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

People be taxed depending on income

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: 2/18/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 70292
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




1. Opinions welcome
2. Make sure to use solid facts To support your claim

Opinion: Some people look down on others because of how the dress, how they look, and how they smell. I believe that if they evened out the odds so to speak, that people would be able to get along better, and relate to one another better. Because of this, people might feel better about themselves because everyone else has a similar financial situation as them. This could potentially reduce suicide as well because those particular people don't feel much more 'disapproved' of as others.

How I think it should work: I think that depending on your income, is what your tax is on your house, and electricity, and other things such as tools, and objects for entertainment. (Food, and water however are a requirement for life and should be charged the same for all.) for instance: the more your income the more you pay. So a pack of cigarettes cost more for someone with a 50,000 dollar income than a 25,000 dollar income.


My opponent is advocating for a progressive tax. I am mainly for a flat tax over a progressive tax due to several reasons. Without furder ado, I shall present my arguments.

Simplicity and the IRS

A flat tax would replace all the complex forms by the IRS with just two postcards. A flat tax would save a lot of time this way and make paying taxes less frustrating. A flat tax system has no loopholes or complexity. A flat tax can also eliminate or at least drastically shrink the IRS's power. This way, the IRS can not abuse their power like they are doing right now. The IRS can spy on citizens and snoop on your personal information, a flat tax would get rid of the IRS's abusive power.


A person making $300,000 a year would pay a tax of $3000 with a 10% taxation rate. Someone making $30,000 a year would pay $300. The person with the 300K income would pay 10 times as much money as the person with a 30K income because they make 10 times more money. A progressive tax system would mean someone making 300K would pay more percent of their wage then someone who makes 30K. This is unfair because the one making more money is being punished for working harder and getting into a good college.

It just makes sense that some people make more money than others. Are we trying to encourage prejudice with the current tax system by having different taxation rates for everyone?


A flat tax would save time and money due to it's simplicity.

Ends corruption

USA's progressive tax system allows for corruption. A flat tax eliminated deductions, loopholes, credits ect. It would reduce government power and get rid of the IRS like I mentioned earlier.

Debate Round No. 1


Dr.Eminems forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
I apologize but I forgot to post my sources in my argument so here they are:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 2 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Topic: Pro seemed to be arguing for a progressive SALES tax. How the hell would that work? Conduct: forfeit. S&G: Pro made several errors. Arguments: Con made a several good arguments that went unrebutted. (Made a math error, though - applied a 1% tax rate). Neither side used sources.