The Instigator
Nolsterbuckr
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Speaker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 88169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Nolsterbuckr

Pro

This is my first ever debate, so I'm trying to get my feet wet here. Wish me luck!

I wish to debate Mr. Speaker on the topic of a speculation tax on Wall Street.
The first round will include me initiating the challenge (which I have done) and my opponent accepting the debate. After that, there will be three rounds of actual debate. Here's hoping this goes well!
Mr.Speaker

Con

Greetings,

I am honored to have been challenged by name to this debate which will (hopefully) be an exceptional one.

Since this is Pro's first debate, I feel obliged to offer a few brief pointers:

1. The debate topic is excellent as a speculation tax on Wall St. is a current, relevant issue.
2. Please define "acceptable" in Round 2.
3. Use as many credible sources as you can.

With that said, I eagerly await Pro's opening arguments.

Thanks,

- Mr. Speaker
Debate Round No. 1
Nolsterbuckr

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and look forward to have a stimulating dialogue on this topic.
Before I speak my points, I will do as my opponent has so requested and define the word "acceptable."

By the word "acceptable," I see its definition as, "2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome." [1]

Now I will explain why a speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable. I will argue this in two points.

My first point will explain the efficiency of the speculation tax. In 2011, Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio introduced the Wall Street and Speculators Tax Act, which, if put into effect, would tax three cents per hundred dollars of financial securities. This would be imposed upon trades taking place in the United States, bringing 352 billion dollars in revenue over ten years. [2] Not only would this bring revenue to supplement important programs but it would also fix a crucial tax loophole. The loophole I am speaking of is the fact that American taxpayers pay sales taxes from their transactions, yet those on Wall Street do not pay a sales tax when it comes to buying or selling securities. A speculation tax would also curb investors from making short-term bets, something that would potentially hurt the market if such gambling went out of hand, effectively reducing market volatility. [3]

I now move on ahead to my second point: the moral reason why this tax is acceptable. As most of us know, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more commonly known as the bank bailout, was an approximately 700 billion dollar package used to keep the banks from financial turmoil, despite that their constant lobbying and reckless gambling with the economy brought us to this mess in the first place. [4] Because the government used taxpayer dollars to help the mess-makers, it morally permissible that these same people reciprocate by scratching the back of the American taxpayer. The subsidy created from this speculation tax could help pay for certain programs such as making college tuition-free. And seeing how these same banks are subsidized by the government through tax breaks, tax loopholes (to the point where they pay NEGATIVE TAXES,) as well as the government's oversight of these same banks holding nontaxable, offshore money, it is reasonable that a speculation tax be implemented to keep these people in check.

With that, I await my opponent's argument for the second round of debate.

Sources:
[1]: http://www.dictionary.com...
[2]: http://ourfinancialsecurity.org...
[3]: http://www.usnews.com...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nolsterbuckr

Pro

I ask that the viewers of the debate not put Mr. Speaker's forfeit against him. I reiterate my previous points and once again await my opponents rebuttal.
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Nolsterbuckr

Pro

Although it saddens me to see that my opponent has once again forfeited the round, I once again reiterate my previous points.
And if I have articulated my points well enough, then vote for pro.
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.