Motion prep
Parliamentary / APDA · econ · Medium

This house would ban billionaires.

A wealth-cap motion that turns on whether extreme fortunes are a political problem or an economic signal.

Runs inAPDA / BP / Worlds adaptable
DifficultyMedium
SidesGovernment / Opposition
Reading the motion
What it asks

Not whether billionaires are likable. Whether a hard ceiling on personal wealth, enforced by confiscatory tax above the line, produces a better society than the status quo.

Who proves what

Prop has to defend a mechanism, not a sentiment. Name the cap, name the instrument (marginal tax at 100% above $1B, forced equity dilution, trust-busting), and own the transition. Opp does not have to love inequality, only to show the cure costs more than the disease.

Ground worth taking

Prop should define the ban as a cap on retained personal wealth rather than seizure of operating companies. That dodges the strongest Opp attack (you are nationalizing Amazon) while keeping the political-power argument intact.

Both cases
Government

Concentrated private wealth converts into political power that no vote can check, and the conversion is getting faster.

01 Wealth buys the rules
Claim
Above a threshold, money stops buying goods and starts buying policy.
Warrant
A billion dollars cannot be spent on consumption. It is deployed into media ownership, campaign finance, litigation, and lobbying, which are the machinery that sets the next set of tax rules.
Impact
The harm compounds: each cycle of influence writes rules that make the next accumulation easier. This is present-tense and self-reinforcing, not speculative.
02 The money is idle
Claim
Capital at that concentration sits in appreciating assets, not in wages or productive investment.
Warrant
Marginal propensity to consume collapses at the top. Redirected through public spending, the same capital moves through an economy with a multiplier above one.
Impact
Same dollars, more circulation. The magnitude is national-budget scale and the timeframe is immediate, unlike growth arguments that pay out in decades.
03 The cap is the incentive
Claim
A ceiling does not stop people building companies, it stops them hoarding the output.
Warrant
Founders build for status, control, and the work. The marginal motivational value of the tenth billion over the first is close to zero, and the people who claim otherwise are already rich enough to test it.
Impact
You keep the innovation and lose the accumulation. Opp needs to show that specific founders quit at the cap, which is an empirical claim they rarely evidence.
Opposition

The cap is unenforceable where it matters and destructive where it works.

01 Valuation makes it fake
Claim
Most billionaire wealth is illiquid founder equity that has no price until it is sold.
Warrant
Enforcing a cap means forcing sales into thin markets, which crashes the very valuation you are taxing. The state either accepts a fraction of the paper number or takes the equity, which is nationalization by another name.
Impact
You get a fraction of projected revenue and a state holding controlling stakes in private firms. Both sides of Prop's case fail at once.
02 Exit is cheap
Claim
Capital and people leave before the rule binds.
Warrant
France's wealth tax ran from 1989 to 2017 and the estimated capital flight exceeded the revenue raised by an order of magnitude. Billionaire mobility is higher now than it was then, not lower.
Impact
The revenue is lost, the companies relocate, and the political-influence problem is unsolved because influence crosses borders more easily than tax authority does.
03 Wrong target for the real harm
Claim
The political-capture problem is a campaign-finance problem wearing a wealth costume.
Warrant
Capping wealth leaves every existing channel of influence open to the merely rich, to corporations, and to foreign money. Direct rules on political spending hit the harm without touching the capital stock.
Impact
Prop pays the full economic cost of the ban and buys a partial fix. The comparative is worse than the targeted alternative on every axis.
The clash that decides it

Is extreme wealth the cause of political capture, or just its most visible symptom?

How Government wins it
Prop wins by showing the conversion from wealth to rule-setting power is direct, systematic, and unreachable by campaign-finance law alone.
How Opposition wins it
Opp wins by showing the same influence flows through channels the cap does not touch, so you pay for the ban and keep the harm.
Where rounds go wrong
Government mistakes
  • Arguing that billionaires are morally bad. The judge does not care. Argue that the wealth does something.
  • Refusing to name a mechanism. "Ban" without an instrument loses to the first valuation attack.
Opposition mistakes
  • Defending billionaires as heroic job creators. You do not need it and it makes you unlikeable for no ballot gain.
  • Leading with capital flight and stopping there. Prop concedes some flight and asks about the residual. Have the second layer ready.
Prep something next to it
This house supports universal basic income.
The funding question decides this round. Teams that skip it lose to teams that do not.
Parliamentary / APDA · Medium
This House would abolish the filibuster.
An institutional-design motion that rewards teams willing to argue against their own party's short-term interest.
British Parliamentary · Medium
This house would abolish the electoral college.
A first-principles democracy motion where the real fight is over what a presidential election is supposed to represent.
Parliamentary / APDA · Intro
This house would make voting compulsory.
A classic liberty-versus-participation motion where the size of the fine decides how much of the case survives.
Parliamentary / APDA · Intro