The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation

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 9 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,021 times Debate No: 19137
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (9)

 

imabench

Pro

A progressive tax, much like the one the US is using right now, has many more economical benefits and results then a flat tax system does.

I will argue in favor of a progressive tax
Con can argue on why flat tax is good and/or why progressive tax is bad

5 rounds, 8000 characters, try not to get off track halfway through the debate
16kadams

Con

I accept
I presume your progressive tax is like the system we have now.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Yes it is :)

I believe a progressive Tax is better than a flat tax for the following reasons.

1) It brings in more money fairly.
The lower and middle classes make far less money than the upper class, they often spend all of what they make which leaves less money for taxation but still supports the economy because the money is being pumped back into the system. If a country were to have a high flat tax rate, then the lower and middle classed would be giving much of their income to the government and in some cases they would have to limit how much they can spend for themselves. A high flat tax rate would suck money out of the economy and from the lower and middle classes to support the federal budget. The higher classes meanwhile often hoard their wealth rather than spending it like the lower and middle classes do so the vast wealth they do have is not being used to spur the economy.....

2) It taxes the right people more fairly
A flat tax demands everyone pay something, and for those who make barely anything you are taking money from those who really need it and dont have much to give. The middle class meanwhile do have money to give but they often spend almost all of their income on consumption of goods and services, so taxing them excessively will drain money out of the economy itself, which can effect the fate and well being of everyone.

3) It takes more from the super rich

(Im not crazy just hear me out)

The rich may spend their money on expensive toys, but they often save and hoard much of their wealth and that money instead of being put to use is instead stashed in a safe or a secret bank account or in some place where. In a flat tax, that money would still be just stashed somewhere and would remain untouched. In a progressive tax though the middle and lower classes would pay a fair amount, but the very wealthy who are not using this money for consumption or using it to boost the economy in any way could now become taxable and used by the government. Im not saying this because I hate the rich, I find them very necessary to society. What I am arguing though is that because the super rich have so much more to give and the money they can give is not being used or spent at all, then a progressive tax would be fair. The lower and middle class would still give what they could without hurting consumption and the money that exists in the economy, and the super rich would give more of their own wealth which is not being used to fuel the economy but would not put a financial strain on them either.
16kadams

Con

I am first of going to talk about the progressive tax. Yes it is the current system we have now. Our tax code is a mess, it has thouthands of pages, and you can't follow every singl law in a 82,000 page book, so everyone is a law breaker.

Now I will talk about a flat tax. It is much more simple so everyone knows what the tax code is, and it diminishes wasteful laws and other things so you know whats coming every year. Also it is better for the economy then a progressive tax. Everyone uses roads, traffic lights, and some use public schools right? So in our system now only 50% are paying for what they use, but under a flat tax everyone will pay at least a small amount. I belive if you use sometghing like a road, you ought to pay for its fixing for the good of everyone else.

Rebutals:

"It taxes the right people more fairly'

How is it fair when only 50% of people pay for vital services. Thats like me renting a car and saying I will not pay for it, but the guy behund me should, so fair , I think not.

" It brings in more money fairly."

Well what do you consider fair, people paying for stuff or people not paying for stuff, but you or I pay for it instead. I know you are talking about income levels, but I will touch that subject later.

"It takes more from the super rich"

Well people like bill gates owned one of the biggest company's ever. If he got taxed highly his company would still have been very large, but it would have been a slower process. Why? It does this because if you tax job creators very highly then they will be less inclined to hire people as much, as fast, or at one time. A flat tax is acctuslly going to make people richer. Because with people paying a lower rate, and a simple one then big job creators will have more money to hire people.

"The rich may spend their money on expensive toys"

You go on what they might do and all that stuff, when your ruch you wanna get richer, so you expand your buissnes so you can get bigger, so 9 times out of 10 taxing a rich person lower will help him expand.

My personal experoence:

My dad was fired r4ecently and were in the 40% tax braket. So 40% will be taken away, he is building his own doctgors office so we can have a scource of income. We are taxed highly and can only afford to hire ___ amount of people. If we wher taxed less, or fairly then he could hire more people, so a flat tax makes everyone richer. Poor people then get jobs=wealth=better economy=everyone gains.
tHE FLAT TAX advantage:
On the private side, a flat tax reduces the distortions that otherwise arise when two individuals receive different after-tax returns on their labor or investment. The flat tax also eliminates private incentives to concoct wasteful schemes to shift their income onto the ledger of their poorer relatives.
(1)

On the public side, the flat tax limits political discretion by making it harder for the government to single out "the rich" for special treatment. It also crimps government spending by denying any group the luxury of supporting government expenditures entirely at someone else's expense.
(1)

Furthermore, annual income is bad proxy for individual consumption. Many wage earners support their own children or even their parents, and thus consume only a fraction of what they earn. Yet these pervasive forms of voluntary redistribution are systematically overlooked.
(1)

Similarly, the Obama plan will badly hurt people who are saving for retirement. Why should someone who earns $125,000 in each of two years pay lower taxes than one who bunches $250,000 in one year? (1)

The obama plan is a progressive tax plan. And is in place now.

All in all, Obama's efforts to soak the rich may prove half successful. The rich will be soaked, but everyone else will be left worse off from lagging productivity and asset losses. (1)

And since there are no numbers in this debate the yax rate could be from 1% to 100% so since he is using the same things from our tax code today (same numbers probably) I will use the many flat tax proposals out today, such as 9-9-9 or 6-6-6 because those are the only ones possible at this time, and yours ragnge from 0-50%. That is given because you said like the system today vs flat tax, so 0-50 vs 6-9. correct me if I am wrong pleas

Yet at the same time Americans think that the tax code is unfair, only 40 percent support a flat tax. The nearly 60 percent who don't think the tax code is unfair are adamantly opposed to a flat tax.

Why? With a flat tax, deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions would be eliminated. Americans cherish those two deductions more than the child care credit or the deductions for family members or other beneficial tax breaks. (2)

The remaining opposition comes from those who believe that with a flat tax the rich would not pay their fair share. I don't know what a fair share is to upper-income people. I do know this. The top 5 percent of current taxpayers pays almost 75 percent of all federal income taxes.
(2) once again, does that sound fair?

as long as the rate is reasonable, it is, in fact, a fair tax. The rich now can find ways to shelter money from taxation, although many tax shelters were abolished over the years. A flat tax would eliminate deductions. The little tax savings from mortgage interest would be compensated by lower taxes. Same for charitable giving. (2)

If a 15 percent flat tax rate were imposed, for example, and a taxpayer earned $40,000, his taxes would be $6,000. But in later years, through hard work and inventiveness, if he earned $1 million, he would pay $150,000 in taxes.

America is unique in that it enables those who are enterprising to prosper. The current tax debacle is a deterrent to entrepreneurs. It takes far too much of their earnings, to the point that it is hard for them to re-invest.

The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies. Most of those are Subchapter S corporations, meaning the owners get the revenues from the corporations and can re-invest extra money in their companies. The more money they would have available to re-invest, the more employment we would have. A flat tax would help to accomplish that.
(2)

scources:
http://www.forbes.com... (1)
http://archive.newsmax.com... (2)
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

Everyone is not a tax breaker, I am not here to justify all the loopholes in the US progressive tax but to call all the American tax payers law breakers seems a little biased

Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place.

There is a difference between job creators and the wealthy. All the jobs that have been created have come from small companies while the large ones are only focusing on increasing productivity, not hiring more people. So to bestow the title of "job creators" on only the fabulously rich companies is very misguided.

http://www.forbes.com...

You just admitted that in a flat tax the burden would fall on the nations poor because you automatically claim they could simply get jobs when in this economy your dad cant even get a job, so how do can you simply expect every poor person in America to get a job in this economy when even your dad is struggling to do just that.

You also show how income is a bad proxy for consumption because of how much they spend to support their families, but that just reinforces my point about how the lower and middle classes have less to give and do put money back into the economy.

If you tax the rich less they wont expand more they will only save and hoard more

A progressive tax allows for lower tax brackets for the lower classes so that they are not given a crushing tax burden, but it allows the rich to be taxed higher because they have far far more to give and the wealth they do have is sitting in a bank vault somewhere and not helping the economy in any way

As for your 75% argument, your implication that is not fair does not take into account how much each already has and how much more the rich make over the middle and lower classes.

The Con is missing the main point of my argument
A progressive tax allows the lower classes (who have little to give) to be exempt, allows the middle class to pay a decent sum (even though they pump most of what they earn back into the economy) and allows the rich to pay a large amount of taxes (because they make tons of money in salaries and the wealth they do have is being hoarded away)

A flat tax can impose a very harsh tax on the poor, the ones who really really would be harmed by a tax rate, and at the same time it would make the rich just richer, and that money would just be hoarded into a private account. Often a flat tax does BOTH of these... How do you see THAT as fair, how does shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor justified?

http://www.ctj.org...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.deseretnews.com...
http://mises.org...
16kadams

Con

"Everyone is not a tax breaker, I am not here to justify all the loopholes in the US progressive tax but to call all the American tax payers law breakers seems a little biased"

Untrue, there are 80,000 pages of legislaion in your proposal, aka the current tax code. It is IMPOSSIBLE to follow every single peice of legislaion in there, we are all going to be law breakers because of this, and we wouldnt even know it.

"Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place."

This is false, 15% of americans are in poverty, earning under 50,000 dollars or less, so those 50% nuber of people being dirt poor is false.


"There is a difference between job creators and the wealthy. All the jobs that have been created have come from small companies while the large ones are only focusing on increasing productivity, not hiring more people. So to bestow the title of "job creators" on only the fabulously rich companies is very misguided."

This is fase as well. There is difference you right, but it has its failings. A flat tax would help mall buissness, I will touch on that later. The largones focus on productivity, that actually proves my point. To increase production you need more workers. Here's a example a wndy's with 5 workers or a wendy's with 50 workers, IN which senarion would you get yout burger faster? So yes, small buissness make most jobs, but the big ones do too.

Now I will talk about the small buissness. Well, the average incomeof a smal buissnes is slightly over 200,000 dllars, on a progressive system they would be taxed more, making higher unemployment, so there's where the 9% flat tax comes in handy.

"You just admitted that in a flat tax the burden would fall on the nations poor because you automatically claim they could simply get jobs when in this economy your dad cant even get a job, so how do can you simply expect every poor person in America to get a job in this economy when even your dad is struggling to do just that.

You also show how income is a bad proxy for consumption because of how much they spend to support their families, but that just reinforces my point about how the lower and middle classes have less to give and do put money back into the economy."

So you say my dad can't get a job, he is a doctor ha is buying a building so he will have a job in a few months. So ok at what I said earlier, you say it would be hard to get a job under the current system. Duh! A flat tax as I said would let small buissness havemor emoney and hire more people, and a large company to hire more because they have more money leadng to more efficiency.

"If you tax the rich less they wont expand more they will only save and hoard more"

How is that possible, you just said they wanted to increase iffeciency so they wll sped more temporarily by making more buildings and hireing workers, then they will acheive this goal, so if they have more money they will expand and lose money to get mor emoney. EX: my uncle owns a oil company in texas, he has tax breaks currently because his state recognises his importance for the texan economy. So this helps him expand more and more to do what he does, extract oil and create jobs and ake money.

"A progressive tax allows for lower tax brackets for the lower classes so that they are not given a crushing tax burden, but it allows the rich to be taxed higher because they have far far more to give and the wealth they do have is sitting in a bank vault somewhere and not helping the economy in any way"

Well first f all, they wont save it all as I have said, I have experience with rich people. And with flat tax those ower brakets will aquire jobs easier, so your system messs that up so they will live in the goverment dull. Therefore making the benifits to your system short lived.

"As for your 75% argument, your implication that is not fair does not take into account how much each already has and how much more the rich make over the middle and lower classes."

Once again, who makes the jobs? And I do take into account for the less fortunate, Since under a flat tax they would have a higher chance for a job then they make more money, and will afford the tax.

"A progressive tax allows the lower classes (who have little to give) to be exempt, allows the middle class to pay a decent sum (even though they pump most of what they earn back into the economy) and allows the rich to pay a large amount of taxes (because they make tons of money in salaries and the wealth they do have is being hoarded away)"

Your misng the main point of my argument, more jobs = mor emoney= everyone is richer. My point proves that a flat tax is benifitial no matter who you are. And it is more fair because everyone pays for what they use. You also state the rich whs to small buissnes ranging form big buissnes need to pay more. Well they still technically do. 9% if 1,000,000 is higher then 9% of 15,000.

"A flat tax can impose a very harsh tax on the poor, the ones who really really would be harmed by a tax rate, and at the same time it would make the rich just richer, and that money would just be hoarded into a private account. Often a flat tax does BOTH of these... How do you see THAT as fair, how does shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor justified?"

Please stop repeating. If you have a job then you will accumulate weal, making it less harsh then the current system of n income, + expenses.

I will now add to my argument because you clearly dont get the gist of the economy and tax rates.

I am in the 40% tax bracket, so you progressive system is %^&*. In a flat tax I get taxed 9% then my dad can hire more workes which stimulates the economy.


What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system, a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the "equal justice under law" principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation's wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy. (1)

There have been several flat tax proposals over the years, all of them based on the pathbreaking proposal developed by two Hoover Institution economists. While no two plans are identical, they all share common features that fix the major flaws of the current Internal Revenue Code. Simplicity and fairness are also natural consequences of these component features of tax reform. (1)

All flat tax proposals have a single rate, usually less than 20 percent. The low, flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior, such as work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. (1)

Elimination of Special Preferences. Flat tax proposals would eliminate provisions of the tax code that bestow preferential tax treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Getting rid of deductions, credits, exemptions, and other loopholes also helps solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on a postcard-sized form.(1)

I'm sorry I have ran out of characters in this round. I'll finish it next round.

http://www.heritage.org... (1)
http://nj.npri.org... (2)
http://christopher-pascale.suite101.com...
www.hermancain.com/999plan
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

Read my arguments clearly before you argue against it. 50% of the people live ON BORDERLINE poverty, 15% of those people live below the poverty line. If you make a penny more then the poverty salary then this government will not consider you living in poverty. 50% of people who dont pay income taxes are very, very poor. Some are in poverty, some arent but pretty damn close, some are just to poor to give any back.

"The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies".......... Thats what you said at the very end of round 2 and when I used it you claimed it was false....... are you just a liar or dont remember your own arguments?

"I am in the 40% tax bracket, so you progressive system is %^&*. In a flat tax I get taxed 9% then my dad can hire more workes which stimulates the economy."

1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money.

I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 plan

The main point behind the Pro's argument is that
Flat tax = more jobs = more money = everyone richer

A flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they own

Bill Gates made $900,000 in 2004,
Microsoft made $9 billion for THE SECOND QUARTER of 2004 (1 quarter = 3 months)

The company itself makes money which is then used only for the corporation, like to pay salaries or expand its businesses, that is NOT what Bill Gates's salary is for. That is his money and he can do whatever he wants with it. Bill Gates luckily has donated much of his annual income to charities but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivity

With all of their new wealth they DO NOT use it for expanding their businesses, that is what the rest of the money that their companies own is for. If the super rich want to put their own salaries back into their own companies thats a very noble thing to do, but a very RARE thing that happens as well.

A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.

A Progressive tax places taxes on INCOMES of Americans, those who are in poverty, near it, or are too poor to give back can be exempted from the system unlike in a flat tax. The wealthy then are taxed at a higher rate because they have so much to give and their salaries come from corporate profits which they are removing from the corporation for their own use.

A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....

So to sumarize,
A flat tax does not create jobs,
A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor,
A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would......
16kadams

Con

Calling me a liar isuncalled for and I demand an immediate apology, and I think that name calling is needed in a debate. Sorry imabench it is comon edikite. Also please quote msaying all jos come from big companys, because I said small companys make the jobs and proved that a flat tax would help them.

"Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place."

Link? Scource? Please prove your point before making assumptions.

1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money.

My dad doesnt own a company, he's a doctor. So his office is a small buissness. He faors a flat tax because he says: "A flt tax would lower tases, and I want to hire more people, and even if I have mor emoney and have enough workers, I will inveest in stocks ich will also stimulate the economy" So right there 2 ways that help his profit and stimulate the economy, and what is a dinus. I can't refite a work that looks like a probalble insult


I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 plan

Well your plan has the numbers because you are using the current plan, so I need that on my side to hae a similar argument quality as yours, so that being said, the 999 plan is bad how? I think simplicity is the key, your plan has 80,000 me pages right? That sounds simple, not.


A flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they own

Wrong the burden is on evryone, and still you need to prove thata progressive tax is better, and you still havent proven how yours is benificial for making jobs, so before reticuling me you still need to prove the ecoomic benifits. And my points still stand, more jobs = everyone richer. Lessining the amount of poor.

but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivity

Wrong! rich people want to get richer so they will eand, if you want to prove this give me a reliable scource, then we can cubut.

A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.

... nothing garentees jobs, but I have providd more proof then you on this topic, so please give me a credile scource on this topic.

A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....

Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt.

A flat tax does not create jobs,

Still need scources that are written by educated politicians or economists, like mine. Forbe ran for predident in 2000. ANd the other scources are experts in the feild, and the reascources for those sites are credibal also.

A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor,

Nope ot shares the burde, and since my flat tax makes more jobs then there will be less poor.

A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would......

Great that means less spending onuseless things, and they will only spend on vital tings sx: roads, bridges, armed force, etc.


There are still even more benifits to a flat tax. It is mor esimpleor fines hidden behind 80,000 pages of legislation, a flat tax is easy to comprehend, so the only way to break it's laws is to not pay the small tax.

One tax system that’s easier to comply with would be a flat tax system that features one low rate and many fewer deductions and credits. Why doesn’t Congress adopt such a system? Probably because that would mean abandoning the idea of using the tax code to advance social agendas, and politicians like the idea of trying to change people’s behaviors. (1)

Compared to traditional tax systems, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households get only one exemption -a generous allowance based on family size - and then pay a low rate on any income above that amount. (2)

How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts (how much revenue came in) and then subtract their costs (salaries, cost of raw materials, and expenses for new tools and machinery). (2)

There are two principal arguments for a flat tax- growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because current tax systems, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduce growth, destroy jobs and lower income. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax bias against saving and investment, it would boost an economy's performance. (2)


If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits, including:

Faster economic growth. A flat tax would spur increased work, saving and investment.

By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy's long-term growth rate.

Instant wealth creation. All income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate.

Simplicity. Complexity is a hidden tax that requires record-keeping, form preparation, lawyers, accountants and other resources to comply with the current system.

Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. (2)






http://blog.heritage.org... (1)
http://www.heritage.org... (2)


Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Pro

I apologize to the Con for making him look like an idiot, I quoted him for saying

"The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies."

So in the next round I used that same quote to reinforce my own arguments by saying,

"All the jobs that have been created have come from small companies "

You then said that was "fase" which I think is poor grammar for "false"

If I am indeed "fase" then you would also be "fase" because we used the same argument..... if its true that businesses create most of the jobs jobs (which it is) then you accusing me of being "fase" makes you look like your contradicting yourself since I'm using the same facts as you and your calling them false.... By the way I never actually called you a liar I was asking a rhetorical question if you make up your own facts or didnt remember that your calling my facts false even though you used the same ones....

Small businesses create most of the jobs
http://archive.sba.gov...
http://www.baltimoresun.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

50% of Americans dont pay income taxes because they are poor
http://articles.businessinsider.com...
http://jonathanturley.org...
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://dmarron.com...

"My dad doesn't own a company...... his office is a small business"
So your dad does own a business.... Seeing as how hes a doctor (not an economist) promising to his son he'll do the right thing (when really he just wants more money), I dont really see how we could take his word for why a flat tax is justifiable....

By the way a dingus is an insult and I find it hilarious you actually tried to look it up instead of looking up facts to reinforce your own arguments.

the 999 plan is a bad idea because it would cut the income the government makes in taxes in half and that would destroy the economy because we wouldnt be able to fund social security, medicare, medicaid, small business loans, student loans, etc. the 999 plan would drive our economy into the ground because it we would lose half our income as a nation.

A flat tax shifts the tax burden onto the poor, it is not shared by everyone.
lets consider the salaries of 2 men, one makes 10,000 a year the other makes 10,000,000 a year
$10,000 x 20% = $2000. $10,000 - $2000 = $8,000 left for all expenses
$10,000,000 x 20% = $2,000,000. $10,000,000 - $2,000,000 = $8,000,000 left for all expenses

Who do you think has the larger tax burden, the poor person left with less than $10K or the rich person who still has $8 MILLION left?

In a progressive system though lets consider the same two people
$10,000 x 0% = $10,000 $10,000 = $10,000 left for expenses
$10,000,000 x 40% = $4,000,000 $10 Mil - $4 Mil = $6,000,000 left for expenses

So if you look at the totals, the rich person is very well off in both systems, but the poor person is crushed by the flat tax because he already has a terribly low income to begin with and now in a flat tax system now has EVEN LESS

Rich people dont spend money on their businesses,
http://crooksandliars.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://www.dailyfinance.com...
http://blogs.wsj.com...

A flat tax would not create jobs,
http://conceptualmath.org...
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...
http://www.concordmonitor.com...

Heres the best source of all,
".. nothing garentees jobs" - My opponent......

"Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt."

Now for those of you who speak normal English, the Con is arguing that the flat tax will bring in less money and that is a GOOD thing because it will help "lmit" federal spending and that will somehow help the "sctock market" because there is less "doubt" which i guessing was supposed to say "debt"

Thank you for admitting that a flat tax would bring in less money, i believe that reinforces my point about how a flat tax is worse.

Your idea that this would limit federal spending is a complete hoax because social security and medicare are ENTITLEMENT programs that have to be paid, take those programs and combine them with other necessary expenses, such as education, transportation, infrastructure, defense, etc. a flat tax would force the government to borrow more to pay for the same programs we already have..... A flat tax would do great harm to the country and you cant just assume that the government could cut expenses to fix this. Look at what happened over this year alone over the debt ceiling, both parties got locked in a battle that lasted for months that ended up with unimpressive results and a downgrade to our credit rating.... How could you possibly believe that a flat tax would all of a sudden just magically cause the government to ridiculously reduce spending?

In Conclusion:
A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the rich to the lower and middle class,
A flat tax places an unfair tax burden on the poor compared to a progressive tax system,
A flat tax does not create jobs,
A flat tax brings in considerably less money then a progressive tax system does,
The rich do not spend money on their businesses so a flat tax that benefits the rich will not help businesses in any way,

A progressive tax brings in far more money then a 9% flat tax system ever could,
A progressive tax can better fund the programs that the government has created than a 9% flat tax ever could,
A progressive tax taxes those who can give money and not those who have nothing to give,
A progressive tax taxes the rich who can give more money that is currently being hoarded or not being spent.
16kadams

Con

All these insults are still uncalled for. It's like the Monty python video I want to have an argument but I can't because your being a terrible person. So I will be like the man that's paying for the argument:"I'm here to have an argument""no you arnt""yes I am!"

You said and I quote: "all jobs are created by small business"
That's where I disagree. Not all jobs are created there, but most are, sou you saying all is false. Most us the correct term.

You called me a dingus, and that is gross, if you want the definition ask me through a message.

We agree on the small business thing, and your plan hurts them, as I have proven, their average income is about 200,000 dollars, so in your system they are considered wealthy and are taxed 50%, in my proposal they are taxed about 10%, in which scenario will they hire more workers?

"50% of Americans dont pay income taxes because they are poor"

Technically they aren't poor because only a small amount of them are under the poverty line. But in fact my plan will make more jobs, as I have stated ad you seem to have failed to rebut it. Those people are less well of. So I still think that everyone should have a small 10% tax. They use schools, roads, etc and don't pay for it. You and I do! So wanna talk about unfair then lets look at that. Maybe a 6% tax is more affordable, and that is one flat tax proposal on the table. Also you say you love entitlement programs, so people who are much of the time on those plans shouldn't pay for them? You should pay for their healthcare or their other needs, and you still complain until you find out that you are paying for the hobo in downtown Phili. Sounds great I will pay your bills too! Not, :).

You also don't deny the fact that a flat tax would decrease complexity, which is the key to American success. If you don't understand the tax code, then you are probably screwing up somewhere. And you have also dropped the lawmaker case I made.

"So your dad does own a business.... Seeing as how hes a doctor (not an economist) promising to his son he'll do the right thing (when really he just wants more money), I dont really see how we could take his word for why a flat tax is justifiable...."

So now you call my family a liar though kinder words now! You say you wanna help jobs, yet you contradict a man who will hire more people! My friends dad, he is an economist, and he favors a flat tax over the progressive tax. So will you argue he's wrong too?

The 999 plan is great. It pays for all those vital services with enough for the pay, that's it. National debt makes a worse economy, and 999 will help say hey you cut spending now! So since this has been proven then I need to show you that a higher national debt is bad for an economy.

1. higher debt = higher interest rates, and cost, never good for an economy
2. A higher doubt is a higher global debt, that creates doubt which leads to stock market falls, in the news they say -200 points, because of doubt in the euro zone.
3. 2. default, the government huts down practically and only certain things like police etc are able to be held, and that is a bad thing.
4. Inflation is used to lower the worth of a debt. The debt will still be the same number es. 15 trillion, but if the dollar is worth nothing then the debt is also, and a weak dollar is bad too.
5. A severe down turn after these events causes global corporations to crash and leading to more panic.
So a high debt is bad, and you ill point out I said global debt. This is all of the countries debt added up, so an extro 14 trillion wont help. http://www.thepropheticyears.com...

Your math is ineresting, but a flat tax is usally a 9% 10% or a 6%, so do it with those too, I am interested to see that.

Since you have a lot of links I will not attack them because you need to say your argument, not make me read websites that are not written by you, so make your own case. (I all in that trap too in my last obamacare debate, so spell out those sites words.) or put it in video form

Also you need to refute my video, or even better accept it like you have done up to now. It shows many benefits,and it is an economist speaking.

till you need to show arguments or video's because i argue with you.

Yes nothing is guarantees generate jobs, and your is proven to ruin jobs other things, so a flat tax has more well h do you say it... um reason and economists on it's side.

And all of your conclusion has been debunked, well most of it throughout history. So since a repressive tax is proved to be terrible, not adopt a system that is economist approved.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Interesting read. I thank you both for it.
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
Ok this debate essentially breaks down to Con claiming that flat tax is better than a progressive tax because:

A) progressive taxes are unfair
B) It will create more jobs
C) Less revenue so government will spend less

However he made some unfortunate mistakes:

A) valid point progressive income tax is quite unfair
B) a flat income tax will do nothing for jobs, it might put more money in peoples pockets, but as pro pointed out this is an income tax debate, not a small/corporate business tax debate.
C) Less revenue does not mean the government will magically start spending less, we already have a budget deficit and that is not stopping the spending is it? The point is therefore invalid.
D)The defintion of a good tax to me is one that most maximizes these two categories:

1) Fairness
2) Tax revenue

Tho flat tax is more fair, to me con defeated himself by claiming a flat income tax would reduce tax revenues. In that way one of the key categories of determinig which tax was better, tax revenue, was the key downfall of cons argument.

Sources: i give to pro as cons use of anecdotal evdence, tho interesting to read, was far from acceptable as credible evidence.

S&G- To pro because of Cons numerous mistakes.

Conduct: To con because pro should have known better than to insult his fellow debater.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
How are people finding this debate all of a sudden?
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Viper king..... What are you doing ??
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
So now you admit rich people make jobs... Yes!
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
yeah but emphasis on the word "strongly" if the tax rate on the top tier were ridiculously high it would drive people and investments away but if it were at a reasonable level while all the other ones were still lower it would work fine
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Imabench, he kinda killed half of your argument right there, but without scources.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
you saying that the loopholes do serve a purpose and in some cases closing them would actually cost us money by costing us investments? I see
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
It didn't come up in the debate, but a fundamental problem with srongly progressive taxation is that it doesn't actually collect more revenue. With 80,000 pages of loopholes, investment goes into loopholes rather than paying taxes. However loopholes are designed to make investment attractive that would not be attractive otherwise. That means the economy runs at lower efficiency, with less total wealth. Closing loopholes is limited relief. Capital can still flee the country.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dude its fine, he voted for you, dont worry about vote bombers. I really shouoldnt have said anything because it wans't a big deal.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: HEy.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
imabench16kadamsTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter votebomb.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
imabench16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's arguments and rebuttals were superior, but spelling and grammar goes to PRO for poor CON spelling.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "Fair" would be paying tax for the services received from government. Even with a flat tax, the rich will pay for more than they receive.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: what a balanced round!
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
imabench16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting con. Pro's "Fairness" contentions were utter crap
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
imabench16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Adams was correct in the assumption that the rich have no obligation to pay more.