The Instigator
polticialwiz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GWindeknecht1
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Fair Taxs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
GWindeknecht1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,356 times Debate No: 19030
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

polticialwiz

Con

The idea behind the fair tax is to eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. There are some strong opinions on both sides of the fair tax issue so I thought I'd share a few of the pros and cons. It is not a flat tax, though I think that would be more fair than our current system as well.

1. Pro: The fair tax is much easier to understand than the current convoluted tax income tax system. When an entire industry (tax accountants) has been created to understand paying taxes, there is a problem. The picture below is Representative John Linder holding the 132 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to over 60,000 pages of U.S. tax code.

2. Con: That industry would be completely destroyed, and many jobs in the IRS would be lost. There would still be jobs to work on taking in the money, but many less than what is needed currently.

3. Pro: Transparency. Transparency in government is always a good thing. With over 60,000 pages in the current tax code, most people have no idea what is in it. What happens is the people who have more money pay accountants to find loop holes that get them out of paying taxes. Poorer people can't afford the accountant so they just end up paying the base rate. With the fair tax it is easy to see that everyone pays the same rate on the things they buy.

4. Con: The sales tax would have to be pretty high to stay revenue neutral, i.e. bring in the same revenue for government as the current system. The bill that is currently in Congress is at 30% and independent groups have said the number is probably closer to 34%. This is a pretty large amount of money added to each thing we buy. This is especially true when you think of big ticket items. A $20,000 car suddenly cost $26,000. For somebody who has been saving under the current tax code, this would be a hard hit.

5. Pro: With a national sales tax, there would no longer be a tax on investments. This would obviously be really great for the stock market. There would be a lot of money that would come in from the sidelines and help turn the markets around. It would also encourage venture capital to invest in entrepreneurs to help fuel the American dream. Many jobs could be created with this new influx of capital.

6: Con: Along the same lines as number 4, the large sales tax would discourage people from buying things. Our economy is very heavily dependent on consumers, and a large sales tax would probably make some people spend less on things, save more, and pay off debt. Now, personally I would take almost all of that as a pro. In the long term it would be a benefit, with more people out of debt they could really stimulate the economy as opposed to spending money they don't have which got us into the current mess. However, in the short term reducing consumer spending could have some impact, and this is an argument anyone against the fair tax will probably give.

7: Pro: The fair tax would hopefully increase productivity in our country. Currently, we have an income tax that gets progressively more burdensome the more money you make. This reduces the incentive to work harder and be productive the higher you move up the ladder. Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense than taxing production.

8: Con: The fair tax increases entitlements. From Wikipedia:
Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services … Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.

9. Pro: A huge pro of the fair tax is it would significantly broaden the tax base. Illegal activity (such as selling drugs) that creates large amounts of income would now get taxed. Under the current system we just get lots of rich drug dealers. Under this system they now get taxed every time they buy something. Along the same lines, this would also tax illegal immigrants. This would go a long way towards solving the illegal immigration problem.

10. Con: Opponents of the fair tax claim it could create an underground economy of people trying to evade taxes. Under a sales tax, intermediate goods that are a part of production would not be taxed. This creates potential for businesses to claim something is an intermediate good when really it is the end product that should be taxed. This would however constitute evasion and the bookkeeping that would be mandated for businesses should prevent most of this.

Overall I think the pros significantly outweigh the cons for the fair tax. I think the idea of taxing consumption instead of production makes a lot of sense, and taxing illegal activities and illegal immigrants sounds great to me. However, nothing here can solve the real problem that we have. The thing that needs changed is the out of control spending habits of our government. Until that is curbed, how we pay taxes isn't the big issue.
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate today.
I will be arguing the benefits of the FairTax, as presented by FairTax.org and Representative John Linder of the United States Congress.
Contention 1: The FairTax will work to repatriate American businesses.
The United States of America has damaged the expansion opportunities of businesses in the United States. For decades, we have held a 35% corporate income, 2nd only to that of Japan. The simple fact of the matter is, we cannot be a pro- business nation with an outrageously high corporate income tax. Our corporate income tax has unfortunately driven many corporations to outsource crucial manufacturing sectors, taking thousands of jobs from the economy and removing federal revenue. It's time that the United States adopts a more pro-business tax policy. The solution lies in the FairTax. The FairTax would remove all existing corporate income taxes, allowing businesses to return to the United States of America. It is internationally recognized that the United States has some of the most productive workers in the world and corporate executives realize this. It is time to bring American businesses back to American shores, and that is exactly what the FairTax will do.
Contention 2: The FairTax will increase transparency.
The United States of America has long been a nation that enjoys being "short and sweet". Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address only contained 272 words, the Constitution, only 4258 words, but the tax code of our nation contains in excess more than 9,000,000 words. The core of this debate revolves the more desirable tax code. Transparency in taxation is a fundamental characteristic of any tax code and my opponent must prove our current tax code is just as transparent as the FairTax. The FairTax Act, as introduced by Rep. John Linder, is only 132 pages long, short enough for any American to read. The current code is more than 60,000 pages long and is quite complex. By transitioning to the FairTax, our nation's tax code will become more transparent and understandable to the everyday American citizen.
Contention 3: The FairTax will remove unnecessary compliance costs of the current tax code.
According to John Linder of Georgia, the citizens of the United States of America spend in excess of 200 billion USD per year to simply comply with current tax code regulations. This cost is made up of hiring tax attourneys, buying applications to do your taxes for you, and the like. These compliance costs could be cut down considerably by enacting the FairTax. The FairTax return form is a single sheet instead of the complex assortment of papers of our current system.
In conclusion, because the FairTax will work to repatriate American businesses, and because the FairTax will increase taxation transparency, and because the FairTax removes unnecessary compliance costs, I must affirm the FairTax.
Debate Round No. 1
polticialwiz

Con

The problem with supporting a flat tax is it would allow millionaires and billionaires to be exempt from paying more in taxes. As it is Democrats and Republicans in Washington are split on this issue.

The other problem is that the flat tax would lead to more coruption in the Wallstreet coropration
beacuse the rich will start to take advantage of the flat tax.

Now I have listened to all of the 2012 GOP Contenders and have reach the conclusion that all of them are selfish and believe that we should treat the rich as if they were the middle class. That to me is unacceptable.
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I offer a few observations:

1. My opponent plagiarized the entirety of his case.

2. My opponent is arguing for both sides.

3. My opponent is talking about the Flat Tax, yet the debate is about the FairTax.

4. No rebuttals we're made.

Extend all of my arguments into Round 3.

My Flat Tax Rebuttal:
My opponent has voiced that a Flat Tax would allow millionaires to become exempt from paying taxes. However, this couldn't be farther from the truth. With a Flat Tax, everyone pays a 17%, or in some cases 20%, tax on all income, regardless of what level their income is. The super wealthy would be unable to escape this tax or become exempt for the simple reason that is it a straight 17% tax levied regardless, no loopholes, no deductions.

As a moderate who has looked into the GOP contenders for the 2012 nomination, I don't believe that they are "selfish", rather, they are working toward a better future, using policies they believe will better the nation.

Let me explain their rationale for lowering taxes on the rich:
In order to see strong amounts of economic growth, businesses must have access to start-up capital and the banking system must have considerable amounts of capital.
To examine this, we have to see where exactly all the capital for new business comes from. Who puts money into the bank and invests?
The poor? No, the poor are lacking money for even basic necessities and won't invest heavily into the banks.
The middle class? To some extent, yes. But only a small amount is invested.
The rich? Yes, the rich, having considerable amounts of money put millions into the banks, allowing businesses to have easier access to capital and stronger interest rates.
That is their policy, they believe it's good economics. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but their tax policies are definitely not based on "selfishness".
Debate Round No. 2
polticialwiz

Con

If my opponent has common sense he would reconizged that this case is about taxes. It does not matter whether it is about Flat or Fair tax. Its mainly about taxes.

Secondly, I have rebuttled my oppoenents argument, but just in a proffessional and manly manner. So in respose to my opponent, I would say that his ragument is the same from all 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates. Every G.O.P. Politican who has brought up taxes have proposed the argument muy opponent did/has.

In conclusion, I would hope that I recieve a "YEA" vote, because I am very new at this and intend to build up on my mistakes made on previous arguments.
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate today.

My observations have stayed throughout the round:
1) My opponent plagiarized his arguments.
2) My opponent argued for both sides in his first round.
3) My opponent consistently dropped all of his points.
4) No actual rebuttals were made regarding the topic of today's debate: The FairTax.
5) My opponent switched from the FairTax to the Flat Tax.
6) My opponent does not discern the difference between the Fair and Flat taxes.

Extend all of my points into the third round and to the end of the debate.

I must urge an affirmative ballot in today's debate for the reasons of:
1) The Fair Tax will work to repatriate American businesses.
2) The Fair Tax will increase transparency.
I must urge a negative ballot, and I thank everyone.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by zytyxx 5 years ago
zytyxx
This is a very interesting debate. Too bad I wasn't on during the voting period!
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
My last sentence was an accidental typo:
"I urge a negative ballot".
My mistake, switch out negative with affirmative please. Thank you.
Posted by Korashk 5 years ago
Korashk
I mean, you should be Pro.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
What side are you arguing?
Posted by Korashk 5 years ago
Korashk
Politicalwiz, I'd recommend just cancel this debate. Not only did you set it up wrong (you should be Con) but blatant plagiarism is frowned upon on this site (and in general). You're pretty much guaranteed to lose regardless of how badly your opponent does.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
I don't really get what you are trying to do here.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Very nice plagiarism...
http://geekpolitics.com...
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
"Overall I think the pros significantly outweigh the cons for the fair tax." <- you do know that you're con, right? You're not supposed to argue in favor of the resolution.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
polticialwizGWindeknecht1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first round was plagiarized.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
polticialwizGWindeknecht1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "I intend to build up on my mistakes made on previous arguments." < please do this, con. Specifically, argue for what you're supposed to be arguing. For me, your round one case that pro was right is just too compelling. Aff win.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
polticialwizGWindeknecht1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Blatant plagiarism is bad.... BTW, If you want to go into politics, learn how to spell the word.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
polticialwizGWindeknecht1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely plagiarized his whole debate. Politicalwiz should be removed from this site. All his debates are plagiarized or just so horrifically butchered that you can't make sense out of it. He dwells on making the opponent seem wrong because of his/her's party affiliation. He also loves to make the opponent look like an idiot by saying things like "If my opponent has common sense...."