Should everyone get a universal basic income?

This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.

Universal Basic Income

I accept

Universal Basic Income

Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.

Universal Basic Income

I accept. Where is that debate?

The US ought to provide an universal basic income.

Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.

Universal Basic Income

My opponent has forfeited.

Universal Basic Income

Yo accepto el debate

Universal Basic Income

Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Universal Basic Income is a good thing

Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).

That UBI should be implemented in the western world

UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.

A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Universal Basic Income

I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach "climax" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a "bad thing" for the moment.

Universal Basic Income is a good thing

u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar

Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says "And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled "Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket." And in this article they explain what negative income tax is "The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate"which is to say, the IRS would pay them." Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty." The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. "Automation Is Killing These Jobs." Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. "1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future." CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. "The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income." FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. "Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. "Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny." Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. ""Universal Basic Income" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket." Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.

Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.

All people should receive the same income

Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.

Universal Basic Income

Universal Basic Income

So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? "Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these "welfare bums" actually reenter the job market. ---"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. "Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. "The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. " [4]----"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.

Universal Basic Income is a good thing

Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;

Universal Basic Income

Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.

Basic income tax should be abolished

IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...

Universal Basic Income

Abolishing income tax empowers families

Basic income tax should be abolished

Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The "public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state " and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into "real freedom" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals" "power to say no", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, "This unpaid work is valuable and"UBI is recognition of that." Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. "There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers"" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.

Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.

Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life.

Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service

Basic income tax should be abolished

IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Universal Basic Income

Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society

Basic income tax should be abolished

Abolishing Income Tax will grow the economy

Basic income tax should be abolished

I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more "buIIshit jobs" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the "negative incentives" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These "negative incentives" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered "below" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...

Universal Basic Income

Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a "one size fits all" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !

As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal "Workfare" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of "roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- "The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries "overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...

Universal Basic Income

There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000—unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working—and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year—something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally—above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted—and that’s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it—the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what—if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person’s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime—the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit—you always get the benefit—so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out—the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI “would substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.”2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...

Universal Basic Income

I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I"m the first to admit that this isn"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of "buIIshit jobs." [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank "Compass" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the "poverty rate" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives "discouraging impoverished Americans from working" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their "marginal tax rates" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...

Universal Basic Income

Thanks, Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they’re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn’t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I’m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn’t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con’s assumption that “each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified”, there’s no reason to believe that a UBI *won’t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con’s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn’t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, “instability” isn’t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would “amplify” the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven’t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a “model” in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con’s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that “Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.” [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con’s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don’t need welfare programs. But he concedes that “there is definitely an argument to be made” in raising that cap. That’s exactly the argument I’m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can’t be good for him; I don’t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn’t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn’t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...

Universal Basic Income

I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.

Ok sure

Every job should have the same wage.

Well that's great. The problem with your argument is it is impossible to everybody to be equal. Every single person is born different, Into different cultures, Families, And wealth classes. In a capital country like the United States, There will always be inequality. There is always going to be a permanent upper and lower class. But let's look a few years into the future, When the US will likely be a mostly socialist country. Kind of like these. China Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Sweden Norway Ireland New Zealand Belgium Don't make me get into the fact that nearly every socialist country ever created leads to communism. Aside that, Our current governments aren't fit for equality, And when we do have equality, Lazy people will try to break the system. Now I have a request. Tell me one way people are not already equal, And why they should be.

everyone should be equal

FF and failure to provide additional arguments/rebuttals~~Vote CON.

Reduces the price of goods

Basic income tax should be abolished

Income Tax is a cause of inequity in society

Basic income tax should be abolished

Indirect tax, such as VAT or sales tax, is fairer

Basic income tax should be abolished

Take money out of Politics

Basic income tax should be abolished

Let's start things off with the basic factor that I should get out of the way, I don't disagree with the idea that individuals should be receiving equal treatment, Along with equal opportunities, But what I do disagree with is that every individual, No matter the background, Should be equal to everyone else. In theory, Many would like to assume that this idea is pushing towards the pinnacle achievement of supporting minorities and the ones in peril as many people in the world don't have the fortunes that some have acquired through the means of family benefit or heritage. It's important to implement the necessary means in helping these people but to allow some individual groups to acquire certain benefits that are easily abusable to certain people I think is dangerous and should be taken down without much hesitation. Since this is the start I would like my views a bit broad since I do not wish to reveal my strong arguments yet, Along with the reason of allowing open opportunities for plausible arguments. Thank you. The floor may go to the Opposition.

Laws supporting certain individual groups shouldn't be implemented permanently.

Ive only done one debate before, but I'll do it!

The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all.

NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate

Since my opponent has fore-fitted this round I will take this opportunity to voice my opinions on the topic without sources. I feel the first 2 sources were compelling enough in my opening statement. I feel that there is a bias of social class when it comes to health care to begin with. The low income jobs that actually offer benefits are very few and far between. That being said when benefits are offered to low income individuals the premiums(in my experience) take roughly 1/10 of income for decent coverage. Along with the minimum wage guidelines it would be near impossible to maintain a steady household with insurance and other necessities. Basically I'm saying that if you have a high income job you probably have great coverage on insurance. Therefore never having to worry about if you get hurt. If you were to become ill without insurance you pay an astronomical bill. It's a system of maintaining the social classes with minimal opportunity for advancement.

The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.

Debate accepted. Now, as Pro has left his opening argument rather short I will likewise do the same with mine (assuming that this round is *not* for acceptance, as Pro hasn't specified the terms.) -->>ArgumentOne major reason why everyone should not receive equal pay is because of the *very* prevalent difference(s) in what people's jobs actually are~~and the amount of experience and educational credit that they require. For example, to become a doctor in most countries, you have to complete at least seven years of studying and an additional three years is often required. However, taking the example of someone who may want to become a beauty therapist~~it will take no longer than two years for them to become fully qualified, and if they exclusively want to work as a manicurist, that can take as little as six months, and no university education is required. A doctor, however, will have a hugely significant sum for their degree(s) and training, and can have debts up to 60,000 in places such as the U.K. once they've completed their education and become qualified. [1.] http://www.theguardian.com...Moreover, they are providing a *vital* service to people. Those in other job sectors (such as the example of a beautician) are technically not. They may be providing a desirable service, but it is not one of demand and necessity. To use Pros example, obviously a doctor should not receive the same as plumber as again, the plumber has not had to attend university for several to ten years and spend such vast sums of money. In addition, they certainly do not have to retain the same kind of information as a doctor. In fact, the two jobs are entirely different. This brings one to main point which is that people should be paid according to skill/education and based on what the job IS. I would agree with Pro in that there is inequality relating to pay and that those in certain jobs should receive more, however, it's senseless to presume that everyone regardless of what the work is should receive exactly the same. For Pro to make a case, he/she will have to answer these following questions: -How would this fixed sum be defined? -Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or a lawyer? -Wouldn't this actually be damaging to the economy in the long-term? Possibly Pro could argue that more people would be inclined to work (but this is assuming the sum is reasonable/decent.), would it not be detrimental if so much was being spent on equal pay for each working individual? -Would this not create a more financially destitute society? I.E~~most governments would not be prepared to give everyone large equal pay, and if so: they would make it a small sum, so wouldn't those who become doctors, politicians, etc. not be able to pay for their university fees? Exactly how would they pay off their debts? Technically, both #3 and #4 (the questions) would ultimately damage the economy and society. But I will leave it to Pro to provide an answer for each one.

Ignore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a "relative income effect" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), "How We Solve Climate Change", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), "Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, "An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work," Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) "Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change " http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) "Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview" http://www.bostonfed.org...

Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...

Universal Basic Income

Universal health care should be open to all citizens. The United States has made health care for many residents unaffordable; even through businesses. People who are sick are not focused on getting better anymore, they are focused on whether or not they can pay for treatment. Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they will receive payment for this treatment. Knowing that many other areas in the world have universal health care shows it's not impossible for the United States to inquire; the transition may be a tough one as well as a shock to many, but it is definitely something the United States can do.

Yes Reasons

Basic income tax should be abolished

I think you need to better explain what you are trying to say. . Living equality? Economic equality? The list could go on.

everyone should be equal

Well, if they care about their health then they would pay for their healthcare. and Can the United States afford to? Universal health care is what is called an entitlement, like Social Security or Medicare. If we have the government start providing our health care be prepared for long waits for treatments and tests as well as the possibility of being denied treatment on the basis of economic feasibility by a government bureaucrat.

should the us government gurantee health insurance for all residents

Disincentives to spend spell economic disaster

Basic income tax should be abolished

Indirect taxes allow us to modify public behaviour

Basic income tax should be abolished

Indirect taxes are unenforceable

Basic income tax should be abolished

are you playing?http://www.youtube.com...;

The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income.

Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?

Universal healthcare

Absolute equality is rather unrealistic but as a practical matter, It is important to relieve poverty and eastablish an equitable standard of living, Maybe not socialism but a heavily regualted version of capitalism like northern europe

everyone should be equal

-->>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.

I accept.

Everyone should be treated equally.

over NINETY percent of Americans think we should EXPAND Universal Background Checks on ALL Gun Purchases, if you disagree with that, you're in a TINY minority. WE have MORE of a RIGHT to LIVE and NOT be SHOT than YOU have to have your "precious gun"!!!!!

Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

Income Tax encourages illegal behaviour

Basic income tax should be abolished

I think i made my point by equal i mean equalish

everyone should be equal

VAT is an empowering tax

Basic income tax should be abolished

so someone who continues to use guns to kill and do violence should get access to a gun? where do you draw the line if any? shouldn't a line be drawn? they've killed and abused the right before. it's like exceptions to the first amendment that are well estabslihed, there can be some reasonable exceptions to the right to bear arms. so con insists that one hunred percent of people who are denied a gun will go out and get one? that is quite a claim. it's an all or nothing argument, which at least usually are known to be fallicious. can you clearly state that for the record?

there should be universal background checks on gun sales

The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.

IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Universal Basic Income

I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.

Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

Indirect taxes can be used to motivate change

Basic income tax should be abolished

(Okay, I guess then I'll start. Sorry if I don't post fast enough, because I won't be on 24/7. This is also my first debate, so tell me if I did anything wrong.) I think that all people should be equal. I think that Communism is good, because everyone gets equal amount of pay, no matter what job they have. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If you say, "but then that isn't fair, because for example, doctors get the same amount as a fast food cashier" I think that if you like the job that you have, then why should it matter? Capitalism today feels like a race to see who can get the most money, and I think that's sad, don't you agree? I also think that with Capitalists judge each other from what job or how much money they have, while with Communism you really can't judge with how much money you make. I also feel that with Communism there will be less people in poverty. (I'll end it there. Your turn.)

Communism

There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.

It would be much simpler and fairer

Income taxes are progressive

Basic income tax should be abolished

con is being far fetched and radicalradical cause he puts the far fetched scenario of government take over over the present actual reality of gun violence.far fetched. he suggests that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun will go get one when they might commit a crime. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get like knives,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...;http://www.motherjones.com...;

universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

I. Intro Thank you Varrack for the rebuttal. I"d also like to apologize for my constructive having issues with use of apostrophes. I"m not sure why it"s replacing apostrophes with quotation marks. I"ve encountered this issue on mobile but never on my laptop, so I"m not sure how to fix it. Hopefully it won"t continue this round. Regardless, I apologize to Varrack and the readers, since it likely causes at least some minor irritation. II. Re: Economic/Societal Impacts As briefly mentioned in my constructive, the examples used in Pro"s case are not indicative of what would occur in the United States, due to the differences between the US and each of the countries. These nations are significantly poorer than the United States. According to the CIA Factbook, the United States poverty rate is 15.1%. The nearest of the three countries Varrack mentioned was Uganda, at 19.7%. [7] This means that each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified. They are all significantly more corrupt than the United States, based on Transparency International"s research. The United States is 16th in the world with a score of 75. Namibia is 53rd with a score of 51, India is 81st with a score of 40, Kenya is ranked 143 with 28 points, and Uganda is 151st with a score of 26. [8] They are also all in more unstable regions and have less developed economies. They"re still developing. Best case scenario, it"s as if you"re looking through a kaleidoscope at the effects of UBI. Worst case scenario, they aren"t comparable at all. These countries also have very limited trials. We"d have a very difficult time applying the micro tests to a country that is very different, be it in poverty rates (and what the poverty level actually is), corruption, economic development levels, or national sovereignty and security. Prefer my tests from the UK, which is much more similar to the US on every count. III. Re: Failure of Welfare Programs Cross-apply Section V. of my case. Though means-based welfare programs have "negative incentives" for earnings, they are at a much lower rate than the rates for individuals who are making more money. I discussed in my case how individuals who make below half the poverty rate (approximately $6,000) have a marginal tax rate of 14%. Individuals who make 50%-100% of the poverty rate (roughly $6,000-$12,000) have a marginal tax rate of 24%. People who make more than that faced a rate of 34%. This means that people that receive means-tested welfare are actually facing far fewer "negative incentives" than those who are making, say, $70,000 a year. To say that they are decentivized due to these marginal tax rates is ludicrous, else we would see the same issues at higher rates among those with greater incomes. We simply do not. Furthermore, an asset cap isn"t necessarily an issue. If there is no asset cap, we face the issue posed in my case: individuals who don"t need aid will receive it anyway, wasting funds. Again, a person who makes a comfortable wage may find an extra $10,000 nice, it is far from necessary. Even an individual making $30,000 (assuming no dependents) may be fine without an extra $10,000. If Pro wants to argue for a higher asset cap, there is definitely an argument to be made. However, an asset cap is not a bad idea, as it avoids allocation of resources to those who do not need it. Finally, as stated in case, the issue with considering the "poverty rate" in the United States is that it doesn"t account for in-kind reception of welfare. As an incredibly simplified example, let"s assume I make $11,000 per year and the poverty line is at $12,000. If I receive $1,001 worth of food stamps, my income is effectively $12,001 per year, above the poverty line, but I would still be counted as below the poverty line. Measuring the effectiveness of the current welfare programs by analyzing the poverty rate is absolutely pointless, because most of the welfare programs aren"t accounted for in the measure of the poverty rate. IV. Conclusion UBI is a pipe dream in the United States. Without first eradicating capitalism, it will do nothing but drive down wages and act a subsidiary to businesses. There have been no tests of UBI that can be applied to the United States which point toward a success. Each of the studies offers a myriad of issues that separate it from America. Meanwhile, the current welfare system is working, contrary to what analysis of the incomplete poverty rate would indicate. It is putting Americans well above their European counterparts. UBI is neither plausible, needed, or likely to be effective. V. Sources [7] https://www.cia.gov... [8] https://www.transparency.org...

Universal Basic Income

Every job should have the same wage. Whether you are a doctor or a rubbish collector, all jobs need doing, so why are some paid more that others. Who works harder, the rich lawyer, or the humble, hard working rubbish man that is up every allocated morning to do the dirty work for you. Just think what would happen if for one year, one rubbish truck didn't work and one lawyer didn't work. What would have more of an impact on our society.

Every job should have the same wage.

My stance on this is that all people are born equal considering we were all made the same way, we came came to the world in generally the same way, we have initially the same genetic make-up, we all live on the same planet, and we all are human beings, and therefore we are all equal.

Everyone deserves equal rights

MOST Americans believe that SINCE we have to REGISTER our CARS, gun owners SHOULD have to REGISTER their guns. SINCE we have to acquire car INSURANCE, gun owners SHOULD have to acquire GUN insurance, SINCE we have to pass a WRITTEN and a PHYSICAL test to be ALLOWED to drive, gun owners SHOULD HAVE to go through (and PASS) a Written and Physical TEST to be ALLOWED to get a Gun LICENSE (which you should Also HAVE to get)

Mr 12jPerry, I disagree with you that people under the age of 18 should not be taxed. But I see that you disagree about having Flat.Fair. Tax. I believe that is the best way to improve our economy, middle class, the poor and etc. Paying income tax I believe should not be used. People work hard to earn their money and we take a huge chunk of what they make? Our Government should not be able to take money from our income period. They should have just a flat tax and sales tax is ok. Then taxing under the age of 18. I think it depends. Kids are maturing real fast and that they are working harder for a lot of money as well. I think that if you have a job then you should pay taxes. You are a working person now and you should pay the flat tax, not the income tax..as I stated income tax should be abolished. To close my opening argument, I believe that having income tax is wrong. We should have a flat tax, and teens who have a job should be taxed.

Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.

When someone becomes ill whether it be with the flu or a disease and doctors or hospitals turn them away because they can't pay, wouldn't that be stealing someone's life? For someone who worked their entire life and can finally retire and, yet can't pay for medical coverage then has to get another job in case they get sick what type of country is that we live in? Your attacking the fact that they are only taking money from the rich to provide for the poor, they take from every class; upper class, middle class, and yes in fact the lower class contributes as well. When all is said and done we can look at the countries now that have universal health care, none of them have went bottom up and the "upper class" has never complained they were taxed more heavily. Also when looking at it when everyone is covered it would be cheaper then the health care system we have now. Universal health care is the belief that all citizens have access to affordable high-care medical service; i.e. smokers etc.

ok

USA should have universal background checks

It gave me a chance to look up some interesting information. I hope I had intrigued some interest somewhere along the way. Thank you.

I will lay out parameters for acceptance into tuition free colleges, because giving 1.5 GPA students access to colleges will not give us any advantages.

A sales tax is regressive

Basic income tax should be abolished

You sick bastard...

Everyone should be treated equally.

Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation. "How would this fixed sum be defined?' 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. " Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?" 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. 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. 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.

con acts as if taking away gun rights can't be part of the punishment. sometimes, someone might be bad enough to not get gun rights, but not so bad they should spend the rest of their life in jail. it's not an either or situation. then of course there are those who are too mentally unstable to get guns. we should have checks just for those people, at the least. you can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death. the simple act of having a gun causes some people to be more likely to commit a crime. if they didn't have the gun to begin with, they wouldn't commit the crime. or, do you unequivically deny that that would be the case? again either the all or nothing stuff if you disagree.

His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...

Universal Basic Income

Scrapping all existing income tax and replacing them with a single "flat tax" is a very simple idea. But does it work? Anyone willing to participate will be taking the for side of this debate. I will let you make the first point.

We should introduce a flat tax.

Everyone: (pronoun) Every personTreat: (verb) Behave toward or deal with in a certain wayEqually: (adverb) 1- In the same manner. 2- To the same extent or degreeI completely disagree that everyone should be treated equally. To be treated equally strips a person of their individuality and personal achievements. Certain individuals deserve to be recognized above others and also deserve to have their achievements awarded. If everyone were treated equally then the rapist would be just as worthy of glory as the couple who is trying to fight world hunger, and the chef who spends his free time cooking for the homeless is no better than the murderer killing children in their own beds. Equality is not as nice as it sounds. Equality doesn't guarantee that everyone is treated in a proper manner. Equality is a guarantee that everyone is treated in the same manner, whether it is good or bad. In order to have a society in which people agree that they are being treated fairly and properly there needs to be diversity in how these people are treated, which is to be in direct reflection to the actions of the individual. This is where the concept of Communism goes awry. If the lazy farmer gets paid just as much as the hard-working farmer, then why should the hard-working farmer put forth so much effort if it is not to be rewarded? When an individuals achievements are not recognized, then the individual stops trying to achieve. Eventually, these individuals produce the collective bare-minimum, and the total quality of life goes down. Basically, total equality puts the entire strength of the rope at the weakest thread. Those that are stronger are not allowed to compensate because the weak thread cannot hold up to the same expectations. Equality isn't as good as it may seem to be.

Everyone should be treated equally.

You may do whatever you want, but if you look in the comments you will see why.

Everyone should be treated equally.

con is arguing unheard of points about governmet involvement with guns, here is is talking about if the government has the power to decide who can have a gun then they have a power to take it away from those with rights. the problem is con is trying to make gun rights absolute, and there are very few aboslute rights. all amendments to teh constitution even have exceptions. so con contineus to take far fetched scenarios more seriously than the current reality of gun violence that is out of control. con doesn't respond to the idea that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.

I accept!

Guaranteed Minimum Income

Health care is a right for all Americans, the Preamble of the US Constitution states that one of its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to a public education to help them in their future careers, they should have the right to health care because that promotes a healthier life. The United States is one of the few, developed nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Also by providing all citizens the right to health care it will stimulate growth for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, they can then add to society for a longer time. The wait time would not be an issue if we had universal health care, once we start it everyone will be healthier because they have coverage so down the road fewer people will need to be waiting because they will be healthier from the start.

The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens

Universal healthcare

con mostly focuses on the politically unrealistic nature of universal checks. but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. that is the whole point of the resolution, that it should be done, not that i can be realistically done. to add checks to the measures, sales from family friends or the street should be done with a check, or the sale is illegal. even con admits some checks could feasibly be accomplished that aren't already done. given those, and given the checks that should be done even if they can't feasibly be, checks would accomplish SoME people to not buy guns. it might not deter everyone, but some is enough. not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. and thus, some increased checks will result in some reduced gun violence.

I apologize if I am a bit informal in my debate.. :) In all reality, backround checks will not save millions, thousands, or even hundreds of lives. I honestly doubt it will save any. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he will get a gun. Pure and simple. I have never heard of any criminal dumb enough to try to purchase a firearm legally, knowing his name will be run through a database. And say he were dumb enough to attempt to purchase a firearm legally. He would simply be turned away. This will not deter said criminal. There are easier and cheaper ways of buying a gun, whether you are a criminal or not. The only people that will submit themselves to backround checks are law-abiding citizens, so this 'solution' doesnt solve any problems. Backround info could be made public. And it would not be 'rare' for it to happen. Any database is susceptible to being hacked. Lets take this scenario to a very realistic conclusion: The US enforces backround checks, and builds a database, which includes everyone who owns a gun and what gun they own. If that database were to be hacked (and it would be) that information would be extremely useful for criminals interested in burglary. Said criminals would feel very confident breaking into houses that they know arent armed. I dont see a benefit in having a database on gun owners. There is no pro, but there are many cons.

the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales

Not a problem at all. We all understand when stuff like that comes up.

The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare

I can do WHATEVER I WANT, it's called AMERICA, and the FIRST AMENDMEND, which is WAY more important than you GUN obsession! Long story short, EVERY country in the world that has STRONG gun control measure has WAY less gun injuries and deaths!

I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, "ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. " By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum "amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. " [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. "In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. " [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. "Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. " [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. "Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. " [8] "Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. " [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. "Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. " Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...

Universal Basic Income