The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Flat Tax Rate

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 71346
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




As stated. A Flat tax rate directly causes income and wealth inequality in any country it's instituted in. This results in the creation of exorbitantly individuals along side extremely poor, and what exactly are the alternatives?

1. Progressive tax, a higher tax percentage depending on your income, I.E. A man who makes 35,000$ has to pay 5% of his income while a man who makes 1,000,000$ pays 20%.
2.Head Tax, everybody pays the same amount, regardless of income. No explanation needed to why this mode is unfair and ineffective.

I believe in a progressive tax. A strong and widespread Middle class is the catalyst to being a global superpower, tell me I'm wrong. Spreading these large amounts of money that individuals possess back to lower classes and the Government supports much more then If it was to be stored in a bank. "Dead Money", as its coined by economists, Pun there. This money that's not being circulated is a Direct cause to Inflation, and I would daresay a direct cause to Recession.

Now, before I open the floor to a pro opponent, I would like to refute a claim in advance, because I know it will be brought up.
"Imagine a 55 year old lawyer, who paid thousands and thousands of dollars to put himself through university, who worked hard his whole life, has to fund and support lazy and poorer individuals, simply because he was successful". No man, or Woman, needs to have more money then to live the rest of their life comfortably. That's my philosophy on life.

Also, I'm not a socialist! ;)


1. The Current system needs reform

The need for tax reform is growing stronger every day. A large part of the tax code is outdated and based upon principles established in the 1930s and 40s, and since then the economic conditions have changed. Even in the 1960s many called for reform due to the complexity of the tax code. The tax code was 900 pages long, administrative regulations were hard to understand, and court cases continued to add unnecessary complexity to the tax code [1].

The current tax code imposes rates which are very high and biases against investment. Complexity remains an issue today, 50 years after some of the early calls of tax reform have ended. The layers of complexity discourage investment. When all of the taxes up, “investment returns face a tax rate of almost 54 percent … That high rate raises the hurdle rate that investors require before making certain investments since they are concerned with their after-tax returns for taking the risk. Therefore, many potential investments fall short of meeting the mark and thus go unmade. The effect on families is the same as when pass-throughs invest less: fewer new job opportunities and forgone wage increases.” [2]

Entrepreneurship is essential for our economy. Businessmen must weigh the costs and benefits whenever they make an idea and contemplate selling it. If the tax burden is too high, many breakthroughs will not become a reality because the cost of the tax burden outweighs the benefits of the product. Thirty years ago under the Reagan administration the government did overhaul the system, reduce rates, close loopholes, and cause economic growth. But this was not enough. Congress over time has re-added complexities and has ruined the progress previously achieved.

Tax reform needs to (1) lower rates and broaden the tax base, (2) end double taxation, (3) reduce complexity, and (4) cause growth.

2. A flat tax does everything tax reform needs to do

(1) There are two main tax rates. The first is the marginal income tax rate for the rich at 40%. The second is the one for the middle class at 30%. The Heritage Foundation has suggested a 28% flat tax, lower than both of the aforementioned rates, which means tax rates would be reduced for everybody under the flat tax system [3]. The flat tax would keep the EITC which both liberals and conservatives support as it reduces poverty--especially for single mothers [4]. Lower tax rates are widely accepted to reduce income tax evasion, so the base would be broadened.

(2) It would end double taxation. It would be a single tax.

(3) It would reduce complexity. There would only be two tax credits. Three deductions. Things under the current law would be grandfathered in as to reduce economic strain during a transition and avoid major legal issues. Saving would be tax exempt until used for consumption. “The New Flat Tax offers tremendous simplification for individuals and businesses; it provides much greater transparency so that taxpayers can be more confident the taxes they pay are in line with those of their neighbors, and so taxpayers can be more informed about the true costs of government. [5]

(4) The most comprehensive study on the issue suggests a revenue neutral--which the New Flat Tax plan is--flat tax would create economic growth in the USA. [6]

3. Russia

A similar experiment was done in Russia. Russia already had low taxes with 28% being their max tax rate (like under the Reagan administration), but they lowered their income tax to a flat 13%. The International Monetary Fund, although unable to find a supply side effect from the tax, was able to find that more people paid the tax and that revenue increased as a result. [7]In Russia, a flat tax provided more revenue than a progressive tax! Other researchers did find a supply side effect, noting more hours were worked and it was easier to find jobs. Not only did revenue increase, but the jobs market thrived as a result. [8] A final study on the reform found that there was more tax compliance—so more revenue—but also that productivity increased. [9] The flat tax in Russia was a huge success, and was far superior to the liberal progressive tax they had before.










Debate Round No. 1


Will post argument in a few days time. I graciously ask Con for extension.
Debate Round No. 2


I cannot dedicate enough time to thus debate for it to be accurate and concise with my thoughts. Currently I'm on vacation, and I'm having loads of trouble Copying and Pasting on my phone, as well as using the Spanish keyboards. I will be back home next Saturday, but from then on I won't be able to debate. I will create another, and will continue with the same opponent with the same argument. Again, many apologies, and please don't vote on this. Have a Great day.


I mean this is gonna be b*tchy but idc. I don't see why I should have a debate tied simply because my opponent cannot refute my case for whatever reason. Had he PM'd me, maybe I would be chill. Actually I probably would have if he told me when he first needed to FF. But now we have gone multiple rounds and I am the only one who presented a strong case.

I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3


With all Due Respect, I clearly stated that I would make a new debate when my vacations ends (Next Friday), and that I would allow Pro to copy his debate to the new one. Do you really have nothing better to do then Skim wins? For the sake if Emphasis, I'm going to repeat. I'm happy to start a new debate, on the same topic, on the same positions, with the same opponent, with the same arguments. In simple terms, a duplicate. I'm not quite inclined to however after Pros attitude and statements. I find it completely petty and selfish how a experienced member would treat a Newcomer, for a win? I bid you good day, sir. And In compelte sincerity to viewers, I would ask for neutrality, and not to vote.


I never said we cannot have a new debate, but it is dumb that I should lose this one due to your poor time management.

"I find it completely petty and selfish how a experienced member would treat a Newcomer, for a win?"

If you made an argument, this may or may not have ended up in a win for me. If you do this debate again you could win.

"I would ask for neutrality, and not to vote."

War helps the economy, so does the flat tax. Don't be neutral, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
Posted by StalinIncarnate 2 years ago
I won't have time to complete my platform, so I would ask Con for a extension.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
I'll totally be voting on this.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 2 years ago
I might want to debate Pro on this after doing some more research on the subject...
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
I may accept this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
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: CON failed to even address a single argument made by PRO, and his calls for "neutrality" and insistence that PRO agree to a tie, simply because he was for whatever reason unable to finish this debate, are utterly unbecoming. Therefore, PRO also wins conduct. Under no circumstances can a debater insist upon and *demand* a tie. This is not and will never be acceptable conduct.