Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work
Debate Rounds (4)
As for you saying the rich won't move out if they are taxed at 50% . This is flawed. Why wouldn't one move to a place where they are taxed 10 instead of 50%? Why would Europe be hostile for rich people? Rich people bring money and better government revenue. You say a lower tax on the rich would lower government revenue, and 50% tax would increase it. In theory, like many socialist policies, this seems great. The problem is, the rich don't want to be treated unfairly and will move to a country where they are taxed fairly and less.
About Bernie trying to control world trade and tax things. If he doesn't allow the rich to store assets overseas (I'm not saying it's a good thing) won't that be another reason to leave America? You say leaving won't be possible under Bernie. That seems very communist and dictatorship-like. I'm sure if he says "nobody can leave" he will be impeached. Let's say an air conditioner company moves from the US to Mexico. European countries did trade with that company, they wouldn't be trading with the US anymore. What will happen under this high tax is rich people will leave, factories will leave (for many reasons other then taxes) and trade won't be with America anymore cause there won't be anything in America worth trading. Simply put, the Bernie tax drives people away from America.
What you don't seem to understand is that the United State tax code works off of a marginal income rate, meaning that there are tax brackets which all citizens fall under. For example, the first tax bracket could be $0-20,000 per year, at a rate of 10%, and $21,000- 50,000 could be 15%. This might seem unfair if it weren't for the progressive tax system that has been in place in the US for a very long time. The way it works is, if you are making $30,000 per year, your first $20,000 is taxed at 10%, while the remaining $10,000 is taxed at 15 percent. This is the system the United States operates under, and it ensures that someone like Bill Gates will be paying the same rate, 10%, on the first $20,000 he makes as someone who makes $10,000 a year. That is fair, they pay the same rate on the same income, he just has an elevated income so he will experience a higher rate only on that specific bracket. Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all workers are the same, as evidenced by your comment about everyone paying the same, because that would be fair. That is not at all the case, because people making money at the $400,000+ bracket are not contributing to society in the same way that these people who are earning $20,000 a year. These low wage workers are working hard to produce and manufacture, doing low level jobs that stimulate economic growth. The people sitting at the top do NO work, they simply rake in cash. They contribute nothing to society, they just delegate responsibility to their employees who they underpay while they sit at the top and claim that they shouldn't be taxed at the same rate. Fair is people being taxed at the rate that they contribute to society, which, for the majority of rich people is less than nothing.
To your second point, you seem to not have read my argument as I explained why people wouldn't leave America due to less economic opportunities, increasingly socialist countries, etc. I say they will not be treated as well in other countries because that is the truth. If a rich person from America were to move overseas, they would encounter the same progressive tax rate as exists here. There is no country that allows for 10% tax on the rich that is comparable to the United States in economic capacity. You never actually addressed any of my arguments against people moving from the US, you just reasserted that it would happen, despite having no evidence that this would actually happen. As I said, your common sense does not serve as an economic indicator. If there truly was a place where the rich people could go to have their tax rate at 10%, that's where they would be because that is already lower than what they pay currently.
I'm noticing that you didn't understand my argument about free trade. There is a distinction that needs to be made between private citizens who are rich, and corporations who are rich. When I talk about free trade, and restricting the ability to leave America, that is in reference to companies. Of course, private citizens are free to leave whenever they want. However, if they do, they will experience much the same as already exists here. The vast majority of advanced economic countries have already imposed higher tax rates on rich citizens, because they are far more socialist than the US. The US is one of the most capitalistic countries on Earth, so if someone rich were to try to leave, they would almost certainly be going somewhere more heavily socialist. So leaving for them, while a possibility, would not benefit them in any way. Companies are a different story slightly. They will as well be allowed to outsource jobs, but they will have a hard time with the lack of free trade agreements and possibly tariffs imposed on their goods coming in and out of the country. Allowing the rich to store assets overseas is not an argument anyone agrees with. Nobody believes that it is acceptable for American citizens to skirt American tax laws on their American income by storing money overseas, it makes no sense for them to be able to do that. As to your point about the air conditioning company, it is just not viable for a company to not trade with America. We are the largest market in the world, for a company to cut off trade with us would spell the end of that company.
You say "The people sitting at the top do NO work, they simply rake in cash. They contribute nothing to society" hahaha. You don't magically become a CEO. You work hard at it. Reward? Being able to not do much work. But still a CEO does some work. Now if you think the rich don't contribute to society then want them in the US? Kick them out, nobody needs people that don't contribute to society. Without people that don't contribute to society the US would be a better place. Imagine the world without rich people and the stuff they did. Would the world be a better place? Nope.
Your last paragraphs seem to be about the issues I have with Bernie's tax plan, but in a world today. If Bernie's tax plan was in acted the US would be different. Bernie wants to tax the rich at 50%, I'm sure the rich can find a good country that taxes 30%. Also factories would move away under bernie. That would not help the US in trade. Countries will just trade, not including the US, since the US won't have anything to trade. We are quite a lot I'm debt, factories are moving away, Bernie's plan discourages starting a company and succeeding in the US, yet you expect the US will gain jobs, lower debt, increase trade, and encourage success. Those are things a country MUST have to succeed, not only will bernie's plan not encourage those, but he will discourage it. Imagine a country that discourages being successful and rich. That country would not be a top trade country.
You work hard at becoming a CEO, sure, but as far as actual difficulty of labor and hard work, it is nothing compared to a minimum wage worker. You try working sixteen hour shifts at an auto repair shop, or waiting tables for twelve hours a day. Or, as many minimum wage workers do, work two jobs a day. Maybe even three a week. Then talk to me about how a Wall Street executive who picks up the phone five times a day in his skyscraper and his shiny suit has to work so hard. However, I do understand that people worked hard to get to CEO positions, which is why I agree they should have a reward. It's called a higher salary. That is their built in reward. Now in addition to that, they get a secondary award of being able to not do much work, as you put it. There is no reason for them to have a tertiary reward from the US government in the form of tax breaks. They've already received an award for their hard work in 2 different ways.
In fact, Bernie's plan is for a NOMINAL rate of 52 percent. After tax deductions in loop holes, someone in this bracket would pay something around 36%, which is very low on the international scale. It's like I said, most other countries are more socialist than the United States, which is something you don't seem to realize. There is no country they could go to with a 30% tax rate on the upper class which is comparable to the United States economically. It just doesn't exist, because they have all already caught on to the idea that taxing the rich is a good thing. I've already explained why factories wouldn't be able to just move away as you've tried to assert, so I'll just point you back towards my last argument and hopefully you will understand it this time.
As to knowing about people paying taxes, there will be an office in the treasury department in charge of taxes. It's easy to look at a name of a US citizen, pull up their 1 piece of paper taxes and file it. If someone refuses to pay, they get punished. Your idea of taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor and middle class to create a good economy is great in theory, but wrong in reality. Bernie wants a 50% tax on the rich. Bernie will also eliminate loopholes and stuff. Please stop using bernie's plan with things today. It doesn't help the debate, and is pointless. I know most countries are more socialist then the US, with Bernie's policies of a 50% rate, the US becomes more socialist the countries like the UK, where a 45% income tax rate occors. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk... . And the UK tried a 50% tax rate. My guess is they didn't like it, cause it went to a 45% rate a few years ago. So you're in favor of a plan that doesn't work? Strange. Now when the US pit's a higher tax rate on, along with restricting businesses, and making minimum wages 2x what they are now, where another country has a lower tax rate, with a way less minimum wage. Which would a rich guy with a business choose? Not the US.
What I'm going to say next, I don't mean to offend any low wage job people who contribute to society. We need jobs at all levels for america to succeed. So you say how rich people don't contribute like a poorer person does. Now a rich person buys more stuff, and pays way more in taxes. Also how would america be without guys like Steve Jobs and bill gates? Very smart people who make billion dollor deals are needed. A average guy couldn't run a billion dollor business. I agree with you when you say the rich deserve 2 rewards for working super haRd and being smart, I don't thing they should get tax breaks. A fair flat tax doesn't have tax breaks for the rich. Bernie's plan makes america undesirable for rich people, and has no incentive to work. Without workers and businesses and rich people there can't be a good economy. We are a bit in debt right now and can't afford a bad economy.
As I have already addressed, simply stating that my theory is good but "wrong in reality" is not a sufficient argument. That is an assertion, and I would like to know the justification behind it, but since you have provided none, I will assume that there likely is none, and hopefully the voters will see this as well. I don't understand what you mean by "stop using Bernie's plan with things today." Are you suggesting that I stop using real world examples? That is rather the point behind all of this. You're the one who keeps saying things won't work in theory, so I'm putting theory into real life concrete examples, yet you say that is pointless. I simply don't understand how you can say that, contextualizing Bernie's tax on the rich is very important. You say that the UK tried to implement a tax code of 50 percent and it didn't work. I looked it up and it checks out, when they went to 45%, they actually showed an increase in tax revenue, because they had people stop trying to hide their funds and use loopholes. And that's the whole point. The reason that a higher tax rate won't work there is because their tax code is riddled with loopholes, and it is too easy for people to hide their money from the Exchequer, which is (over-simplified) the British version of the IRS. That is why Bernie proposes to close loopholes in the tax code in conjunction with his tax plan so people won't be able to skip out on paying their taxes.
We do need all jobs for America to succeed. I don't mean contribute in the literal sense. I mean that if you are trying to reward someone for their actual work and effort put in, which is what you said you wanted, it would make more sense to reward the people who literally work harder, which is lower wage workers. You say that you don't think the rich deserve tax breaks but you fail to realize that transitioning to a flat tax would be a ridiculously large tax break for the upper class. we're talking about 20-30 percent of their income in additional funds if we transition to 10% tax rate, because it would decrease from the 40(ish) percent that it is right now. For people earning millions a year, that is an enormous tax break. I think I've addressed all of Pro's points that are worth addressing. Pro failed to address the large majority of my arguments, and the ones they attempted to rebut were lacking in any coherence or internal logical consistency. I'd like to thank pro for their participation in this debate, but I think it is clear that the Con argument is stronger and better supported.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.