The Instigator
Revolution
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Progresive Taxation should be upheld

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Puck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,406 times Debate No: 8473
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Revolution

Pro

1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government.
2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes.
3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy.
Puck

Con

"1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government."

Transfer is simply a political term for theft. Rhetoric of 'The rich have more to offer' contradicts the fact of taxes as an agent of force. If any one individual wishes to send their money to any one charitable enterprise - that is offering - theft however remains theft even when government endorsed and enacted.

Flat fee of service? Sounds like flat tax, not progressive. In any case those of higher income have less need for Government services making the point moot. Wealth 'evened out' is again political speak for Robin Hood tactics of theft and redistribution. Wealth is value earned. There is no inherent claim on the production of value that entails its removal.

"2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes."

You have 4 apples I have 1 - I steal one from you thus fairly redistributing your property. The poorer I am the greater recourse I have to thieve from you. That is your proposed system - the only difference being the government is the arbitrary mediator of this theft. Simply because any one individual has more wealth than another, is not moral grounds for theft. An individuals wealth is their property - no one has rightful claim on it other than through the voluntary agreement of the property holder - or until such time as they may violate such principles.

The remaining wealth of an individual after tax is incidental to the actual premise of tax support. That is, by agreeing to the notion of tax - you endorse theft.

"3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy."

The correct opposing is no taxation at all. Not, Flat versus Progressive.

Progressive tax is simply no more than a system that punishes the successful. Perhaps you can explain why an arbitrary minority should be targeted, and why such a category is valid. Would taxing Democrats higher, for being Democrats be a fair system? Perhaps all those born in January? No? Likewise, income is such an arbitrary denomination for the purposes of taxation.
Debate Round No. 1
Revolution

Pro

My contentions:
1.Progressive taxation was set forth as a transfer of the wealth. The rich have more to offer, and are there by taxed more. Thus the wealth is evened out, as all citizens receive a flat fee of services from the government.
2.Even with taxes, the rich have an immensely higher income than the middle class, even after taxes.
3.Even taxation would tip the balance of wealth uncontrollably towards the aristocracy.

None of these have been explicitly refuted. My opponent has not created any contentions, and may not do so in the last round. He thus has no arguments. In addition, my opponent has changed the topic from flat vs. even to taxes vs. none, which is a conduct breach. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to defend my position in light of my opponent's arguments.

My opponent's attacks

1. Taxes enforce the founding principle of the United States: A government by the people, for the people. Americans pay taxes to support the operation of the government, which then governs the country in return. Thus, taxes are not theft. They are simply payment for services. My opponent's response ignores contention #2.

2. Allow me to change the example. You have three apples and I have eight. You give one, and I give 2. We both receive one (the flat return of services and governing). I now have 7, and you have 3. The rich still have more wealth (see contention #3). In the highest tax bracket, federal taxes are 35%. If that's what I pay on my 100 apples, and you pay 20% on your 10, you have eight and I have 65. Thus, the rich have more after taxes regardless of how much they pay. The 37 apples we donated went to the operation of the government, which stops us from being killed in the streets, and stops thieves from stealing the rest of our apples (a small price to pay for safety). Thus, progressive taxation bars off radical wealth extremes, and installs a system which allows the well-off to help the less fortunate. Your objection to this will most likely be that the less fortunate are less fortunate for a reason. While they may be, this reason may be an inadequate education or poverty as a child.

3. Income is an objective system for the purposes of taxation. While being a democrat says nothing about your wealth, income says everything. See contention #2.

Thus, all my contentions remain standing, and my opponent neither has any, nor may post any more in the last round.
Puck

Con

"None of these have been explicitly refuted."

Ignoring my argument does not make it not there. :)

"In addition, my opponent has changed the topic from flat vs. even to taxes vs. none, which is a conduct breach."

Incorrect - the resolution is "Progressive tax should be upheld." Flat tax or no tax are both valid arguments against. :)

"Taxes enforce the founding principle of the United States: A government by the people, for the people. Americans pay taxes to support the operation of the government, which then governs the country in return."

Taxes fund largely unnecessary programs and unnecessary government involvement in instituions. Those facets that the government should engage in can easily be funded by those wanting those services from means other than taxation.

"Thus, taxes are not theft. They are simply payment for services. My opponent's response ignores contention #2."

If I steal your car you are paying for my transportation service? Of course not. Taxes are not payment for services as one does not have control over resultant expenditure for services which one may use. It's a pool from which those whom less is taken, take more from. Those from whom the most is taken from, of course, need such services the least.

"Allow me to change the example. You have three apples and I have eight. You give one, and I give 2. We both receive one (the flat return of services and governing). I now have 7, and you have 3. The rich still have more wealth (see contention #3)."

Issue being tax is not giving. It is theft. Enforced at gunpoint if necessary. If any one individual wishes to pay into any one service or charity - then fine - that is very discrete from the theft of an individual's property.

"In the highest tax bracket, federal taxes are 35%. If that's what I pay on my 100 apples, and you pay 20% on your 10, you have eight and I have 65. Thus, the rich have more after taxes regardless of how much they pay."

What 'the rich' have remaining is irrelevant to the premise that you endorse - that the forcible removal of wealth is a good thing. That is the argument against all tax, including progressive. The more you punish the wealthy for creating wealth, the less likely it is that such wealth will continue. The more you advocate the destruction of wealth, that those who earn will be punished, the more you discourage those inclined to create wealth.

"The 37 apples we donated went to the operation of the government, which stops us from being killed in the streets, and stops thieves from stealing the rest of our apples (a small price to pay for safety)."

As indicated above - government services, like police, can be funded *willingly* by those wishing their use.

"Thus, progressive taxation bars off radical wealth extremes, and installs a system which allows the well-off to help the less fortunate."

Need is not a valid standard. You have failed utterly to demonstrate why those of a higher income should be targeted other than they have something there to loot. If any individual wishes to help another fine. Another's need however is not an automatic claim on another's property. Something else you have failed to demonstrate the validity of.

"Your objection to this will most likely be that the less fortunate are less fortunate for a reason."

Why one's income is as it is - is irrelevant - and it's the type of government you seem to endorse that aids in keeping poor, poor. ;)

"Income is an objective system for the purposes of taxation. While being a democrat says nothing about your wealth, income says everything."

You still fail to show why income is a valid determinant for the purposes of taxation. If I am healthy, the sick have a claim on my organs? Income however says alot about the need for government services - by your own premise it is a void category.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I second wjm's RFD.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Conduct- CON (he can refute the resolution any way he wishes)
Spelling- TIE (no major infractions)
Arguments- CON (PRO's case was refuted and PRO did not refute CON's argument that taxation is theft)
Sources- TIE (none were used)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot have a 2-round debate on Progressive Taxation.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
As for the first comment, I placed no restrictions on who could accept, so it is unlikely you were blocked from accepting my challenge.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
lol - This time I can accept, wjmelements :D
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
True that
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.

These new members like to discriminate against me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
RevolutionPuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
RevolutionPuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
RevolutionPuckTied
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