The Instigator
BobTurner
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1harderthanyouthink
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%

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 3 votes the winner is...
1harderthanyouthink
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 48247
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

BobTurner

Pro

Round 1: Pro posts rules and structure, Con posts opening argument
Round 2: Pro posts opening argument, Con posts rebuttal
Round 3: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals
Round 4: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals
Round 5: Pro finishes final rebuttal, while Con will not post a round out of fairness

This gives each debater the same amount of argument time.
1harderthanyouthink

Con

My belief is that the corporate tax should not be cut to 0%. However, this does not mean that it should not be lowered at all.

Corporations are by definition: "a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes." [1]

Corporations can hold huge amounts of money, and they are expected to make money (from shareholders), and they often engage in illegal activities with leftover money, so they can make money, thus being able to increase stock prices and therefore revenue. [2]

Also, corporations may move entire parts of the company overseas to not be taxed. This is a problem because it worsens the economy. The same effect would be felt with no corporate tax rate.

This is my political opinion, as well, that most corporations legally bribe politicians, and buy their support through Super-PACs. This is why major politicians are able to fund their campaigns, and why corporations get what they want. Corporations funded most of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney"s campaigns, with about $489,660,089; and $366,336,696; respectively. Top two contributors were the University of California/Microsoft Corporation, and Goldman Sachs/Bank of America, respectively [3]. So my idea is "the less they have, the better."

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
[2] http://phys.org...
[3] http://www.opensecrets.org...
Debate Round No. 1
BobTurner

Pro

BobTurner forfeited this round.
1harderthanyouthink

Con

Unfortunately, pro did not post. Therefore, I have nothing to rebut.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTurner

Pro

Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.
1harderthanyouthink

Con

1harderthanyouthink forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BobTurner

Pro

This article from the Atlantic says that in 2012 the top 1 percent will pay their highest total tax rate since 1979 (http://www.theatlantic.com...).

In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and we had prosperity. Jack Kennedy cut taxes and we had prosperity. Obama raised taxes and the economy stagnated. The unemployment rate under Bush averaged 5.2% and deficits were much smaller, not to mention he had to pay for two wars. Obama raised taxes and shrunk revenue because the government policies kill jobs as do burdensome regulations such as ObamaCare.
1harderthanyouthink

Con

The top 1% does not need to pay 20% taxes. I see you mentioned Reagan brought prosperity. He began the spiral downwards that our economy is still in. Barack Obama actually kept 97% of the Bush Tax Cuts, and I don't see the debt going down. Bush spent 4-6 trillion on the wars, and since Obama's administration ended it, we are moving towards a balanced budget. Obamacare is not relevant. You are not fighting for the actual topic, you are simply bashing Obama.

I do not like Obama, but I give credit where it is due. Bush deserves none and Obama deserves some for helping poorer people out with the Affordable Healthcare Act, and ending a decade of war. By the way: to further destroy your Bush argument, his administration had the worst deficits in American history. Guess who is lowering the budget deficit, even with "Obamacare"?

"They pay about half of their income." Funny, the high for corporations is 35%, and the high for individuals is about 39.5%. I'm sorry, they don't need 1 billion dollars per year.

No sources due to time constraints.
Debate Round No. 4
BobTurner

Pro

I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low.

You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.
1harderthanyouthink

Con

Actually, I can prove they are low: by world standards. Today, US citizens are believing 30% is high. I tell you, go to France, and witness their 66% tax on millionaires, and 75% on corporations. I'm not saying that is a good amount to tax, just that we are actually already on the low end.

And they don't just bribe for special breaks. They buy politicians for deregulation, public support, and many other things. They hold a lot over a politician's head when they threaten to take their funding away. Politicians are their puppets.

Anyway, democracy wouldn't be back until super-PACs ended in general. Without them, then we have government by the people, for the people.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@GWL-CPA I wouldn't say socialism is the solution: but what the government passes off as "capitalism" is true capitalism on steroids.

And yes, they do go overseas for tax loopholes, as well as what you said.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree on one half, disagree on the other.

Socialism is not the answer. Neither is crony capitalism, which is what we live under.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Anyone who claims that corporations go overseas because of income taxes is full of BS.

They have outsourced over 20 million jobs for one reason: Cheap wages and benefits.

Why pay workers $8 per hour in America, when you can pay 50 cents per hour in China, Mexico, and India.

Americans are being screwed by the wealthy, and you guys are clueless.

We need a revolution to overthrow the wealthy.

We need a socialistic economy. Capitalism is a dead system for the wealthy.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Any individual making over $300,000 needs to pay a marginal tax rate of 92% of every dollar over $300,000, and that is on any form of income, e.g., capital gains, dividends, etc.

The wealthy finally need to pay their fair share. America is being destroyed by the wealthy.

Corporation need all tax loopholes eliminated and all should pay a minimum rate of 35% on all income. And, no state should have the right to exempt corporations of paying taxes so they will located to their respective states. The homeowners and middle class workers end up paying for these breaks.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
To make my vote as close to unbiased as possible, I concluded with my consideration for the vote with pro's final round. Only when my vote was already decided, did I read it as a bonus point as if it were in the comment section instead of the debate.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@Ragnar what do you mean by "(actually voting in his favor on arguments before reading what he wrote in there)"?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Perhaps you should just restart this debate, setting a longer time window per round?
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
I should add that, if given the fair chance to argue on rounds 2 and 3, I would NOT have posted a round 5 argument.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
Seriously, YYW is right about you @BobTurner. Your arrogance is pretty annoying.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@Ragnar I'd rather not do that. Even if I lose at least my points would be heard. 2 rounds of my points were lost, and he just tried to make it 3.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@BobTurner the reason I did round 5 was because you forfeiting the round made me think you weren't paying attention. So I get 1 less round than you if I don't post 5. I didn't have 2 rounds because of your forfeit, and you want me to forfeit another too? You're crazy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
BobTurner1harderthanyouthinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wrote in round 5.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BobTurner1harderthanyouthinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back." This statement summarizes the debate, and the reasoning problems with it. Pro waiting multiple rounds to respond to things, then doing it with assertions instead of actual arguments; of course bring the 'yay democracy' rhetoric in when corruption does not invalidate democracy was a nice touch. Sources were another issue, a single cherry picked fact out of context of the article itself is very weak. However flawed conduct on both parties was (skipped rounds), con did agree to not post in the final round then seemed to forget (actually voting in his favor on arguments before reading what he wrote in there).
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
BobTurner1harderthanyouthinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO forfeited rounds, and whined about it.