The Instigator
jbow1221
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Flat Tax

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...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,551 times Debate No: 19076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

jbow1221

Pro

A flat tax is what American need and is what the founding fathers had in mind when they envisioned their country economically
Contra

Con

I will accept this debate and will be holding the Con side of this argument (therefore, Pro-Progressive Tax).
Debate Round No. 1
jbow1221

Pro

Although the actual concept of a flat tax did not exist during the time of the founding fathers the idea of capitalism did and capitalism is what has made our country great by giving the ability to profit from enterprise. If we try to have a higher tax for those who are wealthy contradicts that idea therefore a flat tax is the only way to ensure that we remain capitalistic and productive.
Contra

Con

Capitalism is a great economic system if implemented in the right way. For example, taxing people in an efficient, transparent, and certain way will help bring out economic growth in a country. The Progressive Tax is the best way to do this.

http://www.investopedia.com...

The Progressive Tax is the right tax system because of several reasons:

- Regulates the economy
-In a Capitalist society, people who control greater amounts of capital in a society have greater control over governmental policy often helping those "contributing" to help themselves further at the expense of others. Over time, this is inevitable due to economic and political facets, but can be reduced by the Progressive tax. In an unregulated nation, society will be eventually composed into a two-tier economic ladder; at the top the few form the wealthy aristocratic class, and at the bottom is the large working class. The Progressive tax would reduce the amount of wealth at the top helping everybody else and reduce economic inequality.

- Higher Tax Revenues - Less Government Deficits, etc.
-Although it is sort of a nasty truth, yes the Progressive tax would lower government debts, putting a lower tax burden on the less fortunate as well as reducing interest payments on our debt reducing the additional cost to our economy.

- Progressive Tax effect on society
-The taxes collected (more revenue will exist) to pay for infrastructure, our educational system and resources, legal system, national defense, and economic opportunities that allow many people become very rich in the first place. Also, social programs and safety nets such as unemployment insurance raises the overall standard of living in a national allowing for more productive employees in the workplace, a larger amount of active consumers, more entrepreneurship in an economy, all of the government programs we rely on, and creates a more dynamic economy overall. With more revenues a government could help society more.

- The Wealthy give back to help the Future Wealthy and Society
-The wealthy may have created a company that made them rich. Good for them. However, society helped them. Society paid for the cops to prevent mobs from taking control of that business. Society paid for the education to make productive employees, etc. If we had a flat tax, the government could not help society in much of a way. You could not be so sure that people had as much of an economic opportunity to climb the economic ladder as they were able to.

- Progressive Tax on income inequality
-The Progressive tax reduces income inequality, as shown by taxation across different nations. For example, the income inequality in Australia (has a more progressive taxation rate than the U.S.) is lower than it is in the U.S. Lower income inequality is important for a nation to achieve but not to excess. It is proven that lower income inequality has numerous societal benefits such as lower homicide rate, less crime, etc.

Lastly, the Progressive tax puts an equal tax burden on society so no major economic group has to pay for all of the taxes. A flat tax is actually regressive because the poor spend all of their money anyways and would be given a heavier tax burden, while the rich would get a tax cut.

http://www.stubbornmule.net...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
http://debates.juggle.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What You Should Know About Politics... Bud Don't" by Jessamyn Conrad
Debate Round No. 2
jbow1221

Pro

A flat tax is simple, fair, and it enables growth unlike a progressive tax. Also unlike the progressive tax it provides equal taxation for all and fulfilling equal justice under law. A progressive tax is bias and punishes the nations wealthy for contributing to the nations wealth. A flat tax would take away the tax bias and would guarantee better economic
performance in a global economy. My points of why a flat tax is more beneficial are:
1. It will spur economic growth, saving, and investment
2. It is simple and fair. People will understand a flat tax better than a progressive tax plan that has 59 points and just as many exceptions for certain groups
3. There would be instant wealth creation due to the after tax income that will be available and therefore it will be spent and circulated
Contra

Con

You are arguing that the Flat tax is simple, fair, and enables growth unlike the progressive tax. However, you are missing the affect of what the flat tax would have on the middle class and the lower economic classes. You see, if the U.S. had a flat tax, or simply a "flatter" tax rate, income inequality would rise as it does in nations that do not have a progressive income tax as shown by the comparison of the U.S. to Western European nations and against Australia, etc.

Consumption fuels about 70% of all of the U.S. economy. Now, the middle class and the lower economic peoples spend most if not all of their money. The wealthy spend less of their money comparatively. Also, a flat tax eventually creates a two-tier economic ladder. So, the flat tax would tax the middle and lower classes more and the rich WOULD PAY LESS.

http://www.usnews.com...

Earlier I said "The taxes collected (more revenue will exist) to pay for infrastructure, our educational system and resources, legal system, national defense, and economic opportunities that allow many people become very rich in the first place. Also, social programs and safety nets such as unemployment insurance raises the overall standard of living in a national allowing for more productive employees in the workplace, a larger amount of active consumers, more entrepreneurship in an economy, all of the government programs we rely on, and creates a more dynamic economy overall. With more revenues a government could help society more."
-- If you have less revenues, society will have more debt, so a flat tax will reduce consumption in our economy, while the rich would have more money on their hands. A rich tax cut does not create jobs, just look at the Early 2000s Bush Tax Cuts.

The current U.S. tax system needs to be simplified, more progressive, and more fair. This would save much money through closing loopholes and would make the middle class owe less in taxes and would help them, as well as helping the poor. When you said that the Flat tax is simple, it is not as much as you may think.

-- Businesses point out that they need some mechanism in the tax code that will allow them to deduct their expenses in order to be fairly taxed on their actual profits. There is also the complex question of how to deal with the tax components of imports and exports under a flat tax system.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.americanprogress.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.usnews.com...

You mentioned that people wouldn't want a progressive tax with a 59-point plan. I don't know where this comes from besides Republican Mitt Romney's 59-point economic plan, which is off topic at the point and I think is actually a more flat-tax like change to our tax system (I doubt that Republicans want a more progressive tax system)

So, would having a tax system that reduced consumption of our economy, increase our deficits and debt, damaged our economy and infrastructure, and reduced money to the middle class and lower classes be beneficial to the U.S. economy?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
j bow, you need practice, dont be discouraged though.
Posted by jbow1221 5 years ago
jbow1221
The 59 points was just an example of how complicated progressive tax plans are whereas a flat tax is simple and effective
Posted by jbow1221 5 years ago
jbow1221
Thank you sir I guess I was just trying to figure out how things work on here and just kind of threw something out there
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
I am new at this site also pretty much, but you would usually just start round 1 with your case for the points you are trying to make. So you would lay out the reasons why you think the flat tax is better.
Posted by jbow1221 5 years ago
jbow1221
This is my first online debate I do much better at actual tournaments but I did have a point with bringing up the founding fathers that I plan on using in the debate how do I start the round though
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you started off weak though because the idea of a flat tax didn't exist when the founding fathers existed.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you started off weak though because the idea of a flat tax didn't exist when the founding fathers existed.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
aw... I thought you were con :(
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
jbow1221ContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not offer any solid counter arguments to con's points.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
jbow1221ContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry jbow use scources and fatcs to back up your side. Although I agree You did poorly
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
jbow1221ContraTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 gave Con better grammar, he had periods at the end of his sentences (Pro didn't in first round). Con made generally better arguments. Con used sources.