PF Apr ’16 – Income inequality

The Pro case in a nutshell (from yesterday – not in the Extemp Files yet):

The Case for a New WPA – The Atlantic

The making of a Con case, in three parts: show the problem (pages 5-7), provide the means, show that the means work. (The latter two might not need to be done at all, or at least until the second or later Con speech – it would depend on what attacks the Pro side makes.)

Brady – Bernie Sanders wants the US to stop having the highest child poverty rate among rich countries – Here’s how you can do it

Farrell – A Financial Times columnist says that taxes have nothing to do with fairness – Here’s why he’s wrong

Holtz – The Panama Papers prove it – America can afford a universal basic income – The Guardian

So, government employment programs or direct transfers? The respective articles support the success of both types of programs – at least in certain situations. What are the limits of the effectiveness of the different approaches? Investing in direct payment for childhood anti-poverty programs shoots for a long-term benefit – would this eventually narrow the income inequality gap? Employment provides a more immediate benefit – but does that address the income inequality question?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s