erasure of social class' who can afford to pay. But can nations afford to pay for the current or increasing cash handouts? Yes they can. The OECD comprises of 20 nations, the majority of which are among the richest nations on the planet. The average corporate tax rate for OECD nations has decreased from ~50% in 1980 to ~33% in 2011 (4) . Which underlines the real reason for increases in deficits, not a 'spiraling out of control' welfare system which is, taken on the whole, a myth. And we see the effects of this lax tax policy directly in the gini coefficient inequality growing. In addition cash handouts given to the poor and middle class are the most likely to be spent in the economy quickly directly benefiting corporations to a degree. So far I have touched on cash handouts for the poor and middle class but not organizations or for the rich. Corporate cash handouts are a valuable tool of nations to subsidize industries that have potential for providing long term competitive advantages and kick starting new technologies as well as ensuring domestic protection of vital industries. Handouts to organizations who also aim to good globally serve as tools for nations to leverage and influence third parties or other nations to serve their agenda without resorting to war or deadly and destructive conflict. Cash handouts to such industries or organizations as solar and alternative power, universities, the world health organization and farmers, benefit all of humanity globally. The safety and promotion of ample food supplies through farming handouts in combination with food stamps or cash payments to the poor for food is a tool to make sure no person should starve if they are adequately provided for. Subsidizing industry produces technology that is not yet economically profitable to be developed and deployed faster. And programs and charities that aim for population control in areas dangerously fast population increases ensures that we will not face a global crisis or global holocaust in the future. If there is a question about the wrong type of people or organizations receiving too generous cash handouts for the wrong reasons. It is not an effective argument that cash handouts should be reduced on the whole. It is only an argument that they should be redirected or planned more effectually. In addition the continually increasing global GDP (5) and future projections of rising GDP (6) give rise to the argument that there is no need to decrease cash handouts in the face on increasing production and an increasing population who may also need increased cash handouts. (1) http://www.unicef.org... (2) "The Two Faces of Globalization: Against Globalization as we know it," World Development 31(4); 667-683, p. 675, figure 3. Elsevier. (3) http://www.americanprogress.org... (4) http://www.treasury.gov... 'Figure 1' (5) http://www.indexmundi.com... (6) http://www.imf.org...