Should the rich be taxed more?
Debate Rounds (3)
 - http://money.cnn.com...
 - http://www.commondreams.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
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.  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."
Thank you Pro and the voters.
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.
Thanks Con, and voters!
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. 
Thanks again to Pro and voters, great debate for how short it was!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.