The Instigator
Endy
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
warren42
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should the rich be taxed more?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Endy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 70222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Endy

Pro

Yes, the rich should be taxed more. Regardless of how they received their wealth, no human beings should be in control of as much money (and therefore power) as the wealthiest 5% of Americans. Taxing the rich, if done correctly, would be a solution for the economic disparities between the upper class and everybody else and lead to so, so many good things. This will be outlined further once my opponent has a chance to state their claims!
warren42

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Endy

Pro

I affirm that the rich should be taxed more, on the grounds that the current system creates an economic disparity between the upper class and everyone else. I paid a higher tax rate last year than Mitt Romney [1], and it simply isn't a tenable position to say that a wealthy person is worth 100,000 teachers or firefighters [2]. Taxes are an investment into your society, and there is an economic consequence in failure to tax the upper class. From 1945-1970, the top-tier paid a higher % of taxes and the US economy thrived (plus, the middle class was better off). Then trickle-down reagonomics hit and the economic disparity grew, and divided people. The wealthiest 20 Americans have nearly 50% of America's wealth [3], and they can afford to pay higher taxes.
Sources:
[1] - http://money.cnn.com...
[2] - http://www.commondreams.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
warren42

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Note to voters: The debate is limited to 1,000 characters per round, so rounds will be concise.

I negate the resolution, because of one major reason. Many times, the wealthy aren't taxed because their income is from investments in tax-free investments. If you look at my opponent's first source, the hyperlink (Related: How much should the rich pay in taxes) it will link you to a page explaining why the rich aren't taxed as highly, municipal bonds and other tax-free investments being the major reason. [1] Anyone can invest into municipal bonds, Roth IRAs, 401ks, or other tax-free investments, so there's no reason to punish the rich for investing in the right ones. Just because their smart investing strategies paid off, doesn't mean they deserve to be taxed on what they were promised was "tax-free."

[1] http://money.cnn.com...

Thank you Pro and the voters.
Debate Round No. 2
Endy

Pro

Thank you, Con.

I do, however, feel as if the central argument has been sidestepped a little bit (though I can't blame you, the 1000 character limit was a mistake and I can definitely agree that it's not easy to deal with). It is true that the rich have many reasons for not being taxed as highly (some of them decent as you pointed out, and others not so much- tax havens/lawyers, etc). That said, it avoids the point that the non-rich aren't just poor because they invest in all the wrong places or aren't as smart. Many of the lower and middle class would invest in tax-free investments if they had the money. Wealthy people have enough money to make these hefty investments, but that leads back to the unanswered question of why they should be taxed. So to summarize, we agree that wealthy people aren't taxed as highly, but I let my previous case stand on why they should be.

Consulted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thanks Con, and voters!
warren42

Con

Thanks, Pro.

I'll start by restating my earlier points. The rich are often taxed at lower rates because much of their income is from investments that are tax-free. As I stated, anyone can invest. Like Pro stated, it's not easy for low-income individuals to do so, but they still have the capability. With smart investments, even a small sum can become a large one. There are plenty of examples of people who made smart investments while strapped for cash and turned it into a fortune. [1]

Thanks again to Pro and voters, great debate for how short it was!

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by economistrj 2 years ago
economistrj
My view is that it is fine to tax the rich little more than the poor. This can be justified on plenty of grounds. For example- they have the capacity to pay more. It wont hurt them if they pay a bit extra. What ever they require will still be fulfilled. It is just that at the end of their life spans they would be able to accumulate somewhat less than what they actually would have if they would had taxed lower.
Posted by TommyB12 2 years ago
TommyB12
My view is that taxation is violence and theft and is always wrong. We can work to build a society in which we create order without the need for a government based in initiatory violence or the threat of it.
Posted by Endy 2 years ago
Endy
Taxes of every kind- the important one is income tax, though. The rich dodge paying income taxes with tax lawyers and tax havens, but I am arguing that a solution to many problems (particularly in the USA, but elsewhere as well) would be solved by carefully and politically closing up the loopholes that allow for this.
Posted by Khaos_Mage 2 years ago
Khaos_Mage
What taxes are you describing?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Endywarren42Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The character limit for this was utterly silly, especially for a topic like this which ought to be complex. Nonetheless, PRO unambiguously wins not only by mitigating CON's arguments on "anyone being able to utilize tax-free investments," but on rendering a multitude of economic arguments--the failure of trickle-down, inequality, and fairness--which were completely dropped. You cannot possibly hope to win a debate without engaging the opposing case.