The Instigator
ktimbes1983
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

Flat tax is a good idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 1/17/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,844 times Debate No: 1903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (18)

 

ktimbes1983

Pro

First of all I would like to keep this debate as conceptual and philisophical as possible. I want to debate the idea as a theory.

The flat tax is a great idea. It saves the government tons of money and labor hours that a complex progressive tax code causes. If you remove the complicated and confusing deductions and safe havens for tax money that allow the wealthy to pay less in taxes, they would actually have to pay their fair share. Believe it or not, the wealthy would pay more in a flat tax. It would also reduce greatly number fines layed out each year to people who make simple mistakes and thereby violate the law. I don't remember who said it but here's a quote "the current tax code turns more americans into criminals than any other law in the books.

Oh yeah, and the flat tax is fair.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Conceptual and philosophical eh?

Not just the flat tax, but tax itself, is a betrayal of the proper purpose of government, a betrayal of the rights of man, an act of war and plunder against the producers. Fair is a notoriously difficult term to define but it usually doesn't involve theft.

Governments exist to protect the right to life and its consequent rights of liberty and property. It does so by providing various services in the form of retaliatory force- police, courts, military, etc. It needs money to do so, and can gain it in the same manner as any other enterprise- by charging for the services and, in the event of nonpayment, witholding the service. It may not send men with guns to steal the money from those who do not want to buy the service, or it is itself the criminal and surrenders all right to claim the pursuit of justice.
Debate Round No. 1
ktimbes1983

Pro

"Governments exist to protect the right to life and its consequent rights of liberty and property. It does so by providing various services in the form of retaliatory force- police, courts, military, etc. It needs money to do so"

You start off by saying that taxes themselves are unjust but then you justify the existence of taxes in the statement above.

Care to talk about the flat tax.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
You start off by saying that taxes themselves are unjust but then you justify the existence of taxes in the statement above.
"

No, I justify the existence of fees (e.g. I anticipate your points.)

A tax relies on force.

The money can be attained without taxes, like any other enterprise. For example, charge a percentage of each contract for it to be registered as enforceable in court (presently this service is subsidized needlessly by taxes). Charge for having lines to 911, charge a small percentage of a property value for the service of protecting it (simply don't pursue potential thieves or trespassers of a person if they don't pay), etc.

"Care to talk about the flat tax."

I am talking about the flat tax by talking about taxation in general, unless you wish to demonstrate that a flat tax is not a tax.
Debate Round No. 2
ktimbes1983

Pro

The earth is round.

On that earth there are taxes.

Flat tax is a type of tax.

I'm arguing about the flat tax too.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

But you haven't yet demonstrated that taxes should be there. If you can't justify any tax, you can't justify a flat one.

Just because there are taxes does not mean there has to be. You are treating taxes as natural rather than an act of human beings, when in fact they are the result of human action and so can be their abolition.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I wonder why no one understands basic logic of resolutions anymore?
Posted by ktimbes1983 9 years ago
ktimbes1983
That is the debate by the way. The topic says the flat tax is a good idea. Not a just idea.

Quit splitting hairs. If you want to have that kind of debate, propose it and say so in the proposal or opening argument.

I'm done. I'll let the votes speak for me.
Posted by ktimbes1983 9 years ago
ktimbes1983
The earth is round.

On that earth there are taxes.

I am arguing about the flat tax as much as you are.

Giant doosh.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't know why you're repeating arguments that have already been shown to be wrong.

In order to be a good idea, it has to be just and right.

It might be an improvement relatively over the progressive task, but that is NOT the debate. The debate is whether flat tax is a good idea in an absolute and not relative context.
Posted by ktimbes1983 9 years ago
ktimbes1983
The comment below was mine. My friend was signed on and looking at my debate and i posted under him. Sorry.
Posted by jeffmem38017 9 years ago
jeffmem38017
Once again the topic was about flat tax.

Read the topic.

"Flat Tax is a good idea."

I don't have to justify taxes. Taxes already exist. In my opinion a flat tax would be an improvement over what we have making it a good idea.

I didn't say the flat tax is just and right.

I said that in my opinion it's a good idea.

There is a reason why you are losing this debate.

In order to win a debate you have to address the topic.

I proved here that you didn't.

Also, taxes are optional. Nobody's making you pay taxes. Where's the injustice.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Put it this way, let's say I argue "Death penalty is a good idea" and my argument revolves around it being the best way to stop criminals. If someone comes along and opposes me by saying crime is good, the burden is on me if I wish to win to establish somehow that crime is not good.

The principle is the same.

I addressed your arguments in the course of the debate ktimbes, just not from the direction you expected. Declaring something right by keeping objections only in the direction you expect is th essence of the straw man fallacy.

You however chose to barely start an argument until comment time.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"What is the point of entering a debate that you have no interest in. If you wanna talk abou t taxation overall than propose a debate about it.That's what this site is for. Instead i come across a debate that i am interested to read and the challenger has changed the topic completely.
"

Is there a reason why no one here gets the idea that in order to accept a flat tax YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT A TAX?

E.g. I was attacking his argument due to a premise I regard as false. I argued con on the resolution "Flat tax is a good idea," focusing mostly on the tax part. If he expected to debate a supporter of the progressive tax, he should have specified, it is his guilt and not mine that he did not realize objections could come from unexpected directions.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
My point is that taxes are a given. We can't get rid of them. They will always be. For hundreds of years and many styles of gov't taxes have been a constant. Abolishing taxes is not feasible."

The lack of precedent is not a proof of impossibility.

"I assumed if I posted a debate about a flat tax we would talk about the pros and cons of the flat tax. Didn't realize further clarification was necessary.

In case we cross paths again, understand this. I want to debate about the posted topic. I don't want to expand it to be as broad as possible. That would require a lengthier exchange than what this site is set up for.

If i post a topic about the muslim faith i don't want to talk about the effects that religion have had on history."

Bad analogy, because my topic in rejecting taxation necessarily rejected the flat tax, whereas stating "religion has had bad effects on history" would not establish that islam was wrong.

"
No if you don't want to pay taxes leave the country. go form your own country somewhere over the rainbow where order is optional...
please debate the topic... that'd be cool" See the international treaties which prevent establishing countries in those few places not presently inhabited.

"He's right. Taxes aren't forced. You can live right here and never pay taxes. You don't even have to leave the country. Just go to the mountains, build shelter, and hunt and grow your own food. Never buy or sell anything, never leave your little area.

The gov't isn't forcing you to pay a dime.

ALL TAXES ARE OPTIONAL."

All uninhabited land in the United States is at present considered federal property, thus what you are proposing would be illegal, thus it is not a refutation. Any shelter I built in such a place would be confiscated at whim.

And imagine if I invited extra people to come with me... get a small town going and I'll bet anything the IRS finds it and regards
Posted by Kreuzian 9 years ago
Kreuzian
There is really no need for taxes, the government just prints the money whenever they need it.

They just can't scam enough people with the federal reserve system, if they don't buy a house, or use cc's and take out loans.

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. . . . The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth."

--Alan Greenspan, famed Chairman of the Federal Reserve

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who pushed for the creation of a Central Bank in the USA, and when Thomas Jefferson abolished it in 1812, Rothschild warned "that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the bank's charter were not renewed", and the war of 1812 against Jefferson quickly broke out.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." --James Madison, Founding Father and US President
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 never justified taxing in and of itself; therefore, he couldn't justify a flat tax
Vote Placed by ktimbes1983 6 years ago
ktimbes1983
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 ctlaster 9 years ago
ctlaster
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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 govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
ktimbes1983Ragnar_RahlTied
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