The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ilovedebate
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

It is wrong to tax the rich more than the poor

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,015 times Debate No: 16327
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Con

After reading through some arguments on the society forum regarding whether wealth was inherently right or wrong, I came upon a conversation that really sparked my interest between jharry and Cody_Franklin. So now I really want to debate this issue as well.

Again, the resolution is "Is it wrong to tax the rich more than the poor"
When I say Poor, I mean those economically disadvantaged in relevance to their sociatal standard.
When I say Rich, I mean those who are in the top percentage of incomes.
When I say Tax, I mean payment to the government out of ones income or inheritence.

While there are no set rules to the style of debate I would like this to be, I want to point out that I am looking more for a philosophical debate and less of a debate about analytical evidence.

Rules:
+ Catty, or offensive demenor will result loss of conduct points
+ Forfiet of even a single round will result in forfieting the debate entirely
+ Arguments not extended are only counted as drops if the argument is attacked

Structure:
Round 1: Con: Framework Pro: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive and definitions
Round 3: Clash
Roudn 4: Clash and closing statements.
ilovedebate

Pro

Hi hello-orange. I Thank you for posting such a debate as this and I accept. I look forward to a clean and fair one.

So you are debating that it is right to tax the rich more than the poor. And when you say philosophical debate, I am assuming that you mean more by common sense and natural knowledge rather than pure statistics.

Good luck to you
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate!
First before I get into any definitions/framework/arguments, I will make a clarification for my opponent.

As Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" because this is true, I will be taking a utilitarian stance in advocation of Con.I defend that it is not wrong to tax the rich more than the poor; I am not necessarily saying it is right to tax them more, (although I do have ground to advocate that, and may do as needed) I am simply asserting that it is not wrong. I'm fairly certain that that will not be an issue of controversy, so I won't spend too much time here; but do want this to be said in case it does become an issue.

Now to begin I'm going to offer a very brief road map.
I'm going to be presenting definitions, frame-work, and finally a few Contentions.

=Definitions=
1. [1](adj)Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy
2. [2](adj)Poor:having little or no money, goods, or other means of support
3. [3](n)Wrong:An unjust, dishonest, or immoral action
4. [4](n)Tax:A compulsory contribution to state revenue...

=Framework=
Obs1: Since both my opponent and I live in the United States, the realm of this debate should be exclusive to the 50 U.S. States, and 1 federal district.

Obs2: My job as the negative isn't necessarily to prove that taxing the rich more is moral, ethical, or right; Especially not in an absolute sense. Instead, my job is to prove that taxing the rich more is not in and of itself wrong. That said if I am able to prove that it is right, it will only strengthen my point and give more reason to vote Con.
=Contentions=

C1: the rich have more to give-
I think this point is rather self-explanatory, but allow me to expand on it.
The fact is the Rich have more money to contribute back to society; however because of personal greed and general apathy for those outside their own benefactions, they are unwilling to contribute this money for societal good. Of course this is not an absolute truth, and there are those who are wealthy who often give back to society, this is a general truth. Things such as public education, roadways, libraries, and city parks (all of which are funded by tax-payer dollars) are always in need of money.
In fact because of the budget cuts,not only are Public Schools having to cut wonderful programs, such as; Art, Band, Choir, and even Forensics (debate). But the US is even in the incredibly horrible position of having to let go of thousands of teachers, ultimately contributing to a dependency of federal money.

Whereas taxing the richer slightly more would not only not be much of a loss of to them, it would help to rebuild America's infrastructure, economy, and general morale.

C2: Distribution of wealth
The fact is that there is such a gross difference between the wealthy it's not something to take lightly by any means.
First we must realize that there is a grave difference between simply being well-to-do in one's socioeconomic status, and being wealthy.
[5] Sociologists generally categorize people into three categories; upper, middle, and lower class. With middle class being the biggest of all. Constituting a majority of american society.

Lower middle class[6] alone constitutes just under half of american society, while upper middle class constitutes roughly 15% of society. Filling in the remainder of the blanks with lower class, and middle middle class, the upper upper class constitutes a [7] 1% of society, yet they hold just under 50% of America's wealth.

Now most american families can live comfortably on the $50,000-100,000+ while still paying taxes and bills, then the 1% of society who holds almost half of the United States' wealth can certainly increase their tax-percentages by up to even 5 times it's current amount with-out ever being hurt by it.

In fact many wealthy people in society don't even spend their money, they invest it and continually drain the rest of society so as to laden their own pockets. Much of this money simply sits in banks gathering dust.

C3: The Unjust argument is a joke.

After having presented my two prior points, I cannot being to fathom ground my opponent even has to cover other than the argument that this excess taxation would be unjust. To that I reply that this argument is a joke.

Justice is giving each their due, and the fact hold true that many of these wealthy have received their due many times over. If we want to talk about fairness and justice, then where is the justice for the lower class father working his butt off everyday from 9-5 and still only barely feeding his family.
Where is the justice in middle class Americans not only paying their taxes, as well as saving out the wazoo to send their children to college, only to have their 401k ripped out from beneath them because the wealthy decided they wanted a bailout instead of facing the consequences for their greedy, poor investments.

The justice arguments is a semantic ideal drawn from Abused, and tattered remains from the constitution. It is an argument of blind application of small print, without ever really trying to gauge it's affect on society.

In closing, there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich by a greater percentage then the poor. Utilitarianism dictates that it's actually a very bad thing not to do so. The rich create a profit for themselves without letting much spill over into mainstream society.

For all of these reasons I urge a con vote.
I now hand the debate back over to my opponent!

Sources:
[1][2][3][4] Dictionary.com
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://sociology.ucsc.edu...
ilovedebate

Pro

I apologize to con and to my audience for such a late reply

We are obviously debating on income tax correct?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well to my definitions:
Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy (1)
Poor: lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society (2)
Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral (3)
Income Tax: tax levied by a government directly on income, especially an annual tax on personal income (4)
Equal: being the same in quantity, size, degree , or value (5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As con has stated in round 1, I will be about my contentions and have the rebuttals during rounds 3 and 4

Contention 1:
Taxing the rich is wrong...and according to my definitions, it is logical that it is. The foundation of this country, the United States, was made upon the Declaration of Independence. And in it, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Now we can assume for this debate that by all men, we mean everyone in general not just the men but also the women. What does this mean? No matter the social status, color of your skin, or the gender, everyone should be treated with equal rights. And what does that mean? Well according to my definition of equal above taken from an online Oxford dictionary, no matter, how much you're worth, how important you are, or how much you can offer to society, you must have the same rights as anyone else. Now unless the Declaration of Independence was written just to brag to other countries about how great the United States is and unless the Declaration of Independence was written to lure everyone in "socially troubled" countries, then it is obviously wrong to tax someone who is "equal" to another no matter their differences in annual income.

Contention 2:
Taxing the rich more than the poor is just plain unfair. It is, in a way, punishing the rich for being rich and helping the poor for being poor. Well, the rich live in America and the poor live in America as well. So, they should both pay the equal amount of rent. Imagine this; a rich and a poor both want to live in an apartment. The rent is equal. However, the poor doesn't have enough money to stay in the apartment and is later kicked out. Should the owner of the apartments let the poor stay because he's poor? No. Think of the apartment as the United States and the apartment owner the government. They are basically the same things.

I will leave off with that and look forward to the clashing in the third round
Good luck con
Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Con

BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
ilovedebate

Pro

Con has unfortunately forfeited round 3 of this debate so extend all arguments

Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
BangBang-Coconut

Con

BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
ilovedebate

Pro

My Opponent's account has been closed. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ilovedebate 5 years ago
ilovedebate
hello orange's account has been closed...
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
no, you're pulling chunks of text straight from the debate and presenting refutations against it.
Posted by e.gibson1987 5 years ago
e.gibson1987
I try not to argue things that I already agree with, Hello-Orange.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@e.gibson1987 If you wanted to debate this, you should have accepted it. It's otherwise bad form to argue in the comments.
Posted by e.gibson1987 5 years ago
e.gibson1987
"As Spock said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' because this is true,"
-You're ASSUMING this is true, you haven't given anything to support why.
"My job as the negative isn't necessarily to prove that taxing the rich more is moral, ethical, or right; Especially not in an absolute sense. Instead, my job is to prove that taxing the rich more is not in and of itself wrong."
-What do you mean by "in and of itself wrong?" If it's not wrong ethically or morally(or economically, etc), then according to what kind of wrong is it?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Ahk!
lol oops, my bad.
Posted by ilovedebate 5 years ago
ilovedebate
haha this debate is in the category of sports? hahahahaha lol
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@e.gibson1987 I guess not :|. Never-mind, it just seemed like what you where referring to seemed like a Criterion, or weighing mechanism. It's a necessary part of LD debate.

@Thaddeus Too late D:
But if you challenge me to this same debate, I'll accept it.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I probably will take this.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Lincoln-Douglas style debating.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Amveller 5 years ago
Amveller
BangBang-CoconutilovedebateTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow changed my mind!
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-CoconutilovedebateTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Temp close by Con, conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 5 years ago
ExNihilo
BangBang-CoconutilovedebateTied
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: hi