Instigator / Pro

MrFarRight

1482

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#2990

should the US Government create a $20,000 refundable tax credit for homemakers

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 04.07.2021 05:14AM
Last updated date: 05.19.2021 06:56PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

RationalMadman

1702

rating

574

debates

67.86%

won

Description

should the United Sates Government create a $20,000 tax credit for homemakers for the sake of this argument homemakers will include housewives and stay at home moms I will be arguing pro I think we can pay for it by taxing porn profits as well as liquor and tobacco products

Round 1

MrFarRight

04.07.2021 06:28AM

Pro

Opening statement: I would like to start by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject as well as the site mods and voters on this debate for making it all possible

I think this is a really important subject it is undeniable that family is the strength of a society and the mothers and children are at the center of the family this proposal would in the long term decrease both poverty and crime and make these United States a safer more prosperous place to live right now any moms can not spend the kind of time they used to with their kids many would say women are more free than ever but who here wants to approach the mother who is forced to work a 9-5 office Job where they are sexually harassed just to make ends meet and tell them they are liberated ???

what we have is a total mismanagement of the economy by the establishment politicians which has led to the breaking apart of the family for the benefit of large mulita national corporations wages have been stagnant since the 1970s with a small exception in 2019 this combined with inflation has made the rich richer and the poor poorer this proposal would encourage less single motherhood which as then senator Barak Obama said " we all know these statistics children who grow up without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crimes 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison " this plan would give the choice of being a stay at home mom the so many working class moms

RationalMadman

04.14.2021 06:28AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

MrFarRight

04.14.2021 06:13PM

Pro

since you did not respond I have nothing to counter you did not even post an opening statement so I shall just reiterate what I said before

RationalMadman

04.21.2021 05:14PM

Con

Sexism

I am in a way happy I didn't post a reply to my opponent's Round 1 as it may have seemed presumptive. In the comments section someone even pointed out to me how reasonable it is to mistakenly mention housewives and stay-at-home moms since that's the majority. In Round 2, on top of in the debate's description, my opponent explicitly makes it clear how sexist this policy is and it no longer can be misconstrued to be an unfair attack by me.

This policy would not assist stay-at-home fathers whatsoever, not even if it were a single father who had found himself unemployed. That's a glaring issue with the policy and extremely strong moral grounds to oppose its grandstanding as some saviour of all housewife and househusband households (it doesn't respect the latter).

Also, what of genderqueer households with a parent that doesn't identify as male or female?

Impractical enforcement and basis

The basis of this policy is ironically very much the opposite of Pro's username and stated agenda. Pro claims to be a far-right advocate and insofar as the sexism is concerned, he fits the bill (his profile says he is male so I'm not assuming the 'he'). Pro's stated agenda is problematic for the three primary reasons that follow:

It seems to completely treat rich/high-income households with one parent who isn't employed as identical to low-income households that can barely cope.
It creates every incentive for females to remain unemployed if they feel like doing so.
Rather than come from income tax or corporate tax, it is solely to be funded by products Pro deems immoral and unnecessary (porn, alcohol, tobacco etc) as per the description. The proportion of cost will make these products so extremely expensive they end up bankrupting any business that tries to deal in them.

There is something very odd about Pro's case, it doesn't outline who is to be affected or why, in terms of how desperately they need government assistance.

Do you understand how expensive it will be for any American producer of pornography, alcohol products and tobacco products? Who will even buy their products? The rich would buy from abroad as they easily have the reach to do so, noone would purchase them, the poor would merely not have access to them and suffer withdrawal symptoms if they're addicted or simply have less to enjoy in life than before (I presume this isn't just those products, it probably is also sex toys, erotic fiction and basically anything Pro deems goes against strict religious teachings since that appears to be the theme).

The sexist element of this is clearly to encourage males of low-income households to need to find employment because all females can supposedly sit back and relax since their (I presume annual) taxes are paid off at least $20,000 and the rest is confusing because this wouldn't really help anyway as they have no actual money whatsoever, they just owe less in tax...

Now, I will list further issues with it:

It's a tax credit yet you are somehow 'paying it' to the unemployed who have no income tax

Ironically, this issue really highlights how self-defeating the means and feasibility of this 'project' and/or policy are. An unemployed single mother will struggle severely regardless, I guess Pro knows this as he states the agenda is to make them have a little more time to find a suitable husband to fill the 'father' role for their household. An unemployed male in any situation can't benefit whatsoever from this, even if he wants to be a stay-at-home father with a working wife.

This entire policy doesn't even make sense at all since the tax credit is given to the parent in the household who isn't earning income and paying income tax.

There are so many loopholes and issues with it, I am perplexed how Pro can even conceive any positive elements of this at all. Neither wing of politics would back this, it is a pseudo-left-wing actually-sexist agenda.

If anyone would benefit, it's high-income households where the stay-at-home parent isn't even doing much since they've hired a maid, cleaner, gardener and secretary to organise (the chores a stay-at-home parent of lower income households would do). Such a household pays a lot of income-tax and 20k reduction would help... Except again, the issue that it's the other parent who pays income tax and earns the income comes into play.

Round 3

MrFarRight

04.21.2021 08:56PM

Pro

it is a refundable A nonrefundable tax credit means you get a refund only up to the amount you owe. A refundable tax credit means you get a refund, even if it's more than what you owe

source:

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals#:~:text=A%20nonrefundable%20tax%20credit%20means,more%20than%20what%20you%20owe.

so if you owe $0 in taxes you get $20,000 from the Government (this is how Activision Blizzard gets millions from the government every year) so no doesn't matter how much you made so this would logically help the working class as the mother may need a job in order to make ends meet and why do you care if it allows women not to work if they don't want to is the left not the party of let people do what they want? "oh no women having a choice well we cant have that"

question :

why would you want people to consume porn ? it has no purpose except turning women into sex objects it is Evil

and no the rich would not buy abroad as if it is sold to an American in America it would be subject to the tax as well as import duties

the reason my argument in round 2 is exactly the same as in round 1 is because it is a copy paste because con did not post an argument

and if it is a single unemployed dad ok make a argument for that is not what this debate is about this is about the credit in question not ant other program you are just spouting things and hoping that it makes sense

and there is no none binary I am sorry but there are only 2 sexes the sky is blue and facts don't care about your feelings

RationalMadman

04.28.2021 08:50PM

Con

Pro exolained what refundable tax is, however didn't exolain why that would apply to the one who doesnt earn income and pay income tax. If it doesn't, them it doesn't encourage the nuclear family household he claims to want to push society towards.

Other than that I find no rebuttals and do confess to being very busy IRL at this moment in time.

I'll conclude in the final Round, I just see questions and no arguments relating to the topic nor rebuttals to my Round 2, in Pro's Round 3.

Round 4

MrFarRight

05.05.2021 06:56PM

Pro

because it would probably apply to the bread winners tax returns because they would be the one filing

RationalMadman

05.12.2021 06:56PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

05.17.2021 02:49PM

#11

-->

@Barney

You voting doesn't fix the core problem but thank you.

RationalMadman

05.17.2021 01:55PM

#10

-->

@Barney

Yes I would prefer that actually, if you can't see the flaw and correct the writing then I'd prefer you apply it with common sense.

Barney

05.17.2021 01:53PM

-->

@RationalMadman

For enforcing the policy as it is written, which explicitly spells out how is it to be interpreted for this debate type? Would you prefer vote moderators that just do whatever they feel like day to day, instead of looking at the policy?

In any case, you are always welcome to appeal to another moderator. They might read those lines of the policy different than I.

RationalMadman

05.17.2021 01:33PM

-->

@Barney

please quit your role as a voting moderator.

Barney

05.17.2021 01:31PM

-->

@RationalMadman

@Nevets

@MrFarRight

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

This being a choose winner debate, the repeated forfeitures do allow a conduct only award to be the determinant without further consideration. Further consideration is of course allowed (encouraged even), but is not strictly required.

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************

Pilot

05.16.2021 11:47PM

-->

@RationalMadman

No problem.

RationalMadman

05.16.2021 11:32PM

-->

@Pilot

Thanks for the vote. :)

MrFarRight

04.21.2021 07:17AM

-->

@RationalMadman

come on argue come on man

RationalMadman

04.07.2021 06:42AM

-->

@Athias

take a look at his username and other debates and tell me it isn't a severe assumption on his sexist agenda.

Athias

04.07.2021 06:01AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Because the trend dictates that women in comparison to men are overwhelmingly the stay-at-home parent. It's a presumption that leaves out stay-at-home fathers, but isn't a bad presumption.

RationalMadman

04.07.2021 05:32AM

Why does it only include females?

Barney

05.17.2021 02:25PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I do like a setup, as it states where the money in the proposal would come from (seen times people try to argue it'd be a good, so it doesn't matter that it's infeasible).

R1:
Pro opens with an appeal to emotions of women and children, asserts that it would lower the crime rate (probably true, but some source for this should be used), and more appeal to emotion of claiming if not given they were be sexually harassed in the workplace (immediate irony of where he wants the money to come from).
He moves on for the truism that current politicians have mismanaged the economy, detours through some assumptions about motives, and ends nicely with an Obama quote which in itself pulls some useful statistics (a political fact check on it would have been great at cementing those data points).
Con forfeits.

R2:
Pro expands oh their rhetoric, really focused on the harm of sexual harassment (some source for frequency to support this claim would be really useful). And some definite unlabeled copy/pasting from his previous round.
Con leverages that the policy as proposed would only apply to stay at home moms, specifically excluding male and other homemakers.
Con derails a little into disliking pro's user name.
Con details flaws with the policy not, from it being progressive instead of balanced (I suspect pro will fail to catch this), it encouraging unemployment, and it utilizing a sin tax designed to bankrupt the businesses which fund it (a source showing a history of this would strengthen the point) and intuitively thus make the credit go away.
Con moves on to a coup de grâce (could have lead with this) that it's a tax credit, so the proposed unemployed beneficiaries would not be eligible!

R3:
Pro uses a source about tax credits to defend his proposal, how people can get money back on already paid taxes that year even if they don't owe any more taxes (I admit that I hope con catches what's wrong with this; but if unchallenged it will deflect the otherwise fatal blow).
Pro damages the credibility of his case by making up something con is supposed to have said "oh no women having a choice well we cant have that" (this form of strawman is a huge pet peeve of mine). Pro continues in this vine accusing con of supporting what he calls evil, and saying some really demeaning things about women... Some more edge lord stuff...
Con gives a short analysis for why pro's tax credit thing would not be beneficial to people who paid no taxes, as it would allow money back on already paid income tax, not create money if they were not taxed already. And points out that pro otherwise dropped the arguments.

R4:
Pro attempts to switch the proposal to the non-homemakers getting the tax credit, which is against the very resolution he proposed (unless the homemakers are webcam models being taxed massively by the proposal?).

---

Arguments:
Overwhelming con victory, as he reduced the proposal down to just misunderstandings and implied misogyny. Pro was not able to make the proposal make sense, and outright dropped the majority of the challenges against it, while giving needless insults rather than attempting to patch the holes in his plan.
Honestly, I'm only being this detailed due to the multiple forfeitures, which gave pro a good chance at victory which he did not take proper advantage of.

Conduct:
The multiple forfeits are a problem, but some of pro's behavior was pretty bad too. Were this categorical, I would likely penalize con due to it being multiple rounds missed; even while still giving him the argument points.

As this is choose winner, and 3>1, con wins.

Pilot

05.16.2021 11:09PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Even with Cons repeated forfeiture, Pro was ill equipped to properly respond to Cons rebuttals. Con uncovered the incomplete logic in Pro's proposal by pointing out how taxing alcohol and porn would literally cause the companies who sell and distribute those things to go out of business which would leave Pro's proposed mode of funding their proposition unable to do so. Pro instead opted to double down on their assertion by claiming alcohol and pornography were immoral to begin with, so it wouldn't be bad if they disappear. That may be true, but if you hope to use those modes of business to fund your proposal, you would most certainly not want them to go out of business. This alone is sufficient enough to convince me that Pro's proposal was ill conceived from the start, and since Pro didn't properly dispute that point, Con's forfeiture was not an issue.

Pro also did nothing to address the biased manner of the proposal and all of the problems that could potentially come from that. This was nothing more than a barely comprehensive tirade from someone who is oh so concerned about women not being at home.

Nevets

05.16.2021 12:42AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason: