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

Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

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: 1/19/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 44259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Hi i would like to have a interesting debate about this topic!
I would like to debate that we should have A Flat Income Tax In America.

1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements.


looking forward to the debate, proceed.
Debate Round No. 1


I will be upholding 3 contentions.

P1)Fairness and equality.
Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.

P2) Simplicity.
A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer.

P3) Economic success.
I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.

Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable.

If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.

This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.

Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product.

Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.

This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect.

Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays.

That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government.

Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success.

We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.


I look foward to my opponents rebbuttals.



1. 'Fairness'

I must analyse a few situations in order to calculate the effect of the tax on individuals in different circumstances, and thus show why a flat tax is "unfair". Lets take into account two people, John and Bill, who earn $40,000 a year. However John is young with few assets who relies upon his personal savings to finance a future business. Bill, in contrast, is an old man who has already built up $600,000 in assets. It is certainly not "fair" for them to both pay the same rate of taxation due to their vastly different circumstances.

Take another example of a sick man and a healthy man with similar or identical income, but one of who has much higher medical costs to pay. In the status quo they can be taxed differently (due to tax deductions and healthcare expenditure), however under a flat taxed they would both be taxed the same, and this would severely harm the sick man!

It seems simply to go against common sense that in a world where individuals are not the same, and rates of taxation have a highly different impact on different circumstances, that every person should pay the same rate of tax. That is not "fair" at all.


2: Economic Conditions And Loopholes

Assumedly, a flat tax would close many "loopholes" which are exemptions given when you engage in certain types of expenditure under the current income tax. But this would be detrimental to society, as these loopholes, incentivize "good" economic behaviour.

One of these loopholes as you may be aware is the ability to deduct mortgage interest payments from taxes. This makes owning a home more expensive, meaning more people will be unable to buy homes, forcing them to rent instead. This harms their economic prospects, as their payments would result in them owning an asset whereas rent payments bring them no return, as self owned homes become less in demand, the value of the homes drop.

Thus the closing of these loopholes will in fact disincentivize what we consider beneficial economic behaviour, leading to a worse economic state overall.


3: The Poor!

The flat tax truly impacts upon the poor more greatly than upon the rich. Because everyone pays the same flat percentage of tax, both a poor and rich man are forced to pay (just an example) 10% of his income. As the poor spend of greater percentage of their income on basic necessities than the rich do, the rich have much more money to spend on luxury.

Therefore, the impact of a 10% tax upon a poorer person is far greater in terms of limiting their ability to buy things they may want or need than it is upon a richer person, and consequently the harm of taxing a poorer person at the same rate as a richer person is greater than the harm of taxing a richer person at a higher percentage.

Therefore the nature of a flat tax makes it completely undesirable are more harmful than current forms of taxation.

Debate Round No. 2


1. "It is certainly not "fair" for them to both pay the same rate of taxation due to their vastly different circumstances."
Yes it is and infact they would be paying less on a flat tax than they normally would.

2: Economic Conditions And Loopholes
Decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class and actually make it easier for most to afford homes.

3: The Poor!
Refer to my P3) Economic success.The poor would do the opposite and thrive with a flat tax not to mention the would pay about the same % wise that they are currently paying.


dylanm123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend FF 7 points go to me.


dylanm123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 4 years ago
Yes it was i had no time to type up another one.You can copy from yourself correct?
Posted by dylanm123 4 years ago
really ? @MyDinosaurHands
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 4 years ago
I believe this first round has been copied word for word from his debate with me on this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 4 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF