The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
aaltobartok
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Fair Tax can be implemented in such a way so that it is effectively progressive.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 2955
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

I've heard fairtax called regressive many many times before- I believe that a fairtax can be implemented in such a way so that it is basically progressive.
aaltobartok

Con

aaltobartok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Pro

How the hell can you seriously forfeit the first round? I'm not going to work out any arguments if I can't be sure my opponent is going to at least get in a single round....
aaltobartok

Con

aaltobartok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Pro

Well, I better start at least presenting some argument- or at least the main points I would bring up assuming that he actually posted. I'm going to assume that there will be no input from the other side, so please understand if I don't put forth much of an argument.

Fair tax, if you don't know, is a federal tax on all sales. If it is created in such a way so that food, and other necessities have no tax, it is progressive. Poor people tend to buy very few luxury goods, so they will have to pay very few taxes. Rich people tend to buy very many luxury goods, so they will be taxed heavily.
aaltobartok

Con

Hi! Sorry. I accepted this and something came up, so I had to leave town and didn't have internet access for a week.

Chalenge me to this one again so we can have a real debate from round one.
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Pro

Alright, will do. Let me just fill this up with over 100 characters, oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aaltobartok

Con

aaltobartok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Note the or. I said "Stuff everyone gets equally anyway, OR EVEN SOME STUFF...."
I clearly acknowledged the fact that those things did not benefit everyone equally, and they belonged to a second group of benefits, not the group of benefits that everyone gets equally. It's true either way that they don't benefit the rich more than the poor, so it's still unfair to take more money from the rich simply because they have more money.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Didn't you just contradict yourself there? "Stuff everyone gets equally" then bringing up things we don't all receive equal benefit from?
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
It's not just representation we pay for, it's also all government-provided services, such as free education. Stuff everyone gets equally anyway, or even some stuff (welfare, unemployment, other stuff that shouldn't exist in a capitalist society), that primarily benefit the poor. Either way, it's still unfair to tax one guy more money just because he makes more money. Unfortunately, it's necessary, since the poor would be unable to pay a tax where everyone was to pay the same amount. It's due to effectiveness, not fairess, that we must tax a percentage of income.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I think that if we remember the whole "no taxation without representation" problem, then clearly we should all have a problem with any system where an individual is taxed differently than another based upon ANY criteria, including income. If you are taxed double the percentage, you should get two votes. How can we all expect equal representation, how can we justify unequal taxation?
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
If taxes must be geographically uniform and the tax from each state must be proportional to the state's population, then what is called for is a flat dollar value tax, rather than a tax that is a percentage of income. If we tax percentage of income, states with a higher percentage of well-paid workers would end up paying more taxes than the constitution calls for. That would be unless the tax brackets were different for each state to make it average out, but if it has to be geographically uniform, then.

If both these points from Mike are true then any percentage tax is unconstitutional, since it would tax higher-income states more heavily than dictated by their population, and low income states would not be fulfilling the requirement dictated by their population.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision (see Knowlton v. Moore[4] and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[5]).

Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.

Read deeper
Posted by The_Silent_Consensus 9 years ago
The_Silent_Consensus
Mike, it's not unconstitutional:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

"Without apportionment among the several states." Case closed

Duco, a flat sales tax is regressive if you calculate it by average tax, while a flat tax on income is proportional if you calculate it by average tax
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I agree, however you can not possibly ask more from the poor than they can give. What we really need to do is slash spending down drastically and set up a federal sales tax (A small one), abolish the income tax, etc.

That way everybody is happy. It's not a direct tax on income (which is unconstitutional), but it is somewhat proportional too- but not even necessarily- at least no more so than regular state sales tax. A simple flat tax on income is illegal and will harm the poor.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
My problem is not so much the tax breaks for the poor, but I have a problem when the gov. says to the rich person, "look, these people can't afford to pay up, so you need to carry their burden, you can afford it though." That, I feel, is unfair and unconstitutional. But the real problem here is that our gov spending is out of control.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
For somebody working on pure subsistence 10% would drive them BELOW subsistence levels. For somebody working just above subsistence that might drive them to levels equal to subsistence.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
DucoNihilumaaltobartokTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
DucoNihilumaaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by BrokenDoors 9 years ago
BrokenDoors
DucoNihilumaaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by marketing08 9 years ago
marketing08
DucoNihilumaaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumaaltobartokTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30