mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
tax house supports progressive tax rate A well-implemented progressive taxation scheme serve to promote economic growth  Progressive taxation can serve very effectively to increase the economic welfare and development of societies. It does so in three ways. First, it lifts the poor out of poverty by redistributing the tax burden from them onto the wealthy who are more able to pay, and gives them more disposable income to put back into the economy, which increases the velocity of money in the system, increasing growth. [1] Second, workers will be more likely to work harder since they will feel the system is more equitable; perceptions of fairness are very important to individuals. People will still work and save since they will want the goods and services they always did in the presence of progressive taxation, and will thus not be less motivated as detractors of progressive systems suggest. Third, progressive taxes serve as an automatic stabilizer in the event of recessions and temporary downturns in the market, in the sense that a loss of wages due to unemployment or wage cuts places an individual in a lower tax bracket, dampening the blow of the initial income loss. The American economy is a perfect example of how progressive taxation promotes broader economic growth; data shows that average yearly growth has been lessened since the 1950s after the reduction in progressively in the tax system. In the 1950s annual growth was 4.1%, while in the 1980s, when progressively in taxes fell dramatically, growth was only 3%. [2] Clearly, a progressive tax regime is best for workers and the economy generally.  [1] Boxx, T. William and Gary Quinlivan. The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham: University Press of America. 1994.  [2] Batra, Ravi. The Great American Deception: What Politicians Won’t Tell You About Our Economy and Your Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.
tax house supports progressive tax rate It is not the state’s role to efficiently distribute economic resources; the market does a much better job of that. When the state seeks to distribute income, there is substantial efficiency loss. This is due to the so-called “leaky bucket” of distribution, as money is lost or wasted through the bureaucratic processes necessary to redistribute income and wealth. Progressive taxation only serves to exacerbate these inefficiencies by breeding more and more complex structures for their implementation.
tax house supports progressive tax rate Progressive taxation promotes a more equal, more harmonious society  Progressive taxation provides real equality of opportunity, and serves to level the playing field so that social classes are not fixed. Everyone deserves a chance to climb the economic ladder, but without a regime of progressive taxation this is nearly impossible. [1] If tax revenues are generated by flat or regressive taxes the poor will necessarily have to contribute substantial portions of their own income to the state, cutting into their ability to consume and save. Social services must still be financed, and the best way to do that is through a progressive tax regime that makes those most able to pay more pay more; if more of the burden is placed on the poor and disadvantaged, as it must in a flat-rate system, fewer people will be able to climb out from the social strata in which they are born. [2] The more equal society created by these taxes is thus more equitable, since it affords people greater opportunities. It is also more harmonious, since well-funded services keep people from feeling desperate and to turn to such things as crime. But greater equality itself can also be beneficial, as it reduces distinctions between groups in society, and prevents stratification into social classes based on wealth. People who are more alike can sympathize and empathize more with one another. Progressive taxation thus promotes a very real and powerful social message that can greatly benefit social cohesion.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Benabou, Roland. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001. Available:
tax house supports progressive tax rate Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society  A progressive taxation system essentially assumes that the property rights of the poor are more sacred than those of the wealthy. Somehow the wealthy have a less proportionate ownership right than do the less well-off simply by dint of their greater wealth. [1] This is the height of injustice. An individual’s income is a measure of his overarching societal worth, by reflecting his ability to produce goods and services people find socially desirable and to signify his level of competence and desirability by his employer. The state should not punish people for this greater social worth by taxing them disproportionally to others. When it does so it expects people to work for the sake of others to an extent that is not fair, effectively consigning them to a kind of forced labor, by which parts of the wealth they work to acquire is appropriated by the state to a degree beyond which it is willing to do to others. [2] Such a regime is manifestly unjust.  [1] Seligman, Edwin. “Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice”. Publications of the American Economic Association 9(1): 7-222. 1894.  [2] Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. 1974.
tax house supports progressive tax rate Income alone is not a sufficient measure of an individual’s contribution to society. Much income, and proportionally more so among wealthy people, is not the product of effort, but rather is unearned. The state is not punishing people for their contributions to society when it taxes them in a progressive manner, but rather simply acknowledges that some people are more able to pay greater amounts, namely the wealthy, and can thus be levied from accordingly.
tax house supports progressive tax rate Those who have more owe more to the state  Wealthier people benefit from the state more than do those who are worse off for two reasons. First, they have more to lose in the absence of the state. Without the rule of law, people would no longer be bound by any power to respect one another’s property rights. A rich person has much more to lose should there be a reversion to the state of nature; nothing would shield him from the mob. For this reason it is in the interest of the wealthy to preserve the just rule of law in the state and to uphold its institutions. It does so by funding it through taxation, and those who have more to lose have a greater interest in paying more to ensure its continuity. The second benefit the rich have is that they have gained more from the state than have the poor and less well off. It is only within a state system that maintains order and provides vital services that markets can form and be maintained. [1] Warren Buffett, for example, has argued that he could never have amassed anywhere near the sort of wealth he has in a country without the rule of law, such as Bangladesh. [2] Wealthy business owners and corporations use state utilities far more than poorer individuals quite often, when for example they use public roads to move their vast fleets of trucks, while individuals only drive their personal car. The state guarantees property rights, which allows markets to form and provides the protections and services to businesses that need them to function. Those who profit from that have an obligation to contribute to its upkeep.  [1] Lakoff, George and Bruce Budner. “Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes”. Institute for America’s Future. 2007. Available:   [2] Terkel, Amanda. “Warren Buffett: ‘I Should Be Paying a Lot More in Taxes’”. Huffington Post. 2010. Available:
tax house supports progressive tax rate Progressive taxation does not improve economic growth. This is because, when the rich are heavily taxed, they have less likely to invest in new enterprises. Higher taxes serve as a disincentive to investment, both domestic and foreign. As to economic growth in the United States, statistics can also be misleading. The high growth of the 1950s was due to the fact that the United States was essentially the only industrial power whose infrastructure was not devastated by World War II. A better data set can be seen between the stagflation of the 1970s with its high taxes, and the relative increase in economic growth that followed with the tax cuts of the 1980s. Soaking the rich only serves to reduce the economic success of a country.
tax house supports progressive tax rate A state with the ability to levy taxes will not necessarily be evil and dominating of the wealthy. People can always leave a country, so governments must always be accommodating of wealthy citizens, and can be so even within a progressive tax system. The tyranny of the majority can only persist when there are no legal protections for individual citizens and minorities, but these exist almost universally in Western states; there is no reason to think this would somehow change in the presence of progressive taxation.
tax house supports progressive tax rate The state should promote the efficient distribution of income in order to maximize the utility derived by society from its economic resources  All goods suffer from diminishing marginal utility, and this includes money. The more money someone, the less happy they are made from each successive addition of wealth after a certain point. One might be able to buy a second car or a second house with extra money, but eventually one runs out of things one particularly wants to buy or own. [1] When wealth is unevenly distributed in society, the wealth of society is inefficiently distributed. The aim of the state must be to attempt to maximize the aggregate utility of its citizens insofar as it is able without damaging the economy. With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process. The state has a right to do this not only because it generates a more efficient distribution of income than the market does, but also because income is partly a collective good. [2] Ownership rights to property and the ability to expand them is only possible within the framework of the state; thus the state can make a moral ownership claim to some of the products of the services it provides, and does so most effectively through the mechanism of progressive taxation.  [1] Thune, Kent. “The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth”. The Financial Philosopher. 2008. Available:   [2] Weisbrod, Burton. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.
tax house supports progressive tax rate A more equal society is not necessarily a more harmonious society, and is certainly not a more just one if it was created through the process of progressive taxation. Social harmony relies on trust between all citizens, rich and poor. Progressive taxes only serve to divide society, as the rich become resentful of the poor and the poor feel more and more entitled to the possessions of the wealthy cash cow. In terms of justice, equality is not an end in itself. Opportunities can be afforded without compromising the rights of citizens by enacting a draconian scheme of leveling.
tax house supports progressive tax rate The state’s sole role in taxation is not merely to provide equality of opportunity, but also to foster social justice through the promotion of greater social equality. This does not mean that there should not be any inequalities between citizens, but rather it means that by limiting income disparities individuals in society have more in common and are thus more able to interact in a peaceful societal framework. Progressive taxes promote this end by reducing the incomes of the very top and using the tax revenues to improve the situation of the worst off, closing the gap between the two groups and fostering broader social interaction and cooperation.
tax house supports progressive tax rate Simply because someone can feasibly pay more does not mean he should be obligated to do so. Everyone’s property rights should be considered equal; the property rights of the wealthy should not be trodden upon by the state while leaving that of the less well-off alone. Fundamentally, any amount of appropriation of what belongs to an individual for the benefit of others is a kind of theft, and if the state is going to tax people, morally it can only do so if it treats everyone equally, which progressive taxation certainly does not do.
tax house supports progressive tax rate Possessing greater wealth does not obligate an individual to contribute more to the state by any moral precept. All people’s property rights should be protected equally. Citizens who succeed by their own industry and accrue wealth should not be punished for their success, or be expected to contribute more to a state that provided the same basic framework of law and rights to all citizens, rich and poor.
disease health general house would allow production generic drugs The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens  The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism.  1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available:
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous The verdict of an individual trial should not be predicated on trials which have already been carried out and concluded. The evidence which is being ‘withheld’ here is in fact irrelevant to the case at hand. While these countries recognise that juries have great value as a representative of the people [1] , it is also important to recognise that people are vulnerable to bias – as shown by the huge increase in convictions when previous offences are disclosed [2] . The benefits of disclosing past convictions is outweighed by the benefits of the jury remaining impartial as far as possible, as this is the best way to reach a fair and just verdict.  [1] Tickner, Joel and Ketelsen, Lee, ‘Democracy and the Precautionary Principle’, The Networker, Vol. 6 No.3, May 2001  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.  Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media.  [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where it is impossible to recruit an impartial jury.  Especially in cases of nationalist conflict or terrorist attacks, it may be extremely difficult to have a non-biased jury. In Northern Island, for example, jurors may sympathize with violent offenders and acquit them despite a preponderance of evidence. Similarly, it can be a struggle to appoint non-biased juries for terrorism trials post 9/11. In 2003, the "Lackwana Six" were accused of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. The magistrate noted that "Understandably, the infamous, dastardly and tragic deeds and events of September 11, 2001 have caused a maelstrom of human emotions to ... create a human reservoir of strong emotional feelings such as fear, anxiety and hatred as well as a feeling of paranoia... These are strong emotions of a negative nature which, if not appropriately checked, cause the ability of one to properly reason to ... be blinded." Questions about jury impartiality have been raised in multiple similar cases, even leading some defendants to claim that they pled guilty out of resignation that the jury would inevitably be biased and refuse to acquit.1 The implication is that in some trials, juries may be unable to make impartial decisions, thus making the trial unfair. The only way for justice to be done, in such cases, is to allow a judge to decide the verdict.  1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Better training for jurors could easily override this problem. If we continue to use juries as an essential part of the justice system, it is important to make sure that they are as well-informed as possible. Ensuring that they are blind to the truth is not a legitimate way to achieve a fair or unbiased verdict; rather, it innately limits the accuracy of any verdict and confines it to only a portion of the truth.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Not only is trial by jury a very important check on the justice system, but evidence also suggests that juries are fair and effective. First of all, as explained in the Opparguments, trial by jury is an extremely important check in the criminal justice system. Eliminating it would be a grave threat to justice. But second, to address the more practical concerns raised by the Proposition, studies actually suggest that juries are fair and effective. Recent UK Ministry of Justice research found that juries tend to be objective and non-biased, and that cases based on the strongest evidence are also those cases resulting in the highest conviction rates.1  1Cheryl Thomas, "Are Juries Fair?"
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.  Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases [1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred [2] ), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias [3] . Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases [4] . Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’ [5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial.  [1] Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011.  [2] New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011.  [3] Howard Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’  [4] Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997.  [5] Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005 .
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.  This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous Defendants who are innocent will be protected  This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front.  [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.
crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.