Question: Should There Be An Increment In The Federal Minimum Wage?

Public Labor Unions' Impact on Society and Economy

Labor unions have long been a topic of debate, with some arguing that they benefit society by providing collective bargaining rights to workers, which in turn boosts their contentment and productivity. However, this argument falls apart upon closer examination.

Firstly, labor unions are often undemocratic, with less than 10% of current union members having voted to have a union in their workplace. Many workers are forced to join a union as a condition of employment, and attempting to leave can result in steep fines and termination of employment. This means that unions do not necessarily protect the wants of the worker.

Secondly, labor unions reward membership rather than hard work, which encourages sloth and is unfair to hardworking employees. Union contracts compress wages by suppressing the wages of more productive workers and raising the wages of less competent ones. This redistribution of wealth between workers reduces wage inequality in unionized companies but comes at a cost to employers. The best workers often refuse to work under union contracts that cap their wages, making it difficult for union firms to attract and retain top employees.

Moreover, if unions put strains on workers, there is a more viable option for employers. For instance, Boeing was sued by the National Labor Relations Board for trying to move factories from heavily unionized Washington to right-to-work South Carolina. In a global economy, a state that allows powerful private-sector unions will lose jobs and experience slow economic growth.

Labor unions also promote laziness and apathy, which can cause businesses to go bankrupt. Unions tend to increase the amount of strikes and lockdowns, which hinders total work time and potential work time that could have been spent on business expansion and R&D. Furthermore, unions reduce government efficiency by protecting poorly performing workers, pushing for larger staffing levels than required, discouraging the use of volunteers in government activities, and resisting the introduction of new technologies. In the private sector, businesses can mitigate such union-caused inefficiencies, but public-sector managers have little incentive or flexibility to make changes.

It is not labor unions that have helped workers' plights, but rather capitalism that has given workers the rights they deserve. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the Industrial Revolution, blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare, demolishing the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution.

Unions lower productivity,

Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers who are discouraged from entering the la...

As with everything capitalist, yes everyone is rich than they were before but their wealth relative to each other is greater for some and lesser for others. it is a zero-sum game, when somebody wins another loses. Suppose overall wealth increases ten fold. Then the difference between any two people's wealth also increases ten fold. point being, progress discriminates; in terms of real value even if it doesn't in terms of proportion.

Darcy Ann Olsen. "Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay". CATO. May 22, 2001: "This article appeared on cato.org on May 22, 2001. "Teachers need more money, according to a new survey by the American Federation of Teachers. Noting that teacher salaries last year climbed 3.2 percent, or 0.2 percent less than inflation, AFT president Sandra Feldman said, 'Salaries must at least become competitive to attract and keep quality teachers.'"

Getting a paid job is a normal part of growing up. For centuries teens were ordinary members of the workforce. And since education became compulsory, hundreds of millions of students have successfully combined school work with a part-time job. Studies have found that working a few hours outside school does not harm achievement, so there is no reason to ban it. Even if having a job did affect students’ education, teens are old enough to make that choice for themselves. It should not be forced on them by an official ban.

Jared Bernstein. "Path to citizenship and out of poverty." Economic Policy Institute. June 29, 2006: "The policy implications should be obvious. We must not let ourselves become a nation of permanent illegal immigrants, who toil in the shadows; nor should we become a nation of 'guest workers.' We are a nation of immigrants who have trodden the path toward citizenship. A central goal of reform should be to clear that path for those who deserve the privileges, economic and otherwise, of being an American citizen."

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense

The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandatory age of 65 for all of society is to safeguard against the effects of old age on judges, surgeons and other professional practitioners. The age of 65 is chosen as an average age above which it is possible for people to experience problems with their physical or mental well-being. Mandatory retirement would protect against the detrimental effects that could be the result of mistakes or misjudgements by elderly professionals. Many argue that these professions have a great influence over the lives of many e.g. judicial decisions, surgical procedures, and there are at present insufficient safeguards to prevent against incompetence.

It should be lowered not scrapped all together

Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

Beth Lewis. "Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers". About.com: "Incentivized teachers will work harder and produce better results. What motivation do teachers currently have to go above and beyond the job's basic requirements? The simple possibility of extra cash would most likely translate into smarter teaching and better results for our children."


Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should be escalated to $15 per hour, implemented in a phased manner to gauge its impact. Since the federal minimum wage has been stagnant at $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009, President Obama advocated for its increase in his 2014 State of the Union address and subsequently signed an Executive Order for federal service contracts. The conservative stance argues that minimum wage hikes increase unemployment among the unskilled and young workforce, while the liberal perspective cites research by David Card and Alan Krueger, which found no evidence that pay raises led to job losses.

The debate on minimum wage is riddled with confirmation bias, leading experts to draw opposing conclusions from the same data. Some scholars assert that a wage increase could result in higher unemployment, but Card and Krueger's study on a 19% minimum wage hike ($4.25 to $5.05) showed no decline in employment. Critics also claim that a minimum wage increase will lead to price surges, but a study estimated that a $15 wage would cause a 4.3% price increase in fast food, translating to an additional 17 cents for a Big Mac.

An argument in favor of a wage boost is its potential to decrease staff turnover. In 2013, the franchise turnover rate was 93%, costing $4,700 per worker who left. A previous study revealed that a 10% minimum wage increase reduces turnover by 2.2%, with a $15 wage saving $5.2 billion for the fast food industry. The minimum wage literature is plagued by publication bias, which, when corrected, negates any negative employment effects.

Misinformation regarding the minimum wage is so widespread that the U.S. Department of Labor has created a webpage to debunk myths. To clarify the minimum wage's effects, a large-scale controlled experiment is necessary. A significant minimum wage increase should be introduced gradually (e.g., $2.58 per hour annually for three years) to gather data on its impacts on poverty and economics.

Questions that need more empirical evidence include: Does increasing the minimum wage decrease jobs? Current data suggests better job growth with higher wages. Does it assist the poor? Research indicates it mostly benefits middle-class white women. Does it alleviate poverty? Studies suggest that most impoverished individuals do not work minimum wage jobs, with the primary causes of poverty being the poor economy, drug use, lack of education, and medical

Beyond that any service to the community should be voluntary. This way people will be committed to doing a good job, which they would not be if they were working under force.[17]

Progressive taxes help increase employment rate

Illegal immigrants undoubtably bring many benefits to the US. However, they bring much more harm than good. They increase the poverty rate in the areas they live in. They most likely are a bad influence on the Americans they live near with. They come to the US illegally and beg for legal citizenship so they can get rights they don't deserve. They came to here illegally and want citizenship so that they can have rights and abuse the US system. They decrease the morale of the parts they live in because of discrimination and also because of the suspicion, the fear they bring in because of their image of being criminals and drug dealers. Why should we grant them citizenship when they're here first illegaly?

We would like to first of all point out that all of Opp's negative impacts only come in a nation with a government which will not directly provide the received tax money for the people, but rather for itself. However, we have made it clear since our introduction that the nations in which this motion will be implemented will be ones that will have the means to provide the tax money directly for the good of the people. The fact that Opp accuses the Prop case for trusting governments, especially ones who have economic institutions and the means to use the tax money for the welfare of the citizens, to help the people is quite unreasonable. We would like to second of all make evident that it is not in the Prop's burden to prove how exactly the received tax money will directly go to the people, but to prove that mining taxes should be increased, basing our case on the premise that nations will in fact, use the money for the citizens. This premise goes unattacked by the Opp, and seeing this, we see no problems as to why the citizens will suffer through the motion. We quote the Opp on this fifth contention, "we cannot give such a huge responsibility to societies where corruption occurs every day, rather we need to place pressure on companies to act responsibly." Firstly, we have stated that we will only be giving this responsibility to societies that will not misuse it. And secondly, they have not given an alternative actor that will put pressure on companies to act responsibly. Having said this, we would like to state that the government itself, which is responsible of its citizens who are hurt the most by mining and extraction, is the best actor to do so.

It may very well be true that universal health care increases costs. Yet, if we presume that health care is a right, then such added costs are insignificant; they must be born to secure the right of universal health care.

Encouraging mothers to work increases the number of people in the workforce thereby increasing the productivity of the country. This also helps to create jobs in the childcare sector, generating employment for more people.

It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.

We would like to remind the opposition to read the rules to understand which side is entitled to set up the debate. Our choice not to specify the debate to any particular country was to avoid misunderstanding, because the practices differ much among countries. Instead we would like to debate on how this money should be distributed in general. We would also like to clarify another misunderstanding. Because of our language barrier, we mixed social welfare with social security, but even then it is based on state money and is distributed accordingly to states policies. Moreover, in some countries it equals the unemployment benefit. The attempt to bring the debate down to US and bringing example of FUTA tax is ridiculous. First, it is paid only by employers and has no impact on employee's wage, so we don’t see why employees could demand this money in particular [1]. Second, the money goes to the state budget, [3] because IRS is a government agency, so the state is entitled to spend this money accordingly to the needs of the whole society. Third, its primary purpose is to fund state workforce agencies, [2] not unemployment benefits. It is spent on unemployment benefits only during strong fluctuations like under the status quo, but not in general. The state provides you with monetary funding if you are looking for a job. If you are looking for a job for two years and being unemployed has become your lifestyle (like in Germany or the US where 6 million are unemployed for over 27 weeks[1] ), it is yours problem, not of the economy. Some people are getting money, because they are under-qualified as is seen in the US, where the highest unemployment is among high-school drop-outs[1] , but they are unwilling to accept the job offers that are bellow their expectations. [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf [2] http://www.futatax.com/ [3] http://www.labor.ny.gov/ui/employerinfo/futataxcreditfaq.shtm [4] http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc418.html

The prop point to why life is better for illegal immigrants in the US, without showing negatives. Yes, people in the US pay for welfare, but none of this goes to illegal immigrants because they can't possibly apply for it without identification. We weren't arguing that life isn't better for the immigrants in the US, simply that they do contribute and aren't just a leach on society. The prop has misquoted their own article, the cost is much less than $4-6 billion [[judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]], and the welfare pays for children of illegal immigrants who become citizens because they are born in the USA. Therefore they have the same entitlement to rights as the people the prop say 'deserve' to have them, because they were born in the US (why this makes people deserve the benefits of welfare more they still haven't explained). Because working illegal immigrants do make a contribution, they do deserve some benefits. In addition, the fact that these illegal immigrants have children in the US makes it even more difficult to ship them out of the country, leaving their children behind, and makes our model of a path to citizenship better. There may be 30 million unemployed in the US, but they won't all be able to take immigrants' jobs.Arizona has a comparatively low immigration rate [[http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2009/03/arizonas-mysterious-jobless-rate.html]] and it is hard to see how half a million people in Michigan [[http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=813:extended-unemployment-benefits-in-michigan&catid=16:employment-policy-briefs&Itemid=75]] will suddenly get the Arizona jobs. The point that employers, and hence the local economy, will suffer from lost employment still stands. Racial profiling will not remove violence. As we've discussed, it will create greater reasons to turn to gangs and greater discontent. It also won't stop illegal immigrants entering America.

There are currently those in the workforce who are racist and sexist. By bringing more minority applicants into the workplace, in an environment in which everyone works as part of a team, we can help alleviate such bigoted attitudes.


Question: Should There Be An Increment In The Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should be escalated to $15 per hour, a significant increase from its current level. This proposition is not only supported by a majority of economists but also by empirical evidence that suggests minimal negative impacts on employment. The debate around the federal minimum wage is multifaceted, with arguments both for and against its increase. Proponents argue that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour could have a stimulative effect on the economy, as low-wage workers would have additional earnings to spend, potentially leading to increased demand and job growth. Moreover, studies have shown that such an increase could benefit the economy without causing substantial job loss or hurting job growth. For instance, in San Francisco, where tipped workers receive the full minimum wage before tips, the leisure and hospitality industry has experienced positive job growth, even following recent minimum wage hikes.

Opponents, however, often cite concerns about job loss, arguing that an increase in the minimum wage could lead to employers cutting jobs to offset higher labor costs. However, these arguments are not supported by a consensus among economists. In fact, a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders signed by over 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize winners, stated that increasing the minimum wage has had little to no negative effect on employment, even during economic downturns. Furthermore, the National Bureau of Economic Research's paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage discusses the importance of considering supply, demand, and tax policy in determining the optimal minimum wage level.

Critics also argue that a minimum wage increase does little to help the poor, as many in poverty are not in the workforce. While this is true, raising the minimum wage can still benefit low-income communities by increasing the wealth of those who are employed, which can indirectly aid non-working family members. Additionally, opponents suggest tax credits as an alternative to a minimum wage increase. While a comprehensive strategy to alleviate poverty should include various measures, the debate here specifically concerns the federal minimum wage.

In response to the arguments against a $15 minimum wage, it is crucial to consider the benefits of having a higher federal minimum wage. Not only does it provide a living wage for many workers, but it also allows for better data collection on the effects of minimum wage increases on the economy. The increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 would give policymakers and economists valuable data to understand the relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. It is also worth noting that the price increases resulting from a minimum wage hike would be relatively minor. For example, a

A 2010 Congressional Budge Report Found: "Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for [small businesses ] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products." In other words, if you're worried about the fragile state of the economy and you want to do something to make sure recovery is not set back, there are any number of more effective ways to spend that money. Continuing to help states pay their Medicaid bills would be one.[6]

Since health care is currently 1/7th of the US Economy, simply asking whether the tax payer can be burdened to help provide others with health care does nothing to ask whether allowing more government control will end with the results proponents predict.

Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be.

"In boom or recession, one of the worst things a government can do is encourage its citizens NOT to spend." It is difficult to know how to interpret this. a) Perhaps the writer simply means that it would be terrible for an economy if everyone stopped trading altogether. This is, of course, true. But basic income tax *doesn't* stop people trading altogether. All other things being equal, it simply makes consumers spend *less*. So, if this is what the writer means, then he is correct, but his point is irrelevant. b) But perhaps the writer is (correctly) pointing out that, all other things being equal, the greater the income tax, the less consumers spend. He then suggests (incorrectly I suggest) that one should encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. And therefore, he concludes, income tax is bad because it reduces consumer spending. I suggest that he is mistaken in his claim that governments ought to encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. Economists may disagree on many things, but they all agree that if consumers spend too much the economy is threatened by "inflation": prices start rising very quickly, salaries rise to keep up, prices rise even faster. Money becomes worthless. Periods of hyperinflation, e.g. Germany in the early 1930s, are disastrous. It is also worth noting another error in the adjacent argument: The money that consumers can't spend, because the state has taken as tax, is actually spent by the state. In fact, since (firstly) states tend to overspend, and (secondly) some consumers would save some of their money rather than spend it, taxation normally ensures that more money is spent than otherwise would be. In fact, this point is the basis of Keynsian economic theory. "I suggest that he is mistaken in his claim that governments ought to encourage consumers to spend as much as possible. Economists may disagree on many things, but they all agree that if consumers spend too much the economy is threatened by "inflation": prices start rising very quickly, salaries rise to keep up, prices rise even faster. Money becomes worthless. Periods of hyperinflation, e.g. Germany in the early 1930s, are disastrous." This remember is based on society paying income tax. Prices only rise counteract tax increases so as to make a profit. If you keep everything you earn you have no need to raise prices. as your profits are higher due to Joe Public having more money to spend. If you don't pay income tax (a good thing), then we need to ensure that items that we are not paying tax on are manufactured in the UK thus boosting the whole commerce behind it, that way the country can benefit from the additional spending incurred from the tax saving. Thus ensuring that we export and not import again increasing the revenue churn. This is an all or nothing solution, remove tax, increase home grown products and spend money in the UK and increase exports.

If we were to increase the amount discipline that we have in schools than the people that don't respect authority will. If you make it clear to somebody that a particular action will result, not only in long-term consequences, but short-term consequences as well, than that person will make an effort to avoid the unwanted consequences. We need to increase discipline because children in schools are unable to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions such as not getting a job. We need to provide more short term consequences that these children will understand and respond to such as detentions and the like.

Unemployment benefit is only eligible for those who have worked for certain amount of years, depending on the state in full-time jobs. Moreover, people are not eligible if they have: quit without a good cause, fired for misconduct, or involved in a labour dispute. Hence, it is highly improbable that drug addicts or alcoholics would even pass those standards in the first place. In fact, people who apply for unemployment benefit are very responsible and rational, meaning they will make smart choices such as making their own lives and their family’s lives a priority before drugs and alcohol, and self-satisfying unnecessary objects. The opposition’s interpretation of the proposition’s argument about how they will get people out of unemployment by depriving them of their freedom of choice is that they will use the ‘stick’ rather than the ‘carrot’. In other words, they are essentially using hard power to force people to do what the government wants them to. History has proven that hard power is not the best way to resolve issues, such as the Korean war, where the US would have saved thousands of lives through negotiations. The government only gives back a certain percentage of the person's original salary when the person requests for a unemployment benefit. For example, an average American makes about $28,000 annually. When they request for an unemployment benefit because they were laid off, they would be getting about half of their original salary, which is barely enough for their necessities. Thus, if they want to get back into their normal lifestyles, they will be motivated to get a job as soon as they can. Thus, this is already an enough incentive for people to pull themselves out of unemployment. This means that we do not need another incentive because this already serves as a sufficient incentive.

Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a capitalist system the value of goods and services is recognised in financial terms, so a wage would recognise the important contribution of homemakers. As well as being important, housework is physically taxing, time consuming and in balancing the needs of a household, a relatively specialised task. These features are all valued highly by the marketplace, and it is a pure accident of history that homekeepers have not been included in this.

This is because the lowest tax band will apply to earnings beneath an initial threshold. Therefore, the less one earns, the higher percentage of one’s pay is not taxable. The cost of basic survival needs is by definition a larger proportion of a lower earner's income and therefore a certain “block” at the bottom of each income may be tax free altogether to allow for these needs. This protection for the poorest is important, because most countries also operate customs tariffs and sales taxes, which tend to hit the poor more than the rich in terms of the proportion of their income going in indirect taxation; progressive direct taxation redresses the balance.

Fraud is already quite prevalent in the tax system. Unemployment and incapacity benefit fraud is a major problem for the government. A system where it is not necessary to meet any conditions to receive the subsidy would mean that there is less incentive for fraud, since low income people will receive the money anyway.


Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Misconception: Increasing the minimum wage will only benefit teenagers. False: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning pocket money. In fact, 89% of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are aged 20 or older, and 56% are women.

Misconception: Raising the minimum wage will cause job losses. False: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders advocating for a minimum wage increase, over 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners, wrote, "Recent research indicates that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative impact on employment, even during times of economic weakness. An increase in the minimum wage could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, boosting demand and job growth."

Misconception: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more and, therefore, don't support an increase in the minimum wage. False: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. They believe that an increase would immediately put more money in the pockets of low-wage workers, stimulating the economy and creating opportunities.

Misconception: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. False: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour before tips. Despite a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects that California restaurant sales will outpace most other states in 2015.

Misconception: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage would lead to job losses in the restaurant industry. False: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour before tips. The San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, including full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Misconception: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states with higher minimum wage rates. False: While 29 states and the District of Columbia have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings of

The only way that health insurance reform will work nationally, helping insure over 30 million uninsured and reducing premiums for every one, is if all Americans are required to buy insurance and be involved in a national risk pool. Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" to institute such a national program, the federal government does have Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action under the Constitution.

It should be lowered not scrapped all together

As with everything capitalist, yes everyone is rich than they were before but their wealth relative to each other is greater for some and lesser for others. it is a zero-sum game, when somebody wins another loses. Suppose overall wealth increases ten fold. Then the difference between any two people's wealth also increases ten fold. point being, progress discriminates; in terms of real value even if it doesn't in terms of proportion.

The prop point to why life is better for illegal immigrants in the US, without showing negatives. Yes, people in the US pay for welfare, but none of this goes to illegal immigrants because they can't possibly apply for it without identification. We weren't arguing that life isn't better for the immigrants in the US, simply that they do contribute and aren't just a leach on society. The prop has misquoted their own article, the cost is much less than $4-6 billion [[judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]], and the welfare pays for children of illegal immigrants who become citizens because they are born in the USA. Therefore they have the same entitlement to rights as the people the prop say 'deserve' to have them, because they were born in the US (why this makes people deserve the benefits of welfare more they still haven't explained). Because working illegal immigrants do make a contribution, they do deserve some benefits. In addition, the fact that these illegal immigrants have children in the US makes it even more difficult to ship them out of the country, leaving their children behind, and makes our model of a path to citizenship better. There may be 30 million unemployed in the US, but they won't all be able to take immigrants' jobs.Arizona has a comparatively low immigration rate [[http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2009/03/arizonas-mysterious-jobless-rate.html]] and it is hard to see how half a million people in Michigan [[http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=813:extended-unemployment-benefits-in-michigan&catid=16:employment-policy-briefs&Itemid=75]] will suddenly get the Arizona jobs. The point that employers, and hence the local economy, will suffer from lost employment still stands. Racial profiling will not remove violence. As we've discussed, it will create greater reasons to turn to gangs and greater discontent. It also won't stop illegal immigrants entering America.

"Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008 - "Some have argued that to raise CAFE standards means that people will only drive more. The argument is as stupid is one that says to make our money easier to carry means we will spend more. People aren’t moving their job because their car will get more gas to the gallon."

Rich countries that have boomed in the 90’s are short of both skilled and unskilled workers who are kept out by stringent immigration law. In London there are unfilled places for skilled workers in 70% of companies and finding people willing to perform basic manual jobs is increasingly difficult. Merrill-Lynch’s attempt to recruit Russian workers was stymied by red tape in Britain. No economy can grow when there are no workers to keep up with demand. Immigration makes the whole economy bigger and everyone richer in the long term.

Ian Parry. "Should Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Be Increased?". Resources for the Future. 17 Sept. 2007 - "Another policy option is to raise fuel taxes, which unlike CAFE, would reduce congestion and other highway externalities, through reducing vehicle miles traveled. While the case for higher fuel taxes is, in my view, more clear-cut, this option is still highly controversial."

Legalizing prostitution would increase government revenue.

Yes because if you do instead of feeling guilty you feel encouraging and happy. Adding to this the opposition makes living on the street and begging to be an easy thing and a choice. A lot of people on the street especially now are on the street because of events outside there control. The people who beg on the street live hard lives and while it would be naive to suggest that some of them are not milking the system they are still begging through necessity and not because its easy like the opposition suggest. I wonder if the opposition would chose to live on the streets and also wonder if the speaker fell on hard times would the speaker get off the streets as easily as he suggests and secure a job in a environment were the average person finds it hard to do at the minute or if they too would end up "taking the easy way and begging"

Yes there should be some type of thing to do with that much homework. There are some nights where kids have none at all and then there are some nights where it seems like the kids have way to much. They should lower the limit to around 30 minutes for kids and then for high schoolers like 45 minutes. That way the kids can go outside or sit down and relax, rather than sitting doing nothing but homework.


Question: Should There Be a Raise in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The minimum wage is a crucial element of our economy. I disagree with your assertion. The federal minimum wage for covered non-exempt employees has been $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009, as stipulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Several states have their own minimum wage laws. In situations where an employee is subject to both state and federal minimum wage regulations, the employee is entitled to receive the higher of the two wages. Moreover, you argue that employers can only pay so little because otherwise, workers would refuse to work. However, if the minimum wage was abolished, employers would be forced to raise wages to attract workers, rendering the law unnecessary. Furthermore, we will not follow China's example, as their mistake in eliminating the minimum wage led to economic instability, a lesson we can learn from without repeating their error.

The population of Britain is ageing. People are living longer, and forcing people to retire simply increases the heavy economic burden of pensioners on the state. The ratio of the dependent population to the working population is increasing, and a mandatory retirement age is an unnecessary measure which exacerbates the problem. On the contrary, we should be actively encouraging those who are fit to continue working. This is why the state retirement age is being raised eventually to 68 and may need to go higher.

We would like to remind the opposition to read the rules to understand which side is entitled to set up the debate. Our choice not to specify the debate to any particular country was to avoid misunderstanding, because the practices differ much among countries. Instead we would like to debate on how this money should be distributed in general. We would also like to clarify another misunderstanding. Because of our language barrier, we mixed social welfare with social security, but even then it is based on state money and is distributed accordingly to states policies. Moreover, in some countries it equals the unemployment benefit. The attempt to bring the debate down to US and bringing example of FUTA tax is ridiculous. First, it is paid only by employers and has no impact on employee's wage, so we don’t see why employees could demand this money in particular [1]. Second, the money goes to the state budget, [3] because IRS is a government agency, so the state is entitled to spend this money accordingly to the needs of the whole society. Third, its primary purpose is to fund state workforce agencies, [2] not unemployment benefits. It is spent on unemployment benefits only during strong fluctuations like under the status quo, but not in general. The state provides you with monetary funding if you are looking for a job. If you are looking for a job for two years and being unemployed has become your lifestyle (like in Germany or the US where 6 million are unemployed for over 27 weeks[1] ), it is yours problem, not of the economy. Some people are getting money, because they are under-qualified as is seen in the US, where the highest unemployment is among high-school drop-outs[1] , but they are unwilling to accept the job offers that are bellow their expectations. [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf [2] http://www.futatax.com/ [3] http://www.labor.ny.gov/ui/employerinfo/futataxcreditfaq.shtm [4] http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc418.html

Currently if a person receives unemployment benefits they will often be better off by not working because the more they earn then the less benefit they get and they may earn less than they would do had they not worked at all. This means that even people who are not lazy find it better to simply receive benefits than enter the workplace. There are also numerous benefits which have to be means tested, incurring extra costs. A proposed formula for a negative income tax is receiving half of the difference between a person or household's income and the minimum tax bracket. For example, if the minimum tax bracket is £10,000 and someone earns £10,500, they will only pay tax on the £500 over. At £10,000 they will pay nothing and at £9,500 they will receive a subsidy of £250.

There should be no official national language. One of the great strengths of the United States is that we can experiment on a state-by-state basis. When one state does things one way, and a neighboring state does things the other way, it is much easier to see the advantages of doing things one way or the other. This allows each state to choose one way or the other based on objective evidence and results. And, indeed, 30 states have already opted to have English as their state's official language. While, some may disagree on this side with the decision of any one state to adopt official English, the state-by-state approach may still be considered superior to a national English policy.

This is all true. It is truly a great shame and we should do all we can now to put the situation rig...

Mark Jaquith. "Why I Support Progressive Taxation". Tempus Fugit. 18 Sept. 2005 - "you must consider the effect that a completely flat tax system would have on the poor. The people who, after buying the things they need and are left with nothing, will have a very hard time breaking that inertia. They likely won’t have time to learn new skills, because they don’t have any significant discretionary income. They have to keep going to work just to put food on the table. A tax on the basic necessities of life is a severe handicap to one’s ability to break out of that cycle. It is essentially a tax on living, which is abhorrent both from a moral standpoint (Liberals’ objection) and from an American philosophical standpoint (Conservatives’ and Liberterians’ objection)"

Getting a paid job is a normal part of growing up. For centuries teens were ordinary members of the workforce. And since education became compulsory, hundreds of millions of students have successfully combined school work with a part-time job. Studies have found that working a few hours outside school does not harm achievement, so there is no reason to ban it. Even if having a job did affect students’ education, teens are old enough to make that choice for themselves. It should not be forced on them by an official ban.

Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, there would no incentive to earn any more. If you can pass some on to your children, you can justify working until you are too old to do it. A lot of middle class workers are docters, entreprenuers, plumbers and other important parts of the economy. Prevent them passing on their money will prevent important work being done.

Yes there should be some type of thing to do with that much homework. There are some nights where kids have none at all and then there are some nights where it seems like the kids have way to much. They should lower the limit to around 30 minutes for kids and then for high schoolers like 45 minutes. That way the kids can go outside or sit down and relax, rather than sitting doing nothing but homework.

This places too much strain on children. Childhood should be enjoyed, we only get it once. If society starts to make it a norm that children are to provide for themselves, then children will feel obliged to do so in order to relive their parents of financial strain. But this is not a worry that children should have. Children should not have to worry about money. Adults cannot cope with such pressure; why would we like to place this strain on children?


Question: Should There Be an Increment in the Federal Minimum Wage?

In the grand scheme, a minimum wage can be harmful.

I'm relatively new to this, so here's my take: 1. The minimum wage provides a safety net, ensuring that workers aren't exploited like underpaid laborers in other countries. (Is it appropriate to reference this in a debate against you?) 2. The minimum wage protects employees, allowing them to report employers who pay less than the $7 or so hourly rate to authorities, leading to legal action and compensation. 3. The minimum wage is a baseline, and it's quite low. No one should consider paying less than this already meager amount—it's akin to giving an inch and taking a mile.

Note: The second document has been slightly edited for clarity and coherence while maintaining its original length and style.

Workers will be more motivated and therefore more productive

Of course women should be paid equal pay – for equal work. The work being done isn’t equal, so there’s no discrimination. Sports fans are interested in the highest levels of performance, so the highest athletic prizes should go to the competitors who are strongest, fastest, most powerful or who have the greatest endurance. It is coincidental that for biological reasons such competitors are almost always men. Firstly, in tennis men play ‘best of five sets’ matches; women play only three. In weightlifting, they lift more weight. It’s therefore perfectly reasonable for the men to be paid more as the men are doing more work. Since records began, the average men’s tennis game at Wimbledon has taken on 30 minutes longer to play than the average women’s game. Thus, on average the men’s champion will have played 3½ hours more tennis than the women’s. If women want the same prize money, they should be prepared to play the same number of sets (thus providing more advertising time for networks, from which much of Wimbledon’s revenue – and thus the prize fund – comes), or in the weightlifting example, lift more weights. The men’s game is also more contested at the top. 52% of men’s games went into at least the 4th set at Wimbledon 2002, whilst only 24% of women’s matches made it to the 3rd set. This suggests a greater, and thus more exciting, contest, which feeds into popularity (see argument 2). But it also points to the fact that men at the height of their game have to perform and train harder, and for longer than the women do, enduring more pain, risking more injuries, and delivering higher levels of performance. Again – the work isn’t equal, so neither is the pay.

Yes there should be some type of thing to do with that much homework. There are some nights where kids have none at all and then there are some nights where it seems like the kids have way to much. They should lower the limit to around 30 minutes for kids and then for high schoolers like 45 minutes. That way the kids can go outside or sit down and relax, rather than sitting doing nothing but homework.

Illegal immigrants undoubtably bring many benefits to the US. However, they bring much more harm than good. They increase the poverty rate in the areas they live in. They most likely are a bad influence on the Americans they live near with. They come to the US illegally and beg for legal citizenship so they can get rights they don't deserve. They came to here illegally and want citizenship so that they can have rights and abuse the US system. They decrease the morale of the parts they live in because of discrimination and also because of the suspicion, the fear they bring in because of their image of being criminals and drug dealers. Why should we grant them citizenship when they're here first illegaly?

University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.

Andrew G. Biggs. "Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining." US News. February 25th, 2011: "But whether we should limit public sector pay and benefits and public employees' right to collectively bargain for them hinges on whether government employees are overpaid to begin with. That remains an open debate, depending upon how the question is asked and which employees are analyzed. At the federal level, there is little doubt among academic economists that salaries are higher than those paid to private workers with similar education and experience—the 1999 Handbook of Labor Economics lists a number of peer-reviewed studies showing a salary premium of 10-20 percent. At the state and local level, salaries tend to be somewhat lower, but benefits and job security usually make up the difference. A recent raft of studies from left-leaning think tanks argue that state and local employees are underpaid even after benefits are considered, but these studies generally undercount government pension benefits and omit often-generous retiree health coverage."

This is an argument for better enforcement of the system, rather than against it in principle - the ...

Too low an age of retirement damages economic efficiency, and thus decreases individual and national prosperity. The demographic timebomb means that the state simply cannot sustain spending on pensions and healthcare for an aging population without frightening high levels of taxation.

"Progressive taxation is not the same as 'spread the wealth.'". The Right Wing Professor. 26 Oct. 2008 - "Our federal government spends roughly $3 TRILLION a year and the population is roughly 300 million, which works out to $10,000 per person per year. With a median family in the US earning around $50,000/year and having 3 members, it is clear that this family can't afford to pay its "fair share" of $30,000/year in taxes. Without a drastic slashing of the federal budget, we are forced into a progressive tax system, where by progressive I simply mean the wealthy pay more in taxes than the not so wealthy."

The federal government should advance the “general welfare” and the prosperity of our whole nation depends on each part of the Union being as productive as possible. But some parts of America are much more prone to natural disasters than others, requiring some federal support to make it possible for economic life to go on in states that are at risk from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. By offering insurance subsidies in such states, the government makes sure that families and businesses can settle and invest for the future. But because government had a role in encouraging people to settle in such vulnerable areas, it also has a duty to help them in exceptional circumstances when insurance policies would be insufficient to deal with the damage from natural disasters.


Question: Should There Be an Increment in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should not be increased. Raising the current federal minimum wage could lead to higher unemployment rates, increased overall costs, and a detrimental domino effect on the economy. It's worth noting that several states already have higher minimum wage laws in place. I advocate for keeping the federal minimum wage as it is. If individual states choose to raise their rates, that should be their prerogative. However, the federal minimum wage should remain unchanged.

The population of Britain is ageing. People are living longer, and forcing people to retire simply increases the heavy economic burden of pensioners on the state. The ratio of the dependent population to the working population is increasing, and a mandatory retirement age is an unnecessary measure which exacerbates the problem. On the contrary, we should be actively encouraging those who are fit to continue working. This is why the state retirement age is being raised eventually to 68 and may need to go higher.

Andrew G. Biggs. "Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining." US News. February 25th, 2011: "But whether we should limit public sector pay and benefits and public employees' right to collectively bargain for them hinges on whether government employees are overpaid to begin with. That remains an open debate, depending upon how the question is asked and which employees are analyzed. At the federal level, there is little doubt among academic economists that salaries are higher than those paid to private workers with similar education and experience—the 1999 Handbook of Labor Economics lists a number of peer-reviewed studies showing a salary premium of 10-20 percent. At the state and local level, salaries tend to be somewhat lower, but benefits and job security usually make up the difference. A recent raft of studies from left-leaning think tanks argue that state and local employees are underpaid even after benefits are considered, but these studies generally undercount government pension benefits and omit often-generous retiree health coverage."

"A Good Jobs Program." The New York Times. September 13th, 2011: "On Sept. 8, Mr. Obama proposed a $447 billion job-creation initiative, and on Monday, he proposed a sensible package of tax increases to pay for it — saying, in essence, that a sane fiscal policy requires more careful government spending now and eventually higher taxes."

Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not. The age has a lot to do with driving. When they are 15-17 and still in high school the pressure with school, friends, and daily emotions at that age can distract the young drivers to the point of an accident. Yes, "Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not" is a poor idea but with the statistics of many young drivers and accidents, it proves that the age should rise up. People will never know unless they try.

The proposition’s claim about the difference in salary vs. unemployment benefit tells us that their understanding or interpretation of an unemployment benefit is incorrect. The unemployment benefit provides people who have been laid off with a certain percentage of his/her normal salary. This money also comes from the insurance taxes that the people who are now unemployed paid for. Nevertheless, the proposition labels these people as ‘parasites’ as if they are leeching the money out of the economy. Though this may be true for a small number of people who are on unemployment benefits, it is false for the vast majority of the people who benefit from the insurance. In fact, some people absolutely need this money because they are unable to find job due to a lack of jobs in the economy. In fact, it is not the matter of people wanting to work or not, but it is rather the matter of whether people can even find jobs at all. Yes, the proposition’s plan may be able to remind people that they need jobs, however it is very unfair for people in circumstances where there is a huge lack of jobs for them. Thus, the opposition believes that cracking the whip on the unemployed for an issue that was neither their fault nor in their capability to amend is very unfair. In fact, the circumstances the people are in right now is so harsh that forcing them to find jobs rather than supporting them will shatter the fragile confidence the unemployed have, thus discouraging them further, as mentioned in the previous rebuttal. This will lead to more unemployment.

Opp sees providing stable employment will significantly benefit the economy which can be achieved by govt’s regulation in businesses. Especially with the current economic crisis, people have constant fear of being unemployed. This fear of unemployment results in hesitance in their consumer spending thus harms the economy by limiting the amount of money being circulated. With gov’t regulations such as min wage policy and bailouts on corps, opp sees that this will bring down the instability of employment and abuse of labor rights in status quo and also result in wage consistency for the employees. Once employment and wage are regulated thus stabilized, we can easily presume that more money will be spent by consumers, and fuel the economy that is currently predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of economic growth in US for instance. [[http://goo.gl/JmYOE]] Govt regulations play a crucial role to protect workers and consumers. It is due to govt interventions that laws prohibiting discrimination upon age, sex, race; right to unionize; enforcement of workplace safety exist. Every product sold in the US, for example, is affected by some kind of government regulation: food manufacturers must tell exactly what is in the product; automobiles must be built according to safety standards and pollution standards; prices for goods must be clearly marked; and advertisers cannot mislead consumers. [[http://goo.gl/BzV2B]] Govts need to consider the impact of corp’s actions upon society and monitor and control activities that are against the public interest. Thru intervention of the govt, like investment in infrastructure project, capital intensive projects and innovative projects, opp hopes to generate employment, increase spending and helped economy to bail out of recession. In all, opp can easily conclude that government intervention is necessary for economical stability and regulation of monopolies.

Pat Garofalo. "Stephen Moore calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich." Think Progress. July 8th, 2010: "According to the latest data, 'the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.' The top 1 percent of families now receive nearly 25 percent of the country’s income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s. This year the Bush tax cuts will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will make in total income."

Many teens under the age of 18 feel more than capable. Some of the maturity levels of teens under the age of 18 are higher than others. raising the age limit will also increase the crime rate oof teens under the age limit commiting offences. Controvesy is the last thing that is needed especially when dealing with teenagers. The current age limit is perhaps one of few things keeping crime rates low. rasing the age limit will increase teen offences.

When people are paid more in the market it doesn't mean that people believe in what they are producing more. It means that they own more property, have more bargaining power or are better at making other people pay the bills (often by exploiting them). So the best way to make money under capitalism is not to produce something good that we all love, but to already be rich or to be a thug. The more money you have the more money you will get in the future, do to payments for property, increased bargaining power due to having lots of money. And the less money you have, the less you will get in the future, for the inverse of the same reasons. Rewarding thugs and people who are lucky enough to already have alot of money (that they usually got by extracting value from other people's labour) hardly seems like a fair method of remuneration. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite. And the idea that transactions in capitalism do not harm either party is a myth. See the argument on exploitation (in the inequalities section) and the argument on imperialism (in the history section) for a rebuttal. For more problems of capitalist markets see here.


Question: Should There Be a Raise in the Federal Minimum Wage?

On the critical issue of the federal minimum wage.

Assumptions: (1) The debate is framed around current societal circumstances; (2) The United States is the focus of this discussion; (3) Arguments can encompass both state and national minimum wage policies, as not specified otherwise. Introduction: My adversary has presented a well-crafted argument, likely derived from an economics course, correctly noting that the minimum wage, in theory, is economically flawed. However, real-world complexities often necessitate adjustments to theoretical models. For instance, the current economic downturn, outsourcing, and the presence of undocumented workers in the U.S. labor market all influence my stance in favor of a minimum wage. Contentions: 1. Labor Market Exploitation A) Critics argue that the minimum wage eliminates jobs, as businesses might hire fewer employees due to budget constraints. This theory, while plausible in theory, doesn't hold up in practice. Businesses require a specific number of employees to operate efficiently. Legally, employees cannot work more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay, making it unlikely for managers to overwork their staff. While some jobs might be lost, the number is insufficient to justify abolishing the minimum wage. B) Without a minimum wage, employers could exploit workers with unreasonably low pay. The counterargument that workers would refuse such wages is unfounded, as history (e.g., the Great Depression) demonstrates that desperation can force people to accept any available work. If the minimum wage were abolished and corporations paid minimum wage employees just $2/hour, it would be unfair and insufficient given today's cost of living. Suggesting that workers should quit until wages rise is impractical due to the scarcity of jobs and the availability of low-wage workers. This would exacerbate economic issues and deepen the recession. 2. Essential for Many Households A) Many adults in the U.S. work for minimum wage, depending on these jobs to support their families. Eliminating the minimum wage would lower wages, making it impossible for these adults to afford basic necessities. Teenagers, whose expenses are typically covered by their parents, might work for lower wages, but this is less critical for them than for adults and families. 3. Unfair Burden on Americans A) Struggling families would rely on government assistance like welfare and unemployment, impacting taxpayers and the economy. Low-wage workers would contribute little to taxes, putting the burden on the middle class. Inflation due to reduced market activity would further strain the middle class. B)

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?". Balanced Politics.Org - "The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums."

If teenagers were allowed to drink at the age of 18 far less people would be getting in trouble with the law. Since 18 is the age many enter into college, it will be about the time that many take their first sip of alcohol as well. Though there is a fair share drinking in high school, the consumption of alcohol increases greatly once in college. Being a college student myself, I know that a very large percentage of the campus population engages in illegal consumption on a weekly basis. At the same time, these young adults are getting in trouble with the law by receiving Minor in Posessions or having their fake ID confiscated. By lowering the legal drinking age to 18, most college students would be allowed to drink without the worries of getting caught. If they are old enough to live on their own and take responsibility for their school career, they should be responsible enough to drink

There is a decreasing marginal benefit to high, or higher, wages, since the earner will see less and less of the extra gross pay actually appearing in their net pay packet. Therefore, the upward pressure on pay will reduce and excessive remuneration will become less common.

We should reward those talented men and women who are prepared to devote years of gruelling training to becoming the best they can be. They often have to give up rewarding careers to train full-time, and rely on their families to support them financially. This puts some very gifted athletes off making their sport their whole life. If the government provided more support, then maybe more people would take the step of training full-time to achieve their true potential.

Opp sees providing stable employment will significantly benefit the economy which can be achieved by govt’s regulation in businesses. Especially with the current economic crisis, people have constant fear of being unemployed. This fear of unemployment results in hesitance in their consumer spending thus harms the economy by limiting the amount of money being circulated. With gov’t regulations such as min wage policy and bailouts on corps, opp sees that this will bring down the instability of employment and abuse of labor rights in status quo and also result in wage consistency for the employees. Once employment and wage are regulated thus stabilized, we can easily presume that more money will be spent by consumers, and fuel the economy that is currently predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of economic growth in US for instance. [[http://goo.gl/JmYOE]] Govt regulations play a crucial role to protect workers and consumers. It is due to govt interventions that laws prohibiting discrimination upon age, sex, race; right to unionize; enforcement of workplace safety exist. Every product sold in the US, for example, is affected by some kind of government regulation: food manufacturers must tell exactly what is in the product; automobiles must be built according to safety standards and pollution standards; prices for goods must be clearly marked; and advertisers cannot mislead consumers. [[http://goo.gl/BzV2B]] Govts need to consider the impact of corp’s actions upon society and monitor and control activities that are against the public interest. Thru intervention of the govt, like investment in infrastructure project, capital intensive projects and innovative projects, opp hopes to generate employment, increase spending and helped economy to bail out of recession. In all, opp can easily conclude that government intervention is necessary for economical stability and regulation of monopolies.

By freeing up more places in our professional hierarchies, we present younger people with opportunities to reach the heights of their career. Often in medicine and law especially younger employees must wait for an elder respected judge or consultant to retire in order to progress along the career ladder. This is also fairer on the younger working population. The caveat to this argument is that this will also allow the exposure of youthful talent. A mandatory retirement age allows younger employees with new, modern ideas to infiltrate the professions.

The belief that US autoworkers are paid too much stems from a class bias that those that work with their hands should not be paid any wage that would allow them to transcend the middle or lower classes.

Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own." New York Times. July 22nd, 2011: "A deadlocked Congress has become incapable of acting consistently; it commits to entitlements it will not reduce, appropriates funds it does not have, borrows money it cannot repay and then imposes a debt ceiling it will not raise. One of those things must give; in reality, that means that the conflicting laws will have to be reconciled by the only actor who combines the power to act with a willingness to shoulder responsibility — the president."

It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. The tax supports the administration of their country which provides the sort of operating environment in which they are able to earn their wages in the first place. Even when paying a higher marginal rate on the top end of their earnings, they will still take home more than people who are paid less with a tax rate anything up to 100%.

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense


Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Elevating the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would significantly boost the US economy. This increase is not only necessary but also beneficial for the nation's economic health. By raising the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 to $10.10, we would stimulate job growth and potentially increase the country's gross domestic product, according to the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office [1].

This wage hike would primarily benefit low-wage workers, those earning minimum wage or less, up to about five times the poverty threshold. For example, increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would directly benefit not only those making the new minimum wage but also a single working individual earning up to $68,825 annually, putting more money in their pockets [1][2]. Larger working families would see even greater monetary gains [1].

The need for this increase is critical due to the steady decline in purchasing power over the past three decades, mainly due to inflation [3][4]. Low-wage earners have been hit the hardest, with their wages' value decreasing significantly. Meanwhile, the top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably outpacing the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. Income inequality in the U.S. is now at its highest since 1928 [5].

The federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and studies by the U.S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, when adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is less than what it was in 1968 [5][7][8]. The U.S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid less in real terms compared to their 1968 counterparts [8]. Since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7].

In 1968, a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today, a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. The minimum wage's reduced value needs to be corrected by elevating it to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value. Failure

1 Needed? We say aliens take citizen’s jobs (maybe 20 at least 7.7 mil) with 30 mil unemployed in USA because aliens are hired by being paid less than minimum wage whilst poor people are affected: Wages fell in 44% and jobs lost; as citizens should be entitled to state protection. Opp’s replied there were no people to take the jobs: Yes, 30mil and Opp raised an impact to business' that abuse the system by paying aliens low wages instead of normal to a citizen, which we pointed is an unethical and illegal benefit to support. We showed another benefit would be that crime of aliens would be decreased. Aliens leech tax and we quoted $22 bn is spent on welfare benefits to them excluding social services, medical costs and incarceration. OPP said the welfare is to the children (false, those numbers aren’t added) and aliens aren’t given them for not having ID but the fact is they aren’t denied them, plus add normal government costs: Status Quo needs change. 2 Best? We said currently officers can’t detain aliens on obvious situations (later Opp asserts not) because obviously a reasonable suspicion includes race and that’s why we must allow race to be considered. We showed racial profiling works in Israeli airlines and how it was implemented USA (1954) detaining 80,000 and 500-700,000 leaving in their own for the risk of being caught whilst after lifting it immigration raised since in USA they can’t be detained and now would be, stopping them risking their lives immigrating and would return, as we showed is happening in Arizona now. Opp tried to fool by omitting words saying the SB 1070 doesn’t include race as means of suspicion, which does but not as sole reason, which we support because in any other case almost 200 mil. citizens would be checked; absurd. Only way Opp said this could fail is it “moving immigrants underground” which we proved could happen if they did it literally and Opp raised lack of cooperation with police, not providing logic for it but that wouldn’t happen since in those cases the law isn’t applied. Opp also said it creates “guilty until proven innocent”: False since officers act under the presumption that the person is a citizen but would be asked to show ID for the well of the society, nothing else. Opp’s alternative was making all citizens: We proved it’s economically ($999bn) and demographically (56% pop. increase) disastrous, plus unemployment and loss of identity. 3 Bring problems? Opp says it’s racist by creating a stereotype upon Latins without developing it well, we pointed how that isn’t true since they aren’t the only race and it is just a criteria that is needed as a base of suspicion to the illegal act of being an alien so legals will receive the greater benefit of preserving their rights. 70% citizens support it, including minorities. We reminded alien’s obligation to carry ID; Opp didn’t raise a problem on the need of carrying it so finally no problem and great benefits.

Income Tax is unjust as the tax does not contribute anything positive towards any public service. The Income Tax simply pays off the national debt we owe to private banks. The private banks (Fed, Bank of England, ECB, most central banks) create the money out of thin air (i.e. they just print it when someone signs a mortgage, credit agreement etc). The problem here is that we (the general public) are paying with our real sweat equity (our general work and labour) to pay off a debt that has been created out of nothing. This is unjust as the debt goes into the coffers of the owners of the private banks and does not contribute to any social good. The solution would be to have a nationalised bank run by the government. Governments would then be voted in and out, judged on how economically productive they were for their citizens. This is an issue of momentous importance, so much so that the Constitutionalist Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is running on a manifesto to scrap the Income Tax in America, as it is an unjust tax which does not serve the majority of the population, and furthermore is unconstitutional. To help you understand this problem in more detail, a good number of documentaries have been produced on this issue. The best in my opinion are called 'Money as Debt', 'The Money Masters' and 'Aaron Russo: Freedom to Fascism'. I would suggest that you take a quick look at these films before you attempt to rebut this proposition - as many of the initial questions you may potentially have are likely to be addressed and answered by those films. Better yet, these films are free for anyone on Google video. In response to the counter argument opposite...to clarify, this point is extremely relevant to the debate. The debate is 'Basic Income Tax Should Be Abolished', and this is a very important point to stress in such a debate - income tax does not contribute to the public good. If the goal of government is to produce the most favourable public good for the majority, then it therefore follows that the Income Tax is a tax which should be abolished as it does not meet this criteria.

"Are Progressive Taxes a Good Thing?" Critical Mastiff. 9 Aug. 2005 - "In our present fiscal situation, wealthy people and corporations pay high Federal income taxes, and poorer people pay no income taxes at all or very few. Therefore, it makes sense for our rational actor, the Federal Government, to make laws that give preference to the rich and corporations over the poor, since tax revenues respond much more quickly when the rich get richer than when the poor get less poor. Such additional revenues can naturally be used to succor the same poor that the government has just victimized, making the poor indebted to the government and to the particular elected officials of each district."

Increasing food stamp benefits will not stimulate the economy

Many families have either both parents working, or a single parent working excessively to pay for their children and especially their childcare. We have a massive shortfall of childcare places in the UK, along with the trained staff we need. The places we do have have are either expensive and/or government subsidised. By abolishing income tax the average families income would increase by ~30% providing a real choice on whether to work or care for their children.

It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience. Students spend far too much time and money drinking, partying and wasting time. Even if there is an argument for funding higher education itself (which we doubt) then it is very hard to justify why low income workers should pay taxes to support the ‘student lifesyle’ of people who attend universities. As long as students don’t pay, or understand, the full cost of their tuition, they are more likely to take it for granted and be wasteful as they currently do.

The proposition does not fully understand what unemployment benefits are, and is confusing it with a system like a welfare system where people are paid for doing nothing. Furthermore, the proposition is confusing this insurance benefit as a ‘rewarding’ system. The unemployment benefit is different from a welfare system and vastly different from a ‘rewarding’ system. Firstly, the unemployment benefit is nothing like a welfare system because a welfare system is giving people who can’t sustain living with the lack wealth because they have been fired, has had no job in the first place, or are drug addicts. On the other hand, unemployment benefit is for people who have been laid off from work because of substantial lack of jobs in the economy. In fact, there are standards the people need to meet before requesting for unemployment benefit such as having worked for a certain number of years, depending on the state in which they live in the US. Secondly, unemployment benefit is not a ‘rewarding system’. It is a system that provides people with funds so they can sustain their lives after being laid off. These people are paid monthly funds because they absolutely need it. They need it because they have no other options or ways to earn money on their own. Thus, this insurance is essentially preventing people from getting their houses repossessed or only eating half a meal per day because they cannot afford it. Moreover, a pension system is very irrelevant to his resolution because it is vastly different from an unemployment benefit, as we have proved and clarified what an unemployment benefit is. Lastly, we'd like to point out that the Proposition is misunderstanding the entire point of unemployment benefits. As they were kind to mention once, one requirement to be eligible to the benefit is to constantly search for jobs. The government only pays benefits to sincere people, and once it has decided that a person's not searching for jobs, it'll stop paying

Food is a unique good in the sense that it is essential to sustain life. The government should not gamble on this important industry surviving such elements as a fluctuating market-place and environmental change without federal support. Federal agricultural programmes are necessary to promote American self-sufficiency in food stuffs - vital for national security and the well-being of a country’s citizens. During a time when the US is involved in a massive ongoing war against terror, this food security is imperative. Subsidies are also helping us to make progress towards another form of self-sufficiency, as federal support for ethanol production (largely derived from maize grown in the US cornbelt) is contributing to reduced dependence upon imported oil.

In my opinion I think that public transit should be free because there a lot of people in the world that don’t have the money to pay for there gas. Some people even have to bike to work. Some people don’t even have a car or a bike. It is even eco friendly because there would be less people on cars which means that there would be less car polling. The world will have more gas and will save money each time you take public transit because there are more people on the transit which will help the environment.

Grace-Marie Turner. "Should the United States Mandate Health Insurance...or Not?". MedScape. April 4, 2008: "An individual mandate would inject much more government control into our health sector and would require onerous enforcement provisions, like garnishing people's wages.[4,5] Americans are struggling to afford decent housing, child care, and other necessities. Requiring them to buy health insurance before we address its high costs would further burden the workers and families we're trying to help."