The Instigator
policydebategod
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
C-Mach
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points

National Sales 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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,427 times Debate No: 591
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

policydebategod

Con

The National Sales Tax will
- raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor
- the poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes
- children will not be able to afford the things they can now
- a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government
- it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money
- states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor
- There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax.
- Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services
- Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers.
- Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
C-Mach

Pro

First of all, if we eliminated every other tax, and implemented this at a rate of 17% TOTAL (Don't worry, the states' cash cow would be toll roads based on converted carpool or left shoulder lanes on highways and interstates), the economy would shoot up LIKE A ROCKET. People would be more productive, because they would be encouraged to produce something because their income is no longer taken away from them by the government, and thus, will make more money. Your rebuttal?
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Con

Opponent- First of all, if we eliminated every other tax, and implemented this at a rate of 17% TOTAL (Don't worry, the states' cash cow would be toll roads based on converted carpool or left shoulder lanes on highways and interstates), the economy would shoot up LIKE A ROCKET.
+ You have no basis for this. So I'm going to respond the same way: ...nuh uh...

Opponent- People would be more productive, because they would be encouraged to produce something because their income is no longer taken away from them by the government, and thus, will make more money. Your rebuttal?
+ Are you saying that America is not encouraged to do well? America has a $13.5 trillion GDP. Here's all the encouragement Americans have needed since 1776: You don't work, you don't eat. Americans have not needed more motivation because our capitalist economy keeps people motivated.

NEW ARGUMENT -The poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes. The poor will not afford food, then die, the rich will control the country without opposition and be able to control America, the greatest, most powerful country, thereby the world, they can even enslave China, who will eventually retaliate with nukes, causing a nuke war, killing every person on Earth.

Please respond to the following arguments:
- It will raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor
- The poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes now.
- children will not be able to afford the things they can now
- a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government
- it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money
- states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor
- There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax.
- Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services
- Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers.
- Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
C-Mach

Pro

I already mentioned how the states would make money. The poor would get richer if they didn't have an income tax on them in the first place. And no, businesses would not have to face financial hardships, if this were the only tax in place. We need to take steps in implementing the NRST, such as elimination of all the services the government does that the private sector can do better, and not to mention stopping corruption and cutting pork. States would not lose money with the use of the system I have proposed. So, it's a win-win situation: The government gets more revenue and the populace gets wealthier.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Con

- I already mentioned how the states would make money. The poor would get richer if they didn't have an income tax on them in the first place.
+ THE POOR ($5000 -) DONT PAY INCOME TAXES!!!

- And no, businesses would not have to face financial hardships, if this were the only tax in place.
+ I never said that business will face financial hardships. I said they would tax evade.

- We need to take steps in implementing the NRST, such as elimination of all the services the government does that the private sector can do better, and not to mention stopping corruption and cutting pork.
+ These are not what we are debating. You cannot make me debate random arguments in a different debate!

+ States would not lose money with the use of the system I have proposed. So, it's a win-win situation: The government gets more revenue and the populace gets wealthier.
- The government would not get more revenue b/c ppl would buy less things becuse they would be too expensive, lowering our economy. How do you debate that?

- the poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes
- Not true, if you filled out a W-4 form and you are getting taxes taken out of your paycheck. With the Fair tax, you will receive your entire gross pay, therefore the poor should be able to shoulder the cost of a sales tax.
+ What about the poor who are unable to work? They cannot buy food because their taxes are too high on goods or other things. The poor cannot buy overpriced things and that is why they are exempt from the income tax now!

- it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money
- Highly doubtful, they may drop sales tax but they will come up with other means for revenue, ie tolls, taxes on non consumer goods and or services.
+ Why don't they use these new sources of revenue now?
+ IF THEY KEEP THE SAME TAXES THAT WILL BE ABOUT %24 SALES TAX!!!

- a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government
+ People will buy less things!!! And the money made even IF people buy more things, the revenue from half of ppl's paychecksis not ebough now. what makes u think ppl will buy more things after spending half their paycheck on items and pay more taxes.

I WIN THIS DEBATE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ANSWER SUFFICENTLY:
- It will raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor
- The poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes now.
- children will not be able to afford the things they can now
- a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government
- it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money
- states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor
- There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax.
- Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services
- Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers.
- Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
C-Mach

Pro

C-Mach forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
You got the picture, clsmooth.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Two more things:

1. So under a pure national sales tax, the poor would shoulder a larger portion of the tax burden. Right now, they receive negative income tax.

2. But what's worse is the "Fair Tax" plan, which would turn every citizen into a welfare recipient by giving them a monthly "prebate" equal to the amount they "should" spend on "necessities." Fair Tax = central planning socialism.

By the way: Although I am opposed to the wealth redistribution inherent in the negative income tax, the poor do not benefit from the artificial inflation of the money supply the same way the rich do. Graduated income taxation is wrong for many reasons, but in terms of "fairness," this should be taken into account. Easier way to be fair = abolition of income taxation and a return to sound money.
Posted by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
it is clear that neither knows anything about the subject.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
CongressmanDrew - Is that really your level of understanding of the tax code and its purposes? The purpose of income taxation is income redistribution. The "poor" may have taxes deducted from their paychecks, but they get all that (and more) back with their "refund." Trust me, I had some lean years after college where I was a net welfare recipient via the Earned Income Tax Credit.

National sales tax = the only thing that makes the current income tax regime look sane by comparison.

policydebategod eviscerated his opponent this time.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
NOTICE THAT SHE STOLE CONGRESSMAN'S COMMENTS AS HER OWN ARGUMENTS!!!
Posted by CongressmanDrew 9 years ago
CongressmanDrew
- the poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes

Not true, if you filled out a W-4 form and you are getting taxes taken out of your paycheck. With the Fair tax, you will receive your entire gross pay, therefore the poor should be able to shoulder the cost of a sales tax.

- it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money

Highly doubtful, they may drop sales tax but they will come up with other means for revenue, ie tolls, taxes on non consumer goods and or services.

- a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government

That is a pretty serious accusation, any data or facts to back that up?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
policydebategodC-MachTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
policydebategodC-MachTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 K0N 9 years ago
K0N
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 ojmartinez25 9 years ago
ojmartinez25
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
policydebategodC-MachTied
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 mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
policydebategodC-MachTied
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