Argument: A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.

Romney believes the best way to improve society is not to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on inefficient government programs, but rather to tax citizens less and allow free-market innovation to improve the quality of life in America. Low taxes are necessary to stimulate innovation and the growth of business because people and businesses are self-interested; they will only invest when they believe they will get the profits from their investment and lowering taxes mean that they will get more of the profit from their investment.[1] At the same time government is a poor manager of the economy because small numbers of people cannot calculate all the effects of central planning and the impact it will have on individuals choices, essentially the market is simply too complex for the government to master so the best option is to reduce government interference as much as possible.[2] For this reason, Romney’s policy preference of lower taxes is coupled with a proposal to cut spending on a wide range of social programs.

Romney also outright rejects the idea of “redistribution” of wealth [3], believing it is unfair to those who have worked hard to build businesses and establish their own well-being. The protection of private property is central to the American political system, and taking from one group of citizens to give to another violates the right of private property. [4] In addition to being unfair, it is impractical, as it creates a disincentive for business people to further increase their wealth by working and investing in businesses that would grow the economy and create more jobs.[5]

[1] Thurow, Lester C., “Profits”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Profits.html

[2] "Friedrich August Hayek." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed., 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html

[3] Becker, Kyle: “Mitt Romney: We believe in free markets and free people, not wealth “redistribution””, Independent Journal Review, September 19 2012, http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/16615-mitt-romney-free-markets-and-free-peoples/

[4] Dorn, James A.: “Ending Tax Socialism” September 16 1996, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-tax-socialism , accessed 8/10/2012

[5] Li, Wenli &amp; Satre, Pierre-Daniel: “Growth Effects of Progressive Taxes”, US Federal Reserve, November 2001, http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200203/200203pap.pdf

Candidate 1: "Deregulating the market is precisely what is not required at the moment. The financial crisis of 2008 caused by irresponsible banking has shown that more than ever, regulation is necessary to ensure that corporations act responsibly and recognise the significance of social good, not just financial profit.

Cutting Medicare will lead to huge numbers of people no longer having access to affordable healthcare. Romney talks of this scenario as if a market without Medicare would be better because people would be able to choose one of the more competitive, more efficient private insurance companies for their health care. Once more however, this is only applicable for those who can afford such a choice! Not providing a safety net and preventing millions of people from attaining treatment for illnesses or chronic conditions is a huge failing from the part of the government.

Lastly, it is not true that cutting spending and taxes reduces the budget deficit. This was exactly the policy tried by George W. Bush and only led to a widening of the budget deficit and an increase of the total federal debt. By contrast, Obama’s plan of cutting inefficiencies and increasing tax on the country’s wealthiest has already been tried and tested under President Clinton and it resulted in a budget surplus."
Candidate 2: "The private sector has indeed been the source of much innovation that has led to improvements in standards of living. However the problem with relying solely on the private sector for social welfare, is that it can only improve the lives of those who can pay for it! It may well be the case that healthcare is better under the private sector, but if only the top 60% (say) of the country can afford it, there is a big problem! Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is often insufficient financial incentive for the private sector to invest in certain areas, like pharmaceutical development or green energy research. Here, the government must step in and in the interest of public welfare provide the investment needed.

High level-taxation on wealthy individuals may be hard on them, but ultimately is desirable. Ethically speaking, we need to balance the harm of a millionaire losing a small portion of his or her wealth, with the enormous social good that can arise if that wealth was spent on social welfare programs. An extent of “redistribution” of wealth is thus fair and just."

The private sector has indeed been the source of much innovation that has led to improvements in standards of living. However the problem with relying solely on the private sector for social welfare, is that it can only improve the lives of those who can pay for it! It may well be the case that healthcare is better under the private sector, but if only the top 60% (say) of the country can afford it, there is a big problem! Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is often insufficient financial incentive for the private sector to invest in certain areas, like pharmaceutical development or green energy research. Here, the government must step in and in the interest of public welfare provide the investment needed.

High level-taxation on wealthy individuals may be hard on them, but ultimately is desirable. Ethically speaking, we need to balance the harm of a millionaire losing a small portion of his or her wealth, with the enormous social good that can arise if that wealth was spent on social welfare programs. An extent of “redistribution” of wealth is thus fair and just.
