The Instigator
acer
Pro (for)
Losing
63 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points

Lowering Taxes is not Beneficial to the Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 4/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,868 times Debate No: 7761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (23)

 

acer

Pro

When taxes are lowered, the government has less income. When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully. When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy.
mongeese

Con

Acer, welcome to Debate.org. I hope you enjoy your debating experience here.

"When taxes are lowered, the government has less income."
Absolutely.

"When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully."
Allow me to define "rightful":
1: just , equitable
2 a: having a just or legally established claim : legitimate b: held by right or just claim : legal
3: proper , fitting
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I think the word that you're looking to fit there is "correctly" or "efficiently".
The point is, you can't assume that because taxes have been lowered, the government goes from "rich" to "poor". It just becomes "not as rich as it used to be, but still very rich". Additionally, how much money does the government need to do everything that it actually needs to do? Not very much. Does the government really need to send money to Iowa so that they can research why pigs smell bad? http://friscalating-dusklight.blogspot.com... No. The government has gotten involved in far too many projects than it can handle. If we lowered taxes, the government would still have enough money to do whatever necessary stuff it needs to do.

"When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the economy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse."
Let's say that Barack Obama went on a public announcement and said, "From Good Friday until Easter, sales taxes will be reduced by 50% for all products." What would happen? Spending. Insane spending. Everyone would leap on this chance to buy something for a little cheaper than it would be on any other day. Insane spending means that money is exchanging hands quickly, and I quote Judel Morrforous Foir, "The economy works best when the money is changing hands quickly. The more we preach recession, the worse it gets." http://judelfoir.wordpress.com...

"Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy."
As I said, it doesn't hurt. It can help.

I look forwards to my opponent's first response.
Debate Round No. 1
acer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

" Insane spending. Everyone would leap on this chance to buy something for a little cheaper than it would be on any other day." The actual amount they are saving is not even worth the gas that it would take to drive their. Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners. One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands. http://hubpages.com.... The money being spent is money that the consumers will not have.

With higher taxes, more money will be going towards the government. "Does the government really need to send money to Iowa so that they can research why pigs smell bad? No. The government has gotten involved in far too many projects than it can handle." Though they seem completely irrational, these projects are actually a good way of returning money back into the economy. The government does not hog the money so much as the rich people do. By returning money back into the research and science industry, they also support more intellectual studies, which in the long term advance our country.

Giving the government money is a much better and safer idea than handing it to the rich.
mongeese

Con

This is turning into a fairly good debate.

"The actual amount they are saving is not even worth the gas that it would take to drive their."
Irrelevant. In fact, if they do all of their shopping in one visit within the three days of saving, then they actually use less gas than normal. You can't aviod spending money to get gas, but in this way, you can accomplish more in one trip.

"Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners."
Incorrect. The store owners are not the only benefactors. What about the factories that invented the products? What about the people working out in the field to process raw materials? What about the truckers who transported all of the goods from the factories to the stores? What about the TV shows that advertise the products that are bought? What about the people who actually work at the store? You need to remember all four levels of marketing. Many people benefit from every product you buy.

"One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands."
Dollar collapse, oil rise, inflation, housing bubble, global economy... Your root cause wasn't in the list given by your source. I've also already proved that the money ends up everywhere, not just in the hands of the rich?

"The money being spent is money that the consumers will not have."
Naturally. When you spend five dollars to buy something, you no longer have that five dollars. But at least you now own whatever it is that you bought, which you obviously thought was a fair exchange, or else you wouldn't have bought it.

"With higher taxes, more money will be going towards the government."
Nauturally.

"Though they seem completely irrational..."
At least we agree on that.

"...these projects are actually a good way of returning money back into the economy."
No. The easiest way to return money to the economy is to return it to the people. And if you're going to do that, you might as well not have taxed them so highly in the first place. The more people are taxed, the less money they have. The less money people have, the less money they spend. The less money people spend, the less money exchanges hands. And as Foir said, this leads to recession.

"The government does not hog the money so much as the rich people do."
And then some. The government does not hog money. It spends money. It spends more money than it has. Thus, America is in trillions of dollars of debt. The government should probably do more money-hogging.

"By returning money back into the research and science industry, they also support more intellectual studies, which in the long term advance our country."
The private sector should be funding these random R&D projects. They can improve the country like that. All that the government should do is rule over politics, not technology.

"Giving the government money is a much better and safer idea than handing it to the rich."
No. If you ever send money to the government, that money will soon disappear. The government spends more money than it has. The government can't even be trusted with our money. We trusted the government with our Social Security funds. Guess what they did with it? They spent it all. http://www.federalbudget.com... And that's also what they do with any heightened taxes. Of all places to keep our money, it is NOT with the government. It is with the economy.
Debate Round No. 2
acer

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate. This is my first debate and it has been very fun.

" Of all places to keep our money, it is NOT with the government. It is with the economy."
If not with the government, then where should it be kept. In the economy? Though it sounds like a great plan, it is not a good long term solution. The rich get richer is a famous proverb that many people know. http://ezinearticles.com.... Do you know why this happens. As money circulates uncontrolled, it will slowly be gained by the few rich people. As they earn money, they hog it and no longer spend it. When there are people who hog the money, how can the status of the economy be improved. You said in the first round that "The economy works best when the money is changing hands quickly." http://judelfoir.wordpress.com...; Money cannot change hands quickly if it is being hoarded by the rich. Therefore, the government is there to ensure that the rich do not get all the money and that some money continues in circulation. They do this through taxing. Higher taxes, the less the rich have and the more the poor can get. Though this seems socialist, it is not. It is a safety procedure preventing a total crash in the economy.

"...these projects are actually a good way of returning money back into the economy."
No. The easiest way to return money to the economy is to return it to the people. And if you're going to do that, you might as well not have taxed them so highly in the first place. The more people are taxed, the less money they have. The less money people have, the less money they spend. The less money people spend, the less money exchanges hands. And as Foir said, this leads to recession."

How is giving money to people the easiest way to get money back into the economy. When the government directly puts it in the economy, it is predictable. However, when money is given back to people, the government does not know for sure if the people will spend it.

"All that the government should do is rule over politics, not technology." Do you know, if that was true, there would be no such thing as NASA. Government also has a role over technology as it is an indirect form of aid. The technological advances made by such companies result in better lifestyle for regular people. One such example is the temperpedic mattress. It was developed by NASA and is now used by many people.

I would again like to thank my opponent for this debate. I await your reply
mongeese

Con

I thank my opponent for responding in a timely manner.

"If not with the government, then where should it be kept. In the economy? Though it sounds like a great plan, it is not a good long term solution. The rich get richer is a famous proverb that many people know. http://ezinearticles.com....... Do you know why this happens. As money circulates uncontrolled, it will slowly be gained by the few rich people. As they earn money, they hog it and no longer spend it. When there are people who hog the money, how can the status of the economy be improved. You said in the first round that 'The economy works best when the money is changing hands quickly.' http://judelfoir.wordpress.com......; Money cannot change hands quickly if it is being hoarded by the rich. Therefore, the government is there to ensure that the rich do not get all the money and that some money continues in circulation. They do this through taxing. Higher taxes, the less the rich have and the more the poor can get."
Alright, first, the rich do NOT hoard all of the money. They do not have their own "million-dollar mattress" or anything of the sort. They invest it in something called stocks. http://en.wikipedia.org... This helps the economy. Your accusation that the rich hoard money is a LIE, and all your arguments based on that are also lies. The rich also buy fancy things like yachts http://eyachtcharter.blogspot.com..., mansions http://www.popcrunch.com..., fancy sports cars, overly expensive wine http://www.bbr.com..., and multiple video game consoles of every brand for each room in the house.

"Though this seems socialist, it is not. It is a safety procedure preventing a total crash in the economy."
Actually, it's a safety procedure that is supported by socialists.

"How is giving money to people the easiest way to get money back into the economy. When the government directly puts it in the economy, it is predictable. However, when money is given back to people, the government does not know for sure if the people will spend it."

Oh, so you want to give the government more control over where our money ends up going? That's socialism. The government doesn't always do the best things with their money. People prefer choices. If people know that their money is being controlled by the government, it can lead to a panic, then a government recession.

"Do you know, if that was true, there would be no such thing as NASA. Government also has a role over technology as it is an indirect form of aid. The technological advances made by such companies result in better lifestyle for regular people. One such example is the temperpedic mattress. It was developed by NASA and is now used by many people."

I don't think that temperpedic sleep mattresses make up for billions of dollars of funding.

IN CONCLUSION:
Lowering taxes is beneficial to the economy. A reduction in taxes can lead to large amounts of money being spent, which stimulates the economy much more than a ridiculous stimulus package could. When the people have the money, they feel in control, and they go out and spend it, and that is the power that powers the economy. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by robertgeorgey 1 year ago
robertgeorgey
Speaking about taxes, I've got to say that investments in wine are CGT and inheritance tax free. I had been reading up on it at Vin-x.com
Posted by acer 7 years ago
acer
This is fail, how the heck am I winning this debate?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Who gave PRO points?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"Giving the government money is a much better and safer idea than handing it to the rich."
This quote is just hilarious.

Just realize, my vote was removed when I was banned. I better vote again. RFD is same as Lifeisgood's.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
There is no justification for PRO winning this debate.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
B/A: Con.
Conduct: Tie.
S/G: Con. Pro made some obvious errors.
Arguments: Con. Con's arguments were all excellent.
Sources: Con. Con used better sources, as well as more.
Posted by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
LEFTYMORGAN is correct, but he didn't get to the root of ACER's misunderstanding.
Msg. for ACER: When tax cutters suggest "lowering taxes" we mean "lowering tax rates". In point of fact, in every case of "lowering tax rates", tax revenues increased - not decreased. You see, it's not simple arithmetic. When tax rates are lowered, business increases. This improves the economy, and a more robust economy results in more tax revenue. It's called balance. If there was a zero tax rate, there could be no revenue. If the tax is increased to 100% there is no business. No business = no tax revenue.
Because of the progressive income tax rates, inflation causes an increasingly larger share of our income to go to taxes. This progressively strangles the economy. Periodic tax rate decreases help readjust the balance.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I do believe that I fairly won this debate, as well.

PRO showed a poor understanding of the economy and government. He's okay now.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
It was proven when Kennedy did it and again when Reagan did it. When taxes were lowered, government revenue increases. So before you misspeak, you better check your facts. Bush lowered taxes and revenue went from 34% to 39%, so to say they are poor is not true. The problem is spending on programs and other things that should be gotten rid of or left to hollywood to deal with.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"Then again, some "pork appropriations" are necessary spending by the government. This is due to the fact that if left to the private sector, some projects and research would NEVER get the funding necessary."
That's because they aren't necessary.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
acermongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 7 years ago
Leftymorgan
acermongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
acermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
acermongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
acermongeeseTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
acermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
acermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
acermongeeseTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
acermongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
acermongeeseTied
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:70