query: Those who have more owe more to the state  Wealthier people benefit from the state more than do those who are worse off for two reasons. First, they have more to lose in the absence of the state. Without the rule of law, people would no longer be bound by any power to respect one another’s property rights. A rich person has much more to lose should there be a reversion to the state of nature; nothing would shield him from the mob. For this reason it is in the interest of the wealthy to preserve the just rule of law in the state and to uphold its institutions. It does so by funding it through taxation, and those who have more to lose have a greater interest in paying more to ensure its continuity. The second benefit the rich have is that they have gained more from the state than have the poor and less well off. It is only within a state system that maintains order and provides vital services that markets can form and be maintained. [1] Warren Buffett, for example, has argued that he could never have amassed anywhere near the sort of wealth he has in a country without the rule of law, such as Bangladesh. [2] Wealthy business owners and corporations use state utilities far more than poorer individuals quite often, when for example they use public roads to move their vast fleets of trucks, while individuals only drive their personal car. The state guarantees property rights, which allows markets to form and provides the protections and services to businesses that need them to function. Those who profit from that have an obligation to contribute to its upkeep.  [1] Lakoff, George and Bruce Budner. “Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes”. Institute for America’s Future. 2007. Available:   [2] Terkel, Amanda. “Warren Buffett: ‘I Should Be Paying a Lot More in Taxes’”. Huffington Post. 2010. Available:

positive: tax house supports progressive tax rate Possessing greater wealth does not obligate an individual to contribute more to the state by any moral precept. All people’s property rights should be protected equally. Citizens who succeed by their own industry and accrue wealth should not be punished for their success, or be expected to contribute more to a state that provided the same basic framework of law and rights to all citizens, rich and poor.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Those able to pay more should pay more into the tax system  The wealthy have more disposable income and are more financially secure than are the poor and economically tenuous. For this reason, a progressive system of taxation puts the tax burden more heavily on the wealthy which has the wherewithal to pay. Progressive taxes make everyone sacrifice equally, since true equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice. [1] It is ludicrous to expect the poor and less well-off to pay the same proportional amount in taxes as the wealthy since they have to spend most of their income on essential goods like food and shelter; it is unjust to gain all state revenues from regressive taxes like VAT, since the wealthy have excess resources they can do without while not overly influencing their standard of living. [2] Progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money. Clearly, progressive taxation is just in terms of burdens on individual taxpayers.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Shapiro, Robert. “Flat Wrong: New Tax Schemes Can’t Top Old Progressive Wrongs”. Washington Post. 1996. Available:

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Progressive taxes place an unfair and disproportionate burden on the wealthy  The revenues the state acquires through taxation are used to pay for various services and benefices. Lower income individuals consume these services to a disproportionate degree. It is they who require income supplements and child benefits when they lack the wherewithal to provide for themselves, and they avail more readily than the wealthy of such things as public healthcare and transport services. There is thus clearly no correlation between the amount people pays in taxes and amount of benefits they receive from them. [1] The rich make less use of such services, often preferring to use of privately provided services, yet they are expected to pay a greater proportion of their wealth to the public services they do not use under a progressive system of taxation. As a matter of fairness it is only just that everyone contribute to the provision of public services equally, in accordance with their wherewithal to do so. Wealthier people thus can pay more units of wealth to the system than poor people justly, but when they are expected to pay a disproportionate percentage of wealth, through a system that levies contributions according to a progressive rather than proportional scale, they are being used unfairly and being stripped of their rightful possessions to the use of others.  [1] Mayer, David. “Wealthy Americans Deserve Real Tax Relief”. On Principle 7(5). 1999. Available:

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society  A progressive taxation system essentially assumes that the property rights of the poor are more sacred than those of the wealthy. Somehow the wealthy have a less proportionate ownership right than do the less well-off simply by dint of their greater wealth. [1] This is the height of injustice. An individual’s income is a measure of his overarching societal worth, by reflecting his ability to produce goods and services people find socially desirable and to signify his level of competence and desirability by his employer. The state should not punish people for this greater social worth by taxing them disproportionally to others. When it does so it expects people to work for the sake of others to an extent that is not fair, effectively consigning them to a kind of forced labor, by which parts of the wealth they work to acquire is appropriated by the state to a degree beyond which it is willing to do to others. [2] Such a regime is manifestly unjust.  [1] Seligman, Edwin. “Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice”. Publications of the American Economic Association 9(1): 7-222. 1894.  [2] Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. 1974.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Progressive taxation promotes a more equal, more harmonious society  Progressive taxation provides real equality of opportunity, and serves to level the playing field so that social classes are not fixed. Everyone deserves a chance to climb the economic ladder, but without a regime of progressive taxation this is nearly impossible. [1] If tax revenues are generated by flat or regressive taxes the poor will necessarily have to contribute substantial portions of their own income to the state, cutting into their ability to consume and save. Social services must still be financed, and the best way to do that is through a progressive tax regime that makes those most able to pay more pay more; if more of the burden is placed on the poor and disadvantaged, as it must in a flat-rate system, fewer people will be able to climb out from the social strata in which they are born. [2] The more equal society created by these taxes is thus more equitable, since it affords people greater opportunities. It is also more harmonious, since well-funded services keep people from feeling desperate and to turn to such things as crime. But greater equality itself can also be beneficial, as it reduces distinctions between groups in society, and prevents stratification into social classes based on wealth. People who are more alike can sympathize and empathize more with one another. Progressive taxation thus promotes a very real and powerful social message that can greatly benefit social cohesion.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Benabou, Roland. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001. Available:

negative: The proposition side have resurrected an old legal mechanism that was of limited use in order to defend an inaccurate and polarising interpretation of corporate rights.  The proposition argues that the actions and behaviour of profit making business corporations will always be guided by the profit motive and that, for this reason, corporations will never be able to contribute to the accommodations and compromises that free speech is used to foster. In plainer terms, side proposition see corporations as being inherently deceptive and untrustworthy.  The proposition side have failed to consider that it is possible for corporations to function within free markets, and to participate fully in capitalist democracies, without being bound to a single minded pursuit of profit.  Corporations have now recognised that the growth and maintenance of profits in the long term can often best be served by under-emphasising profit in the short term. Corporations have become increasingly conscious of the effects that their activities have on the societies that they operate in. Ostensibly profitable actions that undermine the cohesiveness of communities, make enemies of politicians or, ultimately, create less stable market conditions will not contribute to the long-term health of the corporation. Indeed, long term planning and long term impact is more important to corporations as they exist in perpetuity. Unlike natural persons, corporations will never die.  The profit motive is no longer the primary driving force behind corporate activity. There is little need for the state to take drastic steps to curtail corporations’ freedoms , because the behavioural imperative that the proposition side objects to is no longer the central priority of businesses operating in liberal democracies.  Another way to address this problem is to adopt the perspective of NPR columnist Bradley Smith. Smith correctly observes that states, including the USA, may grant rights to individuals and that those rights may be exercised under certain circumstances that the state prescribes. An individual can, for example, exercise a right to receive income support, or can obtain a right to drive a car by passing a driving test. Similarly, corporate persons have been granted a certain body of rights by the state [1] . The individuals that band together as a corporation have the right to limit their liability for the corporations losses; to have the corporation treated as a single person and to benefit (in the US at least) from similar rights to due process and freedom from discrimination.  Simply because a corporation is granted certain rights by the state that improve the efficiency of its operations and the financial position of its members, this does not mean that it should lose its right to speak freely.  In a liberal democracy, rights are not traded, hedged and swapped by states and citizens. Nor do constitutional rights exist in a hierarchy. Rights are incommensurate, because they can be applied in a wide variety of ways to defend a wide variety of causes. The right to speech are persuasion must always remain flexible because different audiences and different groups respond to different arguments. There is nothing dishonest in a company choosing the most persuasive manner of speech that it can find in order to defend its own interests.  [1] “Corporations are people, too”. National Public Radio online, 10 September 2009.

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: tax house supports progressive tax rate The ability to orchestrate a progressive taxation regime gives undue and dangerous power to the state  The power to tax is power to destroy. A state with power over a progressive taxation system can put the wealthy in effective thrall, and use them to benefit its own ends. This is exacerbated by such phenomena as the tyranny of the majority which can lead the majority of less wealthy and have-nots to demand more and more services and paying for them by inflicting ever more onerous taxes on the wealthy while diminishing their own burdens. Furthermore, so long as the tax burden is disproportionately leveled on the few, no one can see the growing size of the state. [1] With flat or regressive consumption tax everyone can feel the growth of the state. They can also understand the costs associated with it, driving them to have more realistic preferences and to make more rational demands of the state rather than treating the rich as a perpetual piggy bank.  [1] Dorn, James. “Ending Tax Socialism”. Cato Institute. 1996. Available:

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Taxation need not be proportional to be fair; individuals earning significantly higher income than others have benefited from many societal factors that allowed them to accumulate wealth in peace and safety. Such people thus owe a greater burden to the state for the greater benefits the opportunities it bestowed upon them allowed. A just system of taxation should reflect this, and a progressive system does so by levying from people in accordance with their wealth that without the state could not have existed. A study of 54 nations shows that the public preserve flattening the tax adds to the risk of wellbeing and thus prefer progressive tax as a way in order to for a better over quality of life. [1]  [1] Hyde, Lucy, ‘A More Progressive Tax System Makes People Happier’, Association for Psychological Science, 6 September 2011,

negative: The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class  One of the more divisive problems in America is the increasing inequality between the wealthy and members of other classes. The harms that could, and have resulted from this extend to the Occupy Protests in the tail end of 2011, as well as riots With the rich consistently seeming to get richer despite the poor economic climate, many of the less rich within the American economy feel that the state is playing against them, conferring advantages on those best able to lobby politicians and make large election campaign donations. This is problematic when it is state mechanisms that will enable American’s who lack access to costly universities to better educate and train themselves, thus making them more employable thus allowing them to help push the American economy out of recession.  A popular consensus has emerged amongst America’s middle class, which portrays the recession as an event triggered by the rich, with rhetoric regarding “Greedy Bankers” playing into the public discourse on the ineffectiveness of state regulation of large financial institutions.  The American Jobs Act redresses the balance between the wealthy top tier of American society and its middle and working classes. In doing so, it helps to alter the perception of the rich and their contributions to society.  The burdens currently confronted by America’s middle class are addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, payroll tax, a pay-as-you-earn tax that is withheld from employee’s wages, will be significantly reduced. As such, any families with a large number of working members will be subjected to a much lower tax burden. This would provide a tax cut of around $1,500 to a typical American family.2  Given also the higher tax burden placed on the rich with this tax, and the system that results is likely to be skewed more strongly in favour of working Americans. Further, changes in the taxation system will also be able to sure up any loopholes that have been exploited by the rich to avoid taxes.  Finally, the jobs act redresses problems where the largest subsidies go to things such as charitable giving and mortgage interest – presumably things which are paid by people who need subsidies the least. Caps will be placed on such tax breaks under the act and as such, money will be more likely to go to people who need it more – the poor or unemployed.  In bringing about these changes, better economic circumstances are created for the poor and the balance between rich and poor is likely to become smaller.3

negative: Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public  Everyone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations. [1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from.  [1] Anon. (2006). “Worldwide Momentum for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research” Alliance for Taxpayer Access.

negative: Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.

negative: Why a flat tax is regressive  'Regressive' means that a tax impacts upon the poor more greatly than upon the rich, and this is exactly what occurs with a flat tax. Because everyone pays the same percentage, both a rich and poor man would for example pay 10% of their income in tax. As the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on their basic necessities (such as rent and food) than the rich do, as the rich have far more discretionary income to spend on luxuries. [1] Therefore, the impact of a 10% tax upon a poorer person is far greater in terms of limiting their ability to buy things they may want or need than it is upon a richer person, and consequently the harm of taxing a poorer person at the same rate as a richer person is greater than the harm of taxing a richer person at a higher percentage. Even if the 'personal allowance' allows the poorest in our society to exempt their income from the flat tax (which, of course, offers no relief to the middle class, who now pay a greater percentage tax on their income), they will still be significantly worse off as a consequence of the sales component of the flat tax. This again stems from the poorest spending a greater percentage of their income on necessities, which are not currently subject to sales tax (VAT). Once these VAT 'loopholes' (such as on books, children's clothing and food) are closed, the poorest will be harmed as they have to pay out even more to obtain the necessities of life. Both These increased harms breed resentment and can lead to social disorder, as was seen in the UK in 1990 when an attempt to introduce a 'poll tax' (a form of flat tax, with everyone paying the same charge) led to severe rioting in London and caused the plan to be abandoned. [2] Therefore the regressive nature of a flat tax makes it undesirable and more harmful than current forms of taxation.  [1] Encyclopedia of Business. “Discretionary Income”. Enotes.   [2] BBC On This Day “1990: Violence flares in poll tax demonstration” BBC Home

negative: Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone  The creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources, [1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions.  Universities are as aggressively protective of their patents and discoveries as much as any profit-seeking private firm, but the state should instead seek to minimize these urges by altering the sorts of arrangements it makes with universities. Research into new theories, medicines, technologies, etc. are all important to society and should be fostered with public funding where necessary. The state best ensures the benefit of society by making sure that when it agrees to fund a research program it guarantees that the information produced will be fully available to all citizens to enjoy and benefit from. More than just attaining a result, the state needs to give its funding maximum exposure so it can be maximally utilized.  [1] Vught, F., et al. (2010) “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance  The modern progressive tax system has created whole industries of firms and specialists geared toward helping people file their taxes and to ensure the system runs smoothly. It has also bred armies of officials who oversee and audit tax issues, costing the United States for example more than $11 billion a year to operate its tax collection and verification systems. [1] People are forced under the progressive system to waste hours filling out returns, to hoard and sift through receipts to be accurate and to maximize their rebates. There is thus a huge efficiency loss in terms of people’s time as they are forced to dedicate effort and resources to the often arduous task of filing taxes in an ever more complicated system, arising from a progressive regime. The extreme complexity of the system has generated further negative incentives, encouraging the wealthy to seek ways around the system, to exploit loopholes in the bloated system for their personal benefit. [2] The very wealthy can thus evade obligations through the manipulation of complex tax codes and loopholes, and can sometimes even lead less scrupulous people to pay less than less wealthy people. Flat and regressive consumption taxes, on the other hand, offer an easier mechanism of taxation that is easier to understand, less time consuming to deal with, and harder to manipulate.  [1] White, James. “Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the 2008 Budget Request and an Update of 2007 Performance”. United States Government Accountability Office. Available:   [2] Wolk, Martin. “Why the Tax System Keeps Getting More Complex”. MSNBC. 2006. Available:

negative: The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.  Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly. [1] Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely. [2] Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available:   [2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available:

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: tax house supports progressive tax rate The aim of taxation should be to provide equality of opportunity, not of outcom  Taxation should not be about trying to engineer a more equal society. The purpose of taxes is to furnish necessary services people need to become competitive free agents in the economy. Progressive taxes take unduly from some to give to others in the hope of fostering social equality. Yet such efforts can only be harmful, as they breed resentment from rich toward the poor for taking undue amounts of their wealth for their consumption, and feelings of entitlement from poor who feel the wealthy owe them the money they pay, and thus feel happy to levy ever more odious taxes from them. [1] Society is best served by promoting a system of taxation that fosters equality of opportunity, by providing essential services to which everyone contributes in accordance with their ability to pay. This is better serviced through a system of flat-taxes, such as in Russia where there is a flat tax of 13%, [2] that promote a system of proportionality in taxation, rather than progressive taxes that focus unduly upon the contributions of the few to the many.  [1] The Frugal Libertarian. “Immorality of Progressive Income Tax”. Nolan Chart. 2008. Available:   [2] Mardell, Mark, ‘Pros and cons of Rick Perry’s flat tax plan’, BBC News, 26 October 2011,

negative: The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause  Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.  Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. Where a Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that ”strong” and potentially more intrusive forms of action are less supported than weaker ones.(11)  Critics of an individual mandate cite recent Supreme Court cases in which the Court has limited the commerce clause’s power. However, those cases (Lopez and Morrison) involved regulation of non-economic activity. The individual mandate regulates the relationship between sellers and buyers of health care insurance. Moreover, the Court was concerned in Lopez and Morrison with efforts by Congress to intrude into areas that are properly regulated by state governments and thereby to upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. By contrast, congressional regulation of the health care industry does not violate state prerogatives.  To be sure, much regulation of insurance occurs at the state level, but that is because Congress has chosen by statute to defer to state regulation. The Constitution does not prevent Congress from revoking its statutory grants to state governments.(12) Those who argue that this is unconstitutional maintain that those not purchasing health insurance, by definition, are not part of interstate commerce. There are numerous flaws with this argument.  First, Congress can regulate activities that themselves are not part of interstate commerce if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat that farmers grew for their own home consumption. More recently in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could prohibit cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use. Even though the individuals were not personally engaged in commerce, the matter still fit within the commerce power.(10)  Second, the decision to abstain from particular economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) This is made more significant by the fact that the decision to remain uninsured can affect commerce- both within and between states- by raising health insurance premiums. This is because insurance premiums tend to rise in response to reductions in the size of the pool of individuals to whom financial risk can be distributed.(14)  Citizens who forego health insurance are forcing other Americans to cover their costs if they are sent to hospital for emergency treatment. They are also forcing others to pay higher insurance rates, now that insurance companies can no longer legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions.(15)  Third, the likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs. In other words, the health care system is part of interstate commerce. Providing care for all unquestionably has a substantial economic effect. Congress, then, can use its authority under the necessary and proper clause to make sure that the system that it is creating is viable and capable of providing health care for all.(10)  Therefore the individual healthcare mandate is constitutional because it is authorized under the commerce clause of the constitution.

negative: mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2  1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.

negative: The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments  Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.  [1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.   [2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011.   [3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’

negative: economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole  The strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4  1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.  3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.  4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.

negative: Poverty creates a vicious circle  Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle, caused by poverty that many poor countries find themselves in. A poor country also means a poor, ill-funded government. Such an institution is either unhelpful in preventing poverty or a road block to poverty alleviation. A poor population is also unfortunately more likely to lead to an autocratic government. This phenomenon can be shown by looking at decolonisation. Poor countries when decolonised, even if they initially had democratic aspirations quickly fell to dictatorship. There are very few exceptions such as India that have managed to continually maintain a democratic government while poor. Wealthy countries when decolonised are much more likely to become democracies and once poor autocracies become rich the pressure for democratisation usually becomes unstoppable so countries like South Korea democratised as they became wealthy. There might be considered to be a wealth threshold about which states will become democracies.(1)  The reason why poverty is likely to lead to dictatorship is simple; a lack of an educated, effective civil service. When the government is very small it can’t effectively control the whole country or ensure accountability. The result, especially when civil servants are poorly paid is corruption and an opening for the army, or any populist who appears to offer a solution to take power. Once dictatorship occurs it can usually be maintained by force until the population is educated and connected enough to engage in a democratic revolution.  There is then a free pass for those in power to exploit their position through corruption. Many dictators, including in Africa have become very rich indeed. Mohammed Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko( the former dictators of Indonesia, the Philippines, and DR Congo) extorted up to $50bn (£28bn) from their impoverished people (2).  A vicious cycle is created whereby the government needs money, so corruption and extortion are rampant. Those in power are more concerned with their own wealth than the people which makes the government poorer and less efficient so providing more incentive to resort to illicit means of funding.  (1) Cois, Carles; and Stokes, Susan C., ‘Endogenous Democratization’, The University of Chicago, 3 June 2003,   (2) Denny, Charlotte, ‘Suharto, Marcos and Mobutu head corruption table with $50bn scams’, The Guardian, 26 March 2004

negative: Offshore outsourcing accelerates the development of poorer states’ infrastructure.  Offshoring spurs the development of poorer states. Offshoring relies on the existence of a basic industrial base and certain essential forms of state infrastructure, including an education system. These facilities are likely to be partially or wholly absent in a developing economy. The readily available capital that is located in the developed world, along with the example provided by other developing states that have successfully engaged in offshoring projects incentivises investment in service infrastructure and high quality education.  Many contemporary development strategies focus on developing a state’s industrial and agricultural sectors before its service economy. Expansion of developing states agricultural sectors is already proving to be a politically contentious issue, thanks to the generous and entrenched subsidies that farmers in the developed world are provided with. Resource extraction from developing states is not possible without ceding control of land and hiring of employees to wealthy supermajor oil firms, which exercise an effective monopoly over skilled geologists, miners, scientists and oil drilling experts. Under these circumstances, a conservative approach to development is likely to take an extremely long time to substantially improve economic prosperity and living standards within a poor state. However, an immediate focus on the service sector may allow a state to “leap frog” these developmental stages [i] .  Offshoring provides businesses within a developing state with access to foreign markets far larger than those in their native economy may contain. This will allow offshoring businesses to take advantage of economies of scale and capital inflow in order to develop with greater speed.  A state’s political culture will also stand to benefit from increased outsourcing. Offshore businesses will demand increasingly accountable, predictable and non-arbitrary forms of national governance. A level of reliability and foreseeability is essential in any system of civil law; so is a restrained, stable government that is prevented from using its power to expropriate private assets or spend tax revenue capriciously.  [i] “Strengthening India’s offshoring industry.” McKinsey Quaterly, August 2009.

negative: Side proposition’s description of the economic processes underlying off shore outsourcing is overly optimistic, and makes claims about educational and industrial development in the first world that are highly contestable.  By shifting production and support services to the developing world, western businesses are, in effect, circumventing protections built into first world employment laws designed to ensure that the demands of the market do not abrogate individual liberty or basic standards of welfare. Limitations imposed on market freedom, such as the minimum wage, are justified by the risk of incentivising businesses to cut wages to such a level that employees are forced into lives of subsistence, with restrictions on their spending power and mobility effectively tethering them to a particular employer or trade.  Offshoring presents a direct challenge to the creation of liberal democratic ideas, norms and institutions within developing states. Offshoring favours states that provide a consistent supply of cheap, reliable labour – even if the availability of that labour is a result of poverty or government authoritarianism. An authoritarian state may ban unions, or create unbalanced labour laws that give no protection to employees.  Businesses that engage in offshoring have no control over the uses that the taxes paid by their overseas partners are put to. It is frequently the case that undeveloped states will continue to underinvest in infrastructure and public services. Instead, tax revenue will be kept low enough to attract further investment, with takings spent on entrenching the position of undeveloped states’ controlling institutions and social elites. Such practices may ultimately undermine the development process within poorer nations. A diminishing supply of workers will be obliged to taken on the burden of a declining standard of living. Workers will be forced to pay for increasingly costly educational and medical services in order to meet the needs of their families and extended families. Payment of bribes will become common. Without sensible reinvestment of tax revenues, workers are likely to become dependent on foreign in order to meet their domestic needs. Eventually, excessive growth in dependency may push an economy into competitive decline, as the state fails to maintain the size or education standards of its working population.

negative: Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.  The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.  There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.  There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.  Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.  Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.

negative: Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional  It is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)  The Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)  As noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: "Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it."(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)  Enforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)  For all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor  The government and its laws should take care of all their people. Because the state is a construct built by all the people, who all pay taxes to support it, laws should also be based to benefit the greatest amount of people possible.In the case of the Myriad company, which holds, together with the University of Utah Research Foundation, rights over tests for ovarian cancer, it prevented cheaper tests being offered to the public. As a result, Myriad is the only company that can market a test for the mutations, and it charges as much as $3,000 . That is a price that for many is inaccessible. Patients’ state: “There is no other, cheaper test that you could go get in another laboratory, because they have the exclusive patent,” she explained, adding that Myriad also controls the efficacy of the test—second opinions are only available for certain surgeries 1.Because patenting harms the accessibility of diagnostics and testing, it should not be allowed.  1. Pratt P.A., Court Rules That DNA Is Information, Not Intellectual Property, published March 30th 2010,  , accessed 07/20/2011

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 longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:  Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.

negative: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry.  1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available:

negative: Offshore outsourcing reduces living standards and limits social mobility.  Reliance on offshoring and offshore outsourcing is likely to lead to increases in inequality and reductions in social mobility within developed western liberal democracies.  Trade with developing economies typically results in a price premium becoming attached to specialised, skilled labourers and service providers in western economies. Poorer countries- even rapidly growing states such as India- produce smaller quantities of highly educated, highly skilled workers, such as vehicle designers, microchip fabricators and architects. In view of this, developing states concentrate on creating semi-skilled jobs that can be assigned to workers lacking- for example- university degrees. A larger proportion of Indian citizens are educated to a lower standard, so the creation of jobs accessible to them will generally be seen as politically astute. Opportunities for employment as a call centre operative or a pay roll clerk will rise in a developing state in response to an increased interest in offshoring by first world businesses.  Concurrently, as some of the money businesses save by offshoring is reinvested in advanced training, consultation exercises and research and development, demand for the services of specialists and highly skilled professionals will rise. Less skilled workers in a developed economy will see a decline in both employment opportunities [i] and pay. Professionals and those who can afford postgraduate education are likely to see their salaries increase. The gap between the rich and poor strata of society within developed economies will grow.  In short, while professionals, executives and decision makers will benefit from offshoring, seeing demand for their services rise, foreign competition is likely to undermine the domestic market for less skilled labour [ii] .  A reduction in demand for white-collar clerical workers, bookkeepers and assembly line workers will increase the burden placed on state social support schemes such as public housing, jobseekers’ payments and subsidised medical care [iii] . Although businesses may benefit from cheap overseas labour, the state will be left to contend with increasing expenditure in the short term and impaired educational and welfare standards in the long term. Children and communities within developed states that lose jobs to offshore operations will be less able to access further and higher education and are more likely to suffer  The social costs engendered by outsourcing do not balance against the financial benefits that accrue to businesses and professionals. Attempts to tax profits generated as a result of offshoring practices may fill a state’s coffers, but will not provide and effective solution to job losses and an increasing dependence on state assistance within less economically mobile communities within the developing world.  Finally, it should be noted that companies encountering financial difficulty or attempting to adapt to recessions come under intense pressure to cut costs. Increasingly, large businesses achieve these savings by engaging in outsourcing [iv] . For the reasons described above, such a practice may exclude a large number of individuals from the labour market. Outsourcing may therefore entrench and prolong a recession.  [i] Fig 3, “Labour-market trends. Winners and losers.” The Economist, 10 September 2011.   [ii] “Free Trade’s great, but offshoring rattles me.” Blinder, A S. The Washington Post, 06 May 2007.   [iii] “Idea. Offshoring.” The Economist, 28 October 2009.   [iv] “Passage to India.” The Economist, 24 June 2010.

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.