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

Should the US lower taxes on all tax brackets, and should we cut spending levels?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,241 times Debate No: 32114
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The rules are simple: 1. Argue like a sensible person
2. Do your best
3. May the correct side win
4. No participation trophies are given lol

You know my position, and I always like to give the against person first shot at the topic.

Finally, Thank you for participating, and I hope to have a professional, and fexciting debate with someone who is mildly passionate about politics


Hello, this is my first debate on here, I just thought I should mention that.

I should also point out that cutting spending levels I do agree with you on, it is lowering taxes that I don't agree with.

I wish I could say yes, that lower tax brackets should be a solution but in this current situation, I don't think they are the answer... yet.

The United States debt is somewhere in the range of 16 trillion dollars. That makes other countries look at our currency and realize that it's a joke if the government that makes it is in this much debt.

The U.S takes in roughly between 2.5 and 3 trillion dollars in taxes every year.

By this logic, even if we somehow managed to completely cut spending, the best result would be the debt being paid off in around 5 years. But we know this isn't possible considering we need things like our military, social security, and Medicaid, along with the police force and many other government programs.

If we cut spending and lower taxes at the same time, it will have virtually no effect on the debt we have, however, you could argue it would boost the economy.

But, if we want the economy to be in a better position, the government's debt has to be paid off first. The reason being, is that if we can pay off our debt, then the U.S. dollar would be worth so much more than it is now (at least to other countries.)

So, in my view, we should actually raise taxes or at least keep them the same, take massive cuts where we can to government programs like the military which is bloated and completely over funded. We can make sensible cuts in the military that won't require us to let go of any personal or lower their pay checks, thankfully.

I just think that if we want the economy to do better than it is now, we just have to toughen up a little and realize that we are going to all need to give up a little more to make sure the nation as a whole can prosper later. I think we can eventually manage to make the U.S. spend 40 percent less than it does now if we make all the cuts we can, sensibly. Causing us to have a 1 trillion dollar surplus. Plus, we can see about having certain loans from other nations forgiven if at all possible, that would be crucially beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the take on this. This my first created debate. I want to be a politician in the future and this i great practice.

Alright, first I'm really glad to hear you agree with me on the whole reducing spending. So, that's where I will start off:

-With our spending it means we need more money. So, we have higher taxes. If we are taking in 2 to 3 trillion and still going into debt, then that's a problem. That 16 trillion dollar debt is the accumulation mainly comprised of GWB's war spending, and Obama's nonsensical spending on just nothing worth while, as well as continuing the war.
-So, since we agree on the fact that we need to address our debt. then we have to get people who are fiscally irresponsible out of office. Ex. Big Government Dems and Republicans A.K.A. Progressives. They spend, and spend, and spend. On things like contraception for horses, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to move a plant that you can buy at home depot to a museum. It's wasteful spending that has to be eliminated. I won't go on about that because I have ADHD and that would just be dumb since we agree on cutting spending.
-So the tax issue. To me we need a flat tax of 10%, and no state income tax. However, for the states I would suggest a 2% rise in sales tax, and that would barely even be notice, its only 2 cents to a dollar more. With lower taxes on business, jobs would boom, and we would have economic growth like that of the roaring 20's, and in fact thats where one of my favorite presidents dominated(silent cal coolidge). Cut spending by 50% and did almost exactly as im proposing in the tax sense. With business booming, more people have jobs which=more money put into the market which mean sales tax will work nicely, and we can reduce welfare payments. The government really only needs to do a few things for us. 1.Protect us from enemies foreign and domestic:Military Spending 2.Enforce the laws, and protect the rights of the people:Police,Firefighters,ect Nearly everything else should be decided within the states and in the local areas. It would get government out of our hair, and let the free market system, and capitalism do its thing.

So, thats my thoughts. I'm a tea party conservatarian(conservative libertarian) who would run as a republican. so after you rebut, could you give me your thoughts on how this would sound running for election. Thanks



I also plan on being a politician later in my age, so this is extremely good practice as well.

However I would run as a progressive for the democratic party. (Mind you, I'm more of a social progressive than a fiscal progressive)

I agree with you that lowering taxes on all tax brackets would create jobs. What I'm afraid of however, is exactly the roaring 20's. The roaring 20's were the cause of the great depression due to the large expansion of credit. People were taking loans they knowingly couldn't pay back, the stock market crashed, and we saw years of turmoil after that happened. So I think it's one of the government's responsibilities along with what you said, to regulate the amount of credit that companies should be allowed to give out. We can already see it happening in today's economy, where we have banks lending out loans to people they know wont be able to pay them back.

But again, I agree with you that we eventually do have to lower taxes on all tax brackets, I just don't think that we are at that position yet. We can't go on pretending that our debt just doesn't exist, and you aren't going to fix that any other way than to decrease spending while increasing taxes.

However, I think it should be written in an act by congress after the taxes would go up, that the taxes MUST decrease after the debt is either paid off, or near paid off, and we can then go back to taxes that just give us an annual 250 billion dollar surplus, instead of my targeted 1.5 -2 trillion dollar surplus that we desperately need to pay the debt off.

Also I would like to make it clear that spending did go up under Obama's administration, and spending also went up, he made sure that the spending level increase did not exceed the tax increases, and thus he was moving closer to a surplus, but only after a 1 trillion dollar hike in deficit. So it was self defeating. You can look at federal spending levels and taxes here.

You see, we are projected to start taking in 3 trillion dollars a year. We need to go back to Clinton economics and spend only around 1.5 trillion a year, causing MASSIVE surplus, and eventually, hopefully, a paid off debt.
Debate Round No. 2


Great Points

e crash
However, you cannot blame the great depression on the roaring 20's. The great depression began under the single worst Republican (next to Teddy) whom of which us Tea Party members would call a RINO. He was a big government control guy. His economic policies ended the increase in GDP, and faith in the U.S. economy. Which then lead to our favorite holiday(sarcasm) The Stock Market Crash of 1929. Now, I understand your idea on the company thing with credits, but regulation of that isnt necessary. if they are a smart business they'll look at history, and do whats right. The smart businesses survived and flourished. And the credits were not the main cause of the depression let alone even a slight cause. And people taking out loans has nothing to do with economic policy. It has to do with banks being stupid. Which is another thing. ELIMINATE THE FED.
-here is the top 5 reasons why the GDP happened And you know what, FDR's policies increased the length of the depression.

-So, let's talk about the man Im sure you picked in 2012 Obama. I personally believe, along with many of my fellow conservatives, believe Barack Obama is a socialist and possibly a Marxist. That should not be in the white house. He's has trampled on the rights of religion by forcing catholic hospitals to provide contraception. And has been nothing but anti 2nd amendment when it comes to gun rights. he is INFRINGING on our rights with these proposals. But his economic policy is even more socialistic. He wants to tax the rich to death so that he can REDISTRIBUTE(SOCIALISM RIGHT THERE) the wealth to the poor! As we have seen with socialist nations simply just doesnt work. You cannot have a succesful economy without the rich having some room to breathe. So that they may create more jobs, and thus allowing more people to pay into the system. Here is an example of an excellent budget plan. If Im president right now, here is my economic advisor.

-So how does lowering taxes actually lead to just as much tax revenue? It is really quite simple. First, by lowering income taxes mainly, as well as crushing business taxes, you will create two key things. 1. More Jobs=More pe0ple paying taxes, less jobs=less tax revenue. 2. More money for peope to spend means more revenue for business which means more jobs, so on and so forth. It just kepps growing. It's a cycle. 3.Smaller taxes on the rich and business means more new jobs coming here instead of china, exico, and india. 4 So, because we have so many more payers into the tax system, we will then have possibly a growth in tax revenue. There is one tax i'd completley erase, and thats the death tax. i dont care if your rich or poor. The money you saved should be allowed to be passed on to your beneficiaries. This tax is so immoal that it angers me a bit. So, as you an see the combination above along with cuts in a ton of needless programs will allow us to have a smaller need for revenue. So guess what.... WE HAVE A HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE SURPLUS. our GDP skyrockets from job growth, and America is insured economic dominance. Oh, and one last thing. If we would stinken open up the Keystone pipeline costs of gas, heating, and other necessities would drop dramatically. So then there is even more spending money:)

Finally, i do agree that Clinton's policies were 100x's better than Obama's. He was also more way more center than Obama, and he was reasonable, and kinda funny to. However, his wife is kind of frightening to look at lol.
I gotta say finally that progressiveism is a bad thing. That's my opinion though.

So thanks dude. Im enjoying this debate. Its been clean, fun, and how all political debates should be held. Without all the mud slinging, and corruptness.


Thanks for sticking with being clean also in this debate, it's enjoyable to not have to read through constant cussing and mudslinging.

I should also point out that I'm only 17, so, I didn't pick anyone in 2012, lol.

However, I supported more than anyone, Ron Paul, because I think he was the only TRUE libertarian that was running at the time besides Garry Johnson.

However I have to point out that socialism isn't an all might evil. It seems to have been painted that way here in America. But truly, there are aspects of socialism that should be applied to governments, and there are aspects of capitalism and democracy that should be applied as well.

However this is for a different argument, and this is about tax brackets, if you want to argue that later however message me and we can debate on that topic as well.

Now, on to the tax brackets.

I agree with you that the death tax is basically just theft from the government. It's double taxation which is wrong. So yes, it should be eliminated.

But with the slump that the government is in now, and the huge amount of debt which has been accumulating ever since Reagan was President, has to be dealt with. You can't lower taxes on Americans and expect the American government to be able to pay off its debt. Unless of course we just expected President Obama to stand up one day and say to China and every other country "Yeah, we are forgiving our own debts. If you want your money, I suggest you get over it, or prepare to fight the United States military." Which would be irresponsible, however, a solution. We already have all the war materials we would need to fight off China's military.

However assuming we DON'T do that, which I hope we don't, the only sure fire solution is to raise taxes in unison with dramatic spending cuts, temporarily I mind you. Now, I'm not saying your plan would work because in theory it would. But I have to warn you, there is the possibility that these tax decreases on large companies will NOT result in them hiring more people. The free market is a double edged sword. Plus I have to remind you that the unemployment rate right now is only 8 percent. So, lets say that somehow we were able to employ all of those people and increased revenue that way. You would have lowered the tax brackets, and the government would only take in, optimistically 2 trillion dollars, and an 8 percent increase on that would be 2.16 trillion dollars. However I understand companies might have larger profit margins, so lets account for that, I still think the only optimistic new revenue plan will be around 3 trillion dollars.. the same that it is right now pretty much.

I really just think that America needs to buckle down and take higher tax rates at the moment, monitor the governments spending more, make sure that they aren't spending on ridiculous things like the new F-35 fighter jet that has already had 400 billion dollars spent on it, and is projected to cost over 1.5 trillion over all. That is real insanity. America is turning into that guy that spends his kids college education, food budget, and house payment budget on giant weapons because of how paranoid he is.
Debate Round No. 3


I understand your point completely. Oh, and I'm 19 so this was my first election, and I wanted Santorum, but Mitt got the nomination which I think he would have been a decent president. He's of my faith to. And yeah, Ron Paul economically was the best candidate, but his stance on Israel is pathetic. He wouldn't even keep a base over there. Anyways I'll make my final comments short, since they'll basically be a summary.

So, the question is. Could we cut federal sending enough right now to lower taxes, and loff wer our debt? My case is yes. If you look at my presidential hopeful for 2016 Rand Paul's budget plan, we could pull it off in a 5 year period at most. it would depend on how giving the democrats are. I know that its a tough concept to believe because weve been taught for so long that if you lower taxes the debt will go up. Not true. By cutting government spending, and adding more people with payrolls, that difference will be made up. I just don't believe that our economy can take higher taxes. Now, I would be willing to keep the tax rate hher than 10... oh say maybe a 25% fat tax so that e arent killing the people who create the jobs. I would even go up to 30, as long as the business taxes are lowered dramatically. Because our countries number 1 issue is jobs! Get people jobs, and go from there. And by jobs I mean Private sector, not new government jobs.

Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for giving his opinions, and being such a clean debater. I would also like to thank anyone who took time to read this debate, It is appreciated. So with that I say look at Rand Paul's budget plan, and you'll see our path back to economic dominance.

-Thank You



So, from your last post, I think that we are in agreement that both plans have a possibility of working, but that we are just in disagreement on which is more likely to work.

Okay, well, I'll say that the reason that I'm scared of the idea of lowering taxes too much is that I don't want to see cuts to certain programs like Social Security (Which I literally just watched a video on how congress republicans and half of the congress democrats and Obama came to agreement to do just that, which is pathetic in my opinion)

Now I see your point that if more people are working then we will have more people to have pay roll tax, I really do. I'm just more frightened of the idea to leave the economy to the private sector, because that's what we did and that's how the economy crashed in the first place. However I agree with you that private sector jobs are more important to be made than government jobs.

However, I just think that unless we impose huge regulations on the private sector, especially on the big banks that can't stay responsible at all, then it would be a disaster in the making if we just cut taxes at that huge of an amount.

Now in my opinion, cutting taxes on job creators so they can create more jobs makes sense by itself, but in reality these huge private corporations are just going to reel in money for themselves more and make the corporate profit margin go up, they aren't going to pay their workers more or hire more of them, unless....

You also decrease taxes on middle income families so they have more money to go out and spend on things. Now, I agree with this. However, my main goal is that we get international trade in OUR favor, because we just consume too much foreign products and THAT is the reality. If we keep letting money leaking out of our own economy and into places like China, it's still going to lead to disaster. I think the U.S. needs to go back to isolationist economics to encourage more hiring in the U.S. itself.

Now I can't say I support Rick Santurom (sorry if I did not spell that right) because of his social policies he wants to implement on the nation. He wanted to propose a federal recognition on marriage being between a man and a woman, and he even wanted to ban pornography, stop immigration at all costs, the list goes on. He is just too much of a social conservative and not a fiscal one for me to have supported at all. But with Ron Paul, I think he was right on trying to get base out of Israel. We spend so much money on trying to protect other countries and it's unbearable for the people of the United States.

Now if the Republicans split from evangelical conservatives and social conservatives in the next election, they will have so much more credibility with me that I might support them over democrats.

However these huge corporate tax cuts are just ridiculous. I think that corporations should NOT get any tax cuts at all, and they either pay their share or they have to be a non profit organization.

There is a monarchy in this country, an economic one. Our government is controlled by the monarchy of powerful rich corporations, and I can't stand it. I would rather see these corporations fall and have to disperse into smaller ones, than to see America fall like it's going to due to these huge corporations.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by teenconservative 4 years ago
I myself am pretty conservative (also 15 years old) and I totally agree that spending cuts are a MUST. Taxes should certainly not be raised, however, a flat tax of 10% is ludicrous! That would lower government revenue by half and we'll be faced with a deficit and debt that make our current situation seem desirable. You should rethink your strategy if you have hopes of some day being elected to any office. (I'm conservative and I'd probably vote for a liberal because that 10% plan is so bad. In short, pro won, but not by much.
No votes have been placed for this debate.