query: Policing and financing the system is unmanageable  If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay.  The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs".1  1 Iowaprodigal

positive: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1.  States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual.  1 Electoral Reform Society

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting It will cause more people to become interested in politics  Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.  1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005.

negative: punishment house would make fines relative income Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions  Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1  Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems.  It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it.  Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances.  Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group.  1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012,

negative: Individuals may have no choice  People are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. For example in Delhi police officers regularly take lunch without paying and more senior officers take 10,000 each month to allow the restaurant to stay open late. [1] In those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to justice.  [1] Burke, Jason, ‘Corruption in India: ‘All your life you pay for things that should be free’, guardian.co.uk, 19 August 2011,

negative: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011

negative: Why a flat tax isn't 'fair':  The arguments in favour of a flat tax argue that it is more 'fair' than other forms of taxation because it theoretically treats all persons and all forms of income equally by taxing them all at the same rate. This firstly fails to explain why any arbitrary percentage at which the tax is set is necessarily the 'fair' number and thus why everyone should receive the wonderful privilege of paying that exact number and not another based upon their income, expenditure and circumstances. The effect of the tax upon different individuals in different circumstances is thus key to the tax's supposed 'fairness', and to the undermining of this argument. For example, say both Mr Smith and Mr Jones earn £50,000 a year. However Mr Smith is a young man with few assets who relies upon his personal savings to finance a future business, and Mr Jones is an old man who has already built up or inherited £500,000 in assets. There is no clear reason why it is 'fair' for them to both pay the same rate of taxation despite their vastly different circumstances and the effect that the tax would have upon each of them, as Mr Jones' built-up wealth is protected, but Mr Smith's ability to build up assets and start a business in the first place is undermined. Or take the example of a sick man and a healthy man with the same income, but one of whom thus has much higher medical costs to pay. In the status quo they can be taxed differently (by allowing for income tax deductions for healthcare expenditure), however under a flat tax they would both be taxed the same, and it this would severely harm the sick man. Therefore, it seems counter-intuitive that in a world where all individuals are not the same and rates of taxation impact in highly different ways upon individuals depending on their differing circumstances (over which they may have little control), that every individual should pay exactly the same rate of tax, as if they were all the same. That hardly seems 'fair'.

negative: The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations  The minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans [i] .  There have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona.  The only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process.  The whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation.  [i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011

negative: Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax  Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency.  A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less.  The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms.  Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring. [1]  [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009

negative: Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.  Proposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]  Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.  [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010.

negative: Britain should not pay more than other countries  Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.” [1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more, [2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has [3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much!  [1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010  [2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154  [3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005

negative: Warrants are needed to prevent abuse  In the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws?  The government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history.  Considering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society.  At the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights.  (1) Electronic Frontier Foundation   (2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12   (3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

negative: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth  Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.  An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers." [2]  The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]  Contrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.  Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]  While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]  [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.

negative: The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.  Even more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'  The alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]  [1] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [3] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.

negative: The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.  President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.”  At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure.  Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion. [1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden. [2]  [1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010,   [2] ibid

negative: More parity is necessary between corporations and the regular individuals.  There is a need to create more parity between individuals and corporations. There is much more campaign funding where there is non-disclosure, there has been little money flowing into ‘super-PACs’ that must disclose donors instead it goes to tax exempts organizations that are not subject to the disclosure requirements. [1] As non-disclosure means higher fundraising figures, then it becomes optimal for every politician to adopt a strategy of opacity in order to fare better than his or her opponents. The culture of corporate electioneering aided by legally-sanctioned anonymity would likely demoralize voters and funnel candidates’ priorities towards courting big business at great cost to the average American citizen during and after the election.  While it may be a stretch to assert that Citizens United granted corporations “personhood,” the impacts of the ruling are far-reaching for campaign finance law. Even small corporations have disproportionate spending power compared to individuals. Oftentimes decisions in corporations are made by boards of executives and not aggregates of working-class citizens, exacerbating the influence of those who already wield greater financial and political capital. If money is indeed speech, then corporations speak much, much louder than individuals from the outset. Some contend that the voices of unions, which are similarly protected under the same ruling, lend a degree of partisan balance—implicitly acknowledging that the divide is indeed tinged with partisanship—but realistically, even the largest union contributions pale in comparison to those of Fortune 500 companies. [2] Distortion in the marketplace of ideas increases reliance on negative campaigning, which hurts voter turnout and morale while usually detracting from substantive dialogue about policy issues. It also raises the barriers of entry for third-party candidates and more moderate candidates during elections and primaries, more deeply entrenching the two-party system. [3]  [1] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.  [2] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.  [3] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.

negative: ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive  A graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.

negative: The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, ﬁrst generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in beneﬁts and public services – a net ﬁscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.  [1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8,

negative: A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.  To pay for his government programs, Obama supports a progressive tax system, with higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the middle class. The need for such a system of taxing the rich to pay for government services has grown since 1980, when income gains between the rich and the poor began to diverge at a faster pace. [1] Recent data shows this trend continuing: in 2011 the wealthiest Americans got richer while median income fell by 4%. [2] Despite these trends, the top marginal tax rate is at nearly an all-time low! [3]  Increasing tax on individuals who earn more than $250,000 and even more for multi-millionaires because the marginal utility of wealth is lower for the super-rich than it is for the poorer. In other words, a millionaire is not particularly worse off if he or she is worth $10 million instead of $15 million. $5 million when spent on welfare programs such as pensions, education, healthcare or housing produces vastly greater utility. We thus see how a progressive tax system ensures a more efficient management of wealth across the economy.  Obama proposes to rake in more government revenue by raising the top marginal tax rate and instituting the Buffet Rule (a stipulation in President Obama’s plan which would apply a minimum tax rate of 30% to individuals making over $1 million per year). Crucially, Obama plans to continue to cut taxes for the middle classes in order to increase their purchasing power and stimulate the economy. [5]  As the 2012 presidential election approaches, President Obama’s long-term focus has been primarily on decreasing the federal debt, estimated at about $15 trillion. Specifically, Obama’s plan, detailed on his website, targets tax loopholes for households with annual incomes over $250,000, via efforts such as the Buffet Rule, while simultaneously reducing taxes for middle-class families and small business owners. [6] In September, President Obama revealed a plan to reduce the deficit by about $3.2 trillion in the next ten years. [7] This will be achieved through an increase in taxation of the nation’s wealthiest, and cuts in spending to the armed forces – as Obama plans to end American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  [1] Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities: “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality”, March 5 2012,   [2] Nocera, Joe: “Romney and the Forbes 400”, The New York Times, September 24 2012,   [3] Tax Policy Centre,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [4] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Politifact: “Barack Obama said he’s cut taxes for ‘middle-class families, small businesses’”,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [6] Barack Obama Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [7] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012

negative: The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers  An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.  The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.  Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)  Health insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)  The power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of "adverse selection". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.  States that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on 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 to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.

negative: There are three counter-points that can be used to challenge the proposition. Firstly, the opposition maintain that the Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Secondly, Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, the Monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits. There is also evidence to suggest that the nation actually benefits financially from the Crown Estate. Figures suggested by Professor David Flint [1] are that in 2009/10 all payments to the Crown came to about £30 million. But the British government received £211 million from the Crown Estate. So the government made a very substantial profit from The Queen – about £181 million.  [1] Professor David Flint, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

negative: Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records  Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68.

negative: Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)  42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns. [1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family.  Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money.  Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.  [1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.

negative: Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it  Government, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.  This is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.  In a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .  All of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.  Americans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .  [i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.  [ii] Jeffrey Sachs. "The Case for Bigger Government." Time. January 8th, 2009

negative: Far from being necessary immigrants are a drain on the economy. The vast majority of immigrants have few skills. These low skill migrants pay few taxes and take a lot of government benefits. For example in the United States each immigrant without a high school diploma costs the US taxpayers $89,000 over their lifetime. Since there are six million illegals without a high school diploma living in the US this adds up to half a trillion dollars. This increases further if they are given an amnesty so are able to claim citizenship and more money and the costs spiral yet further when the cost of educating their children is included with the possible cost rising to $2 trillion. [1] Some migrants may be necessary as a country ages, but the state should pick the migrants it wants - if a state wants migrants with skills to work in care homes it should let in those who have those skills or are applying to colleges to learn the relevant skills rather than granting an amnesty to those who are already here regardless of their worth to the economy.  [1] Rector, Robert, ‘Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts’, The Heritage Foundation, 25th October 2006,

negative: The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive.  The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks.  Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4  As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.

negative: It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more.  We cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy.  What we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population.  (1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

negative: Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,

negative: There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009  [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007

negative: y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good Hosting is very expensive  Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.

negative: Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic  The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1  The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society.  1. Apsan, 2010

negative: My vote does not count  In safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in.  [1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is

negative: Reducing trust in the state  In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1)  First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them.  Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.  This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority.  When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level.  Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached.  As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society.  (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013

negative: The free market fails in providing public and common goods  A ‘common good’ is a resource which has finite but replenishable supply but which is by its nature ‘non-excludable’ (meaning it’s hard to exclude individuals from using the resource). One example is the stock of fish in the sea. If all fishermen would refrain from overfishing, the fish population would have time to restore itself. But each individual fisherman has an incentive to capture and sell as much as possible. Since in a free market, there is no government coordinating supply and demand, each fisherman acts on their individual incentives. The result is rapid, irreversible depletion of the common good (Tragedy of the commons, 1968).  A ‘public good’ is a resource which is also ‘non-excludable’ but is also ‘non-rivalrous’, that is a good whose consumption by one consumer still allows simultaneous consumption by other consumers. One example of this is the air we breathe: every breath I take does not prevent you from taking a breath, nor can I feasibly exclude you from breathing. Other examples of public goods are schools, roads and national defense. Public goods suffer from the ‘free rider’ problem: once the good is produced, no one has an incentive to pay for the good. Since the good is non-excludable, no one can prevent someone from using it. This also leads to what economists call ‘negative externalities’: industries can freely pollute the air we breathe and not bear the costs for it. The issues of climate change are a direct example of this: corporations aren’t forced to pay for the negative externality of emitting greenhouse gases, and so continue doing it.