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

Progressive Income Taxation, Or Any Income Tax For That Matter, MUST BE SOPPED!!!

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
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: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 1507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

C-Mach

Pro

Progressive income taxation has ruined many Americans' lives. The top 50% of earners pay 99% of income taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes, and the top 5% of earners pay half of income taxes. Seriously, just because people earn more money doesn't mean more of their money should taken away. Money they worked their butts off for. And the rest of America pays a measly 1%?!?!?! YOU GOTTA BE SH*TTIN' ME!!! If I supported ANY income tax, which I do not, it would have to be flat at 17%. Everybody pays equally based on a fixed percentage of income, and their fair share. The "fair share" that supporters of progressive income tax rates use is just doublespeak for "Make them pay for my taxes because I'm jealous of how much money they have." EXCUSE ME?!?!?! It has nothing to do with whether you're jealous and want their hard-earned cash or want them to be the bourgeoisie pariahs that you think they should be. Remember, THEY GIVE YOU YOUR JOB. Do you want them to have a disincentive to do that? NO, OF COURSE YOU DON'T!!!
dalzuga

Con

Hi C-Mach. Thanks for opening up the debate. Since the nature of debates is to express differing opinions, please understand that anything I say should not be personally taken against you. Having said that, I'll move on to the debate.

Some of your figures are not completely accurate. For the fiscal year of 2005, the top 1% of earners paid 40% of all income taxes and the top 50% paid 97%. http://www.taxfoundation.org...

The wealthiest people in America have ways of getting around paying the 35% income tax bracket. Warren Buffet himself criticizes the U.S. tax system as his secretary had to pay a higher income percentage in taxes than he did. I quote "[We] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent." http://business.timesonline.co.uk...

We know that the top 1% of the population pays 40% of all income taxes. However, the reason that they pay so many taxes (with all the legal advantages they get) is not that these few people are being burdened with an excessively high tax, but that they are hold an excessive amount of the nation's wealth.

As one becomes excessively wealthy, the less the they spend, by percentage, on purchasing consumer products. In order to have a strong economy, the government needs to have a strong middle class because more money will be spent on consumer products.

Let us look at this mathematically:

Say someone who earns about $10 million per year spends about $500,000 -- 5% of their income -- on consumer goods.

Now consider someone who earns $200,000 per year. This person will spend a higher percentage of her income on consumer products, say 50%, which comes out to $100,000, still less than the other person's $500,000.

If every person who earns $200,000 / year each spends about 50% of their income in consumer goods, then 50 people, which collectively earn $10 million / year, will still spend 50% of those $10 million on consumer goods.

However, one person who earns $10 million / year will only spend about 5% of those $10 million on consumer goods. Even if that person spent more money than each of the others alone (which is a scenario one must account for, since the richer people become, the bigger and more expensive the TV sets they buy, etc), the percentage of the total $10 million spent on consumer goods is still less when compared to the percentage spent by all the other 50 people collectively.

This illustrates why it is better for the economy to spread out money more evenly, as opposed to excessively accumulating capital in the hands of few people. We avoid the latter and encourage the former through progressive income taxation.

"Progressive income taxation has ruined many Americans' lives." (1)
So you claim.

"Make them pay for my taxes because I'm jealous of how much money they have." (2)
Whoever told you this was either biased or simply prefers to remain ignorant. Notice that a stronger economy means that the country is better as a whole. Thus, we are not taxing the rich just because we're jealous of their wealth. We're taxing them more because it is what's best for the economy of the country we live in.

"Remember, THEY GIVE YOU YOUR JOB." (3)
You really think so? Why? Do you think that the richest people in this country are the ones that provide most jobs?

"Do you want them to have a disincentive to do that? NO, OF COURSE YOU DON'T!!!" (4)
If anything, progressive income taxation boosts the economy, which provides more jobs for everyone. Do you see an incentive now?
Debate Round No. 1
C-Mach

Pro

C-Mach forfeited this round.
dalzuga

Con

I await my opponent's response since he forfeited because he did not post his argument within the allotted time.
Debate Round No. 2
C-Mach

Pro

1._ I heard those figures several years ago, so they're not completely accurate, but they're very close.

2._ When you said, "money gets spread out more evenly," a.k.a. wealth redistribution (which is bad), actually hurts the economy, because it's a disincentive to contribute.

3._ The person where I got that idea from is a small business owner who has half of his income fly out of his hands via the income tax, and that's not his only burden.

4._ Yes, the richest people in the country do provide jobs, and so do the well-off (who are actually the ones most affected), but mostly the well-off do.

5._ Yes, it is a disincentive to provide jobs because it leaves you less money to pay employees.

Your rebuttal?
dalzuga

Con

To the (non-)reader: Please pay ATTENTION and read CAREFULLY before casting your vote. You wouldn't like it if people voted carelessly in your debate. If you do not take the time to read and understand the debate, please vote when you do so. Thanks in advance.

<< 1._ I heard those figures several years ago, so they're not completely accurate, but they're very close. >>

Yes, I agree. This should not be taken against you.

<< 2._ When you said, "money gets spread out more evenly," a.k.a. wealth redistribution (which is bad), actually hurts the economy, because it's a disincentive to contribute. >>

In the communist connotation, "wealth redistribution" is the practice of removing wealth from others for the purposes of satisfying the unjustifiable theory that everyone should have the same wealth. However, there is a fine line between taxation and the aforementioned "wealth redistribution." "Wealth redistribution" is arbitrary. There is no logical reason to implement this practice. On the other hand, taxation is not Communist. There is justification for taxation, and I provide such justification in the previous round. I showed that taxation boosts the economy in a capitalist system.

Sure, what I said above applies to the communist connotation of "wealth redistribution." You could argue that this is not what you meant and that taxes could also be seen as a capitalist form of "wealth redistribution" and then proceed to say that it "hurts the economy, because it's a disincentive to contribute." However, you take this last step for granted. You provide no justification for it other than the supposedly implied "It's communist, therefore it's bad" argument. However, this argument is no longer present as justification since the wealth redistribution that I am advocating for is not communist, but capitalist.

I did not advocate for the communist practice of "wealth redistribution." The justification for your assertion is therefore flawed.

In addition, your assertion is also flawed. There is no incentive to not be productive since taxes leave the wealthier person with more money in total than the less affluent person would be left with.

<< 3._ The person where I got that idea from is a small business owner who has half of his income fly out of his hands via the income tax, and that's not his only burden. >>

First off, the rate of the highest income tax bracket is currently 35% (barely over a third, and not half.) Secondly, employers pay payroll taxes, not income taxes. In addition, progressive taxation only helps that small business owner. Larger and better established corporations pay more taxes, allowing smaller businesses to thrive, which is in the interest of the economy.

<< 4._ Yes, the richest people in the country do provide jobs, and so do the well-off (who are actually the ones most affected), but mostly the well-off do. >>

Sources? I didn't ask you just to hear you throw the answer right back at me lol

<< 5._ Yes, it is a disincentive to provide jobs because it leaves you less money to pay employees. >>

It leaves you with less money. Period. This does not mean that they do not have enough money to continue to pay their employees. Do you think business owners provide jobs because they like to give money away? No. Their employees give them a profit.

In addition, your argument does not show why taxing rich people would lead to higher unemployment rates. Though you suggest that rich people wouldn't be able to employ as many people as they do now, it is conceivable that people could be employed through other entities. Indeed, I contend that the economy is boosted by a progressive income tax because of a larger consumer base. This boost in economy would encourage higher employment rates. Consequently, even if the rich people are not the employers, the economy would still have a higher employment rate.

Thanks for the debate!

To the reader:
Leaving a note in the comments section would be deeply appreciated.

For the people that are going to vote dishonestly because they feel like being jerks I say go right ahead and be the jerk you want to be.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
a king how fitting why am i not startled
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"sop (s&#335;p)
tr.v. sopped, sop·ping, sops

1. To dip, soak, or drench in a liquid; saturate.
2. To take up by absorption: sop up water with a paper towel. "

Interesting.
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
SOPP PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX!!! :D
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
"because you should be charged for buying"
Being charged for buying is just like a flat tax. It discourages people from purchasing consumer goods, which is what drives the economy.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Not to mention revenues would be through the roof with this system.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
I am a libertarian-conservative, and I believe the only taxes there should be are a National Sales Tax, because you should be charged for buying, not contributing, and toll roads, because people would be willing to pay to get from A to B faster.
Posted by TheLibertarian 9 years ago
TheLibertarian
That's cool. I just wanted to know beacuse I am a libertarian belief is that, obviously, there should be little to no taxes, or at least no progressive taxes. I was doing research on this recently, and I was interested in this debate. Thanks.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
I've forgotten. But I got it from a credible source. The figures are not exact, though.
Posted by TheLibertarian 9 years ago
TheLibertarian
You have a really good argument, but I'm just curious, where did you get your stats?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
C-MachdalzugaTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 Mikedapimp 9 years ago
Mikedapimp
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 buttercupx224 9 years ago
buttercupx224
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 Aagon 9 years ago
Aagon
C-MachdalzugaTied
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 dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
C-MachdalzugaTied
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