The Instigator
samuelchu2000
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
IanScottWilson
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should the rich be required to pay higher taxes in the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
IanScottWilson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,427 times Debate No: 26151
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

samuelchu2000

Con

I don't agree that the rich people required to pay higher taxes. for exanple, i worked very hard for 15 years, and then, i have to pay higher taxes because i work harder then normal people. first of all, it won't be fair at all. the rich people work very hard for money, and the goverament just set them a higher taxes? its the same as if you are a student and you work so hard and got an A, then the teacher just give you harder and harder test? i don't agree that the rich people should be required to pay higher taxes in the US
IanScottWilson

Pro

Now I understand how can disagree with the argument that you should pay higher taxes, but I affirm, from your lack of argument, that you not only do not understand economics and wage slavery but have nothing more than a grievance with nothing to support yourself.

Since, my friends, the CON has stated no argument against the proposition, I shall lead the way by arguing for the matter, and more! I say that not only should the rich pay their fair share of the burden (of which taxes are), but that if the burden were placed upon the poor in a flat tax, that the Federal Government would not be able to function. Whats more, I shall propose that the entire system be replaced for something left of Marx. That is: a society where the proletariat, and indeed the bourgeois (in time), are not reliant on what shall be called wage slavery- labor in return for food and living. I argue that it is capitalism that prevents the advances of scientific pursuit and the progression of humanity as a whole in all fields.

When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848, they were only documenting an idea that had circulated for quite a long time- they, in no way, conceived communism. Its earliest roots can be traced back to when our species were but hunter-gatherers; though, in The Republic, Plato described a society in which "The private and individual is altogether banished from life and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions." Now, as this does seem like a type of horror show of the new weird, what he planted into the minds of humanity developed into something actually quite wonderful.
In the words of so many bright individuals, most notably John Lennon, I ask you to imagine. Imagine a world where you wouldn"t hear of the Americans fighting the Iraqis, a world where you wouldn"t have fanatics and the disillusioned running us like a theocracy, a world without nations.
The history of human civilization, as defined by Marx and Engels, is "the history of class struggles." This statement should be taken in as fact and understood to be the reason for the separation between societies. National identity, created by the feeling of attachment toward a particular organizational structure mandating the separation of proletariat and bourgeoisie, is only the side effect of class struggle. Therefore, our present menagerie of societies (or nations) can be defined, in a word, as: the members of the public praising their masters for what appears to be the best form of oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeois; be it by force or by capital the ends are the same. Thusly it should be concluded that if oppression is to be discarded for old, the discriminating feature must be rejected, which in this case requires the absolute elimination of class distinction.
As opposed to how Marx might have thought (a dictatorship of the proletariat) there is another dogma that suggests total elimination of class and money. This is known as Anarcho-Syndicalism, of which Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most notable member. Anarcho-syndicalism, also known as libertarian socialism, communist anarchism or just true anarchism, is the name given to the movement of eradicating the state in favor of workers owning the means of production in socialized communes, such as the idea of Kibbutzim. Socialism, it would seem, is in-fact a very Jewish value!

The features of a true anarcho-syndicalist society are the following:
a-there is no money or other means of bartering or trade
b-there is a pure democratic initiative that determines all domestic actions
c-there is no private property
d-the commune does not have a name, or other such differentiating feature from another collective
e-the workers, in all senses of the word, are the administrators of their labor
f-all work is shared by those skilled to carry it out and all profits are shared

Of course, other features may be added to ensure the proper and moral management of such a commune; perhaps the abolition of arms, perhaps a common language, perhaps much more. As for the libertarian aspect of such a society, freedom of expression must be respected and absolutely unrestricted; the right to life must also be honored, as one who takes life from the collective has destroyed the purpose of the collective. No democratic action may be allowed to destroy the prime directives of the community and a constitution ensuring these freedoms and restrictions should be made a prominent part of the adjudication of such a civilization.

By now, I will assume you have looked up Marx & Engels 10 steps to achieving communism.

http://www.criminalgovernment.com...

It should be noted that by state they are referring to the state as the collective dictatorship of the proletariat and not the current system. This is because the current system is bourgeois and not democratic. If they were referring to the present system of management, then their points will hold no weight and should be considered invalid. They make it very clear that a communist society can only emerge through violent overthrow in revolution, such as the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in the east. I condemn physical violence in any form and for whatever reason.
As far as addressing the criticism of the necessary totalitarian state needed for these actions to be carried out, it must again be noted that when the proletariat is the state there is no state. When considering the media of such a society, one automatically assumes that because it is state (proletarian) owned that it must be filled with propaganda and hypnotic advertisements. This could not be further from the truth: just because the Marxist ideals have never been carried out en masse does not mean that it cannot. It has worked many times over in small samples and on a large sample the only difference is the media. The media will be owned by the workers, but there will of course be different opinions of the workers and they will be allowed independent content. All content is independent when the state is all and none.
A police state is also proliferated much as a necessity for such a civilization. That is pure fantasy and rejection of the new and weird. Certain members of society shall, and need to be, peace keepers- that is true. However, the ones promoting the ideas of being arrested and tortured because of political speech are wrong because the ideal society allows such controversial commentary. If those who scream BIG BROTHER are speaking of being imprisoned because of theft, fraud or other more violent crimes then let them be taken away now. For such a democratic society a trial by one"s peers in all cases of accusation and a following impeachment is obligatory. Also, in such a society, it is essential that the freedom of expression not be cut short in any way by any means for any reason. One man"s restrictions are another"s tyranny.
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) CON's argument, while short, was on topic.
2) PRO's argument, while eloquent, was not on topic - replacing our current tax system with communism is like getting rid of fast food and replacing it with wheatgrass. Ain't gonna happen.
3) Will give CON 1 point for participating, welcome to the website.

A) CON - the reason in my mind why the rich should pay more taxes is NOT because they work harder. Most of the rich earn money through dividends and capital gains...they do NOT work for a living. Instead, they are the 1%, the heirs, heiresses, robber baron offspring, etc, of our great nation. If you look at Jamie Johnson's documentaries, in one of them Warren Buffett's grand-daughter is interviewed. She was doing art...some sort of finger painting or something. That was all she was doing.

In this sense, the people who "work hard" tend to earn less than $500,000 per year. These people should not be taxed more. But the 1% earn a LOT more than that per year, and "working hard" simply does not apply to most of these people. May as well redistribute their wealth.
Posted by bla60ah 4 years ago
bla60ah
For anyone who wants to know, even thought the tax rate on the top 20% (those making more than 200k individually or 250k shared) has decreased since 1979, their share of the tax burden has increased from 55% to close to 70% of all federal taxes.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I've a profound reluctance to take debates whose winner will not be decided in 100 days.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Rather short, and rather rotund victory for PRO. I agree with AllwaysMoreThanYou. Only one round just amounts to begging for a one hit K.O.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
You might want to consider increasing the number of rounds on this debate.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Do you mean a higher dollar amount or a higher percentage of their income? Because even with a flat tax rate, the rich will still pay a higher dollar amount than everybody else.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
samuelchu2000IanScottWilsonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
samuelchu2000IanScottWilsonTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to capitalise the word "I", or start sentences with capital letters. Pro was very eloquent, but made no argument that the rich should pay higher taxes in the US. Con made a terrible argument, but at least it was on topic.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
samuelchu2000IanScottWilsonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As was pointed out, Con never presented any arguments - he simply voiced his feelings on the matter. I always score for grammar, and command of the English language, and was pleased by the readability of Pro's argument. Essentially, I was forced to score this as a FF, without the loss of conduct.