THW not tax the poor

PROPOSITION

Poverty is an urgent problem even though most people don’t feel it. While some people celebrate the invention of advanced technology and scientific breakthrough, others struggle everyday due to food shortage and extremely low standard of living. We believe that such extreme poverty infringes the basic rights of human. Therefore, eradication of poverty should be one of the priority of government. We believe the ideal society is where social safety net such basic welfare is free of charge to people in dire need.

The problem of the status quo is that the society often expect equal, or even more tax burdens on the poor. Considering such context of problem in our society, we on side proposition believe that not taxing the poor is not only justifiable in principle, but it also brings tangible benefits to our society.

--

Before I present our teams our team’s constructive arguments, allow me to explain how we want to do this.

First, poor in this debate means; people falling under “no income to lowest 10% income bracket”. We don’t necessarily want to debate to about the percentage or numerical values, but rather focus on the principles of this debate. If there is a group of people who simply cannot maintain a proper life without the support of the government, should we exempt tax duties or not. Our response is a definite YES.

Second, along with the current welfare benefits we provide to the poor, we will exempt all tax including consumption tax such as VATs and utility tax such as water and electricity bill.

Lastly, we will progressively charge them tax when their economic status improves above the lowest 10% of the society.

--

Throughout this debate, our team will prove the Principle Justification to support the motion, as well as the Tangible Benefits. As the first speaker, I will provide two constructive arguments on the justification and the second speaker will provide the tangible argumentation.

--

The first argument I will be presenting is Why taxing the poor is wrong in principle.

I have two levels of analysis to prove that taxing the poor is wrong in principle.

First, we believe the government do not have any justification to impose tax burdens on the poor. Why? In the perspective of the poor, the government have failed to fulfil its basic role as a government. The very fact that the poor struggle to maintain their basic right to survive in a society indicates that government’s role to ensure happiness to all citizens have failed. When the government failed to fulfill its basic duty, we do not think that they can demand the poor to be burdened as others.

Secondly, we believe that expecting the poor to pay tax is contradictory to its purpose. The most important purpose of welfare system is to provide the citizens the things they need.  Disables receive medical welfare and children receive education under this premise.

The type of welfare we give to the extremely poor people is often financial aids. This means that when a government gives financial welfare to the poor, the government is agreeing to the fact that poor people need “money”. In this case, the government demanding money from the poor in a form of taxation is clearly contradicting the principle of welfare. The government would be simply taking away the most needed resources from the poor.

The conclusion we can draw from these analysis is that taxing the poor is wrong in principle.

--

The second argument from the proposition is Why consumption and utility tax in particular is problematic.

Ladies and gentlemen, the underlying premise of a tax system, is that citizens need to pay back to the government for the provided services. If we apply this notion to consumption tax, this means that when citizens buy a product, they need to thank the government and pay money since government made it possible for citizens to buy that product.

Why do we think this is problematic in the perspective of the poor people? This is because, under the current system of consumption tax, the poor people spend most of their budget on “basic necessities”. When we mean “basic necessities”, we are talking about products that are absolutely necessary for survival such as food. As a matter of fact, according to United States Department of Agriculture, the poorest group of people spend 34% purely on food to survive.

We strongly believe that it would be inhumane for any government to claim monetary reward from citizens over something that is crucial for a humans’ life. This is why we provide food and safety to prisoners even though they do not pay tax. Same logic should be applied to the poor people.

The conclusion of this argument is that consumption tax on the poor wrong since the government is expecting money for what the poor rightfully deserves as a human being.

--

Ladies and gentlemen, taxing the poor lacks principle justification in every aspect. If we really consider the poor people as a member of our society, we should support the given motion. Thank you.

---



(Deputy Prime Minister)

Ladies and gentlemen, most people would agree on the need to help the people suffering from poverty. The question in this debate is whether the given motion is the way to help the poor. Our team’s first speaker already made it very clear that there are enough principle reasons to not tax the poor. As the second speaker, I will continue to prove why there are tangible benefits of not taxing the poor. But before I move on to the last argument, allow me to rebut to the opposition’s case. I have # rebuttals to make.

[Rebuttals / Clarifications until 3:30 ~ 4:00]

--

With that, let’s move on to our teams last argument about How not collecting the tax from poor help them climb up the social ladder.

I will explain this argument with three level of analysis.

Firstly, we need understand that the tax on goods is not proportionately charged based on citizen’s wealth. The VAT or sales tax is around 10% flat tax in case of Korea. The problem is, such disproportionate sales tax tends to punish the poor, because they are relatively more burdened with tax. For example, if you earn 5 million won a month, 10% tax on pork may be cheap. But if you only earn 1 million won a month, 10% tax on pork makes you feel comparatively expensive. As our first speaker have already explained, poorest group in United States spend 34% of their budget purely on food.

Secondly, why do we believe such disproportionate tax is bad? This is because it lowers the quality of life of poor. Since consumption tax is heavily imposed on basic products for everyday life, the poor would have to reduce the quality and quantity of goods in general. This explains why the poor often buy high calorie, low quality can-goods and junk food instead of fresh vegetable and red meat. In addition, they minimize the usage of utility even if that means sleeping in a freezing house. When government imposes flat tax on poor, it tightens the already limited budgets. Consequentially, it directly limits the choices they have and lower the quality of life.

Thirdly, what would happen if we exempt tax for the poor? The exemption of tax will increase purchasing power of poor since they are not burdened with tax on daily necessities. We think not collecting tax from the poor spare more money for them. Then the poor will be able to buy more necessities with the same amount of money they have. More importantly, this will give more choices to poor and further allow them to seek for healthier options for them.

We believe this especially help the children growing in poor environment because if their family do not have a tax burden, it will allow the children to have better quality of food and more money on their hands to finish high school education.

Ladies & Gentlemen, to ordinary citizens, paying tax is an investment, yet to poor it is a liability. We think this not only monetarily over burden them, but also constantly exposing them to poverty and the sense of shortage makes them feel insecure and shameful. We think it is unhealthy to let poor feel limited in every purchase and make them feel like the activity of consumption itself is a luxury.

The opposition may argue it is unfair and wrong to not tax certain members in our society. We would like to question whether these individuals were given equal opportunity to function properly from the birth. We believe many of them were not given equal chance. Since everyone’s ability and chances are different, we think government has to put effort on minimizing inequality. Hence, dumping greater burden on people who are most unfairly positioned is unfair and immoral. We are proud to propose.

---

OPPOSITION

Ladies and gentlemen, we recognize that the poor are suffering from poverty in the status quo. We also recognize the fact that it is government’s burden help the people out of poverty. However, this debate is not simply about whether we should help the poor or not. Rather it should be focused on “HOW” we should help them.

On side opposition, we don’t think “exemption” of taxes solve the fundamental problem. Furthermore, we believe the suggested motion actually marginalizes the poor from society by weakening their legitimacy of political participation. We think the better approach to the problem is to collect lower taxes and expanding welfare benefits.

Throughout this debate, we will prove to you why not paying tax is fundamentally unjust and how it harms the poor.

--

We have total three constructive arguments to oppose the motion. First, we will prove why not paying tax is wrong in principle. Second, we will argue that no tax from the poor gives legitimacy to others on allocating less to the poor. The second speaker will elaborate why this is simply not effective.

But before I move onto my arguments, I have several rebuttals to the previous speaker.

(Rebuttals / Clarifications to the proposition team. Try not to go over 3:00)

Now, let’s move onto our argument:

The first argument we want to present is: Why not paying tax is wrong in principle.

I have two levels of analysis to prove this argument.

First, we believe that the duty of citizens to pay tax should be applied to all citizens regardless of their economic status. What should be different is how much tax they should pay. Why? Because ultimately, benefits of governmental welfare will be provided to all citizens regardless of their economic status. For example, tax revenue is invested on creating healthcare system, social infrastructure, vocational training, national security and so on. These are benefits that all citizens may enjoy. As long as a citizen enjoy some welfare - such as walking on the street, taking a public transportation, attending public school and engaging in any economic activity - he or she is obligated to pay some tax. Zero tax is only justifiable when the citizen can clearly prove that there is absolutely no benefit that person. For example, a foreigner living in a distant nation is not obligated to pay tax since he or she has zero welfare benefit from Korean government.

Secondly, what kind of benefits are provided to the poor in the status quo? The poor are actually one of the most beneficiaries of the tax budgets. Even though it is provided to everyone, the poor benefit the most from public welfare such as public school, hospital and transportation. In addition to that, government give them tax cuts and direct financial assistance base on their family structure and living standard. Since the poor are most benefitting from the tax revenue, we believe the poor should be obligated to pay at least a very small amount of money back to contribute to the society.  

The conclusion we can draw here is that zero tax on the poor is simply wrong in principle

--

Being said that, let’s move onto our second argument.

My second argument is about: Why it gives legitimacy to others on allocating less to the poor.

I will explain this argument in several levels.

Firstly, according to the Social contract theory, government promise to provide citizen with social welfare, and in exchange, citizen fulfil certain duties such as abiding by law and respecting each other. We believe paying tax is an extension of agreeing to common social agreement. If the poor are exempted from paying tax, the poor will lose the legitimacy to participate in politics on how to allocate budgets or how to run the country. This is because citizens will have more excuse to ignore the need of the poor, since the poor are not imposed with same principle burden as a citizen. According to the proposition team’s characterization of the poor people, they are heavily reliant on the government’s assistance. In this context, If the poor do not get enough attention in budget allocation and welfare systems, obviously they will struggle more.

Secondly, if government does not collect tax from poor, the private investment on poor, such as charities, will shrink inevitably. That is because the poor have not enough justification on demanding more tax allocation as our first speaker have already mentioned. Furthermore, despite the reality, others will believe that the poor have enough money since they get discounts on everything. This leads to the citizens empathizing the poor less, and this results in less support to the poor.

 

(IF YOU HAVE TIME. You probably won’t have enough time for this analysis unless you have no rebuttals to your opponent)

Especially in the time of economic crisis and national crisis, it is inevitable that people who have been paying tax and covering the needs of poor will feel greater burden. Then this could create greater social segregation. At worst, people could resent the poor for being helpless and they would attempt to reduce the budgets on poor by all means. In case where the poor people pay some amount of tax through things like consumption tax, it can provide minimal level of justification for the poor to claim for welfare.

The conclusion we can draw here is that not taxing the poor actually harms the poor. Therefore, we are proud to oppose the given motion. Thank you.

---

(Deputy Leader of Opposition)-

Ladies and gentlemen, the stance of team opposition is clear. We are more than happy to eradicate poverty by assisting the poor with appropriate welfare. The problem with the entire proposition case is that they failed to prove why “zero” tax is justifiable and why it is beneficial to the poor.

As the second speaker of the opposition, I’m going to continue to prove why we should oppose to “zero” tax. But before I move on, let me rebut to the proposition team’s materials.

--

Now let’s move onto our last argument about: Why not taxing the poor lacks effectiveness.

First, the impact of not taxing the poor is insignificant. Considering that the poor are already receiving a lot of tax benefits, in other words they barely pay income tax, the greatest change that the poor can enjoy is not paying consumption tax, a tax charged on goods and services. In Korea, the VAT or consumption tax is 10%. For example, if you order a meal which cost 5000 won, you will be charged with 500 won whether you know it or not. It may sound huge, however, considering that the poor usually purchase the cheapest product in every commodity, the absolute amount of additional 10% charge is very small. Therefore, the poor would not enjoy so much monetary benefit from this policy.

Secondly, EVEN IF it is a significant amount of money, zero tax from the poor rather impose unexpected burdens to the poor. Why? Since the poor have been receiving discounts on everything, when they improve their economic status and start to pay taxes, they will suddenly feel greater burdens on their expenses.

Let’s give it an example with a person A. This person has been paying zero tax since the person earns very small amount of money. After a while, when this person starts to earn more than the bottom 10% of the society, this person will start to pay all kinds of tax. Especially when this person makes a purchase, he or she will suddenly face 10% inflation in every product and activity since consumption taxes are based on flat rate. Thus this will impose an unexpected burden on this person, making it difficult for this person to effectively be adapted to the system of taxation.

These two analysis indicates that in all case scenario, not taxing the poor would not be effective in achieving the goal of the proposition team to reduce burden on the poor.

--

To conclude, our team believe there is no justification on escaping this civic duty because tax is a basic element to form a society. Furthermore, the poor are better protected and served when they are provided with more welfare and government funding. Therefore, we are proud to oppose.