The Instigator
Yeeet2016
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Yugandda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should we Increase Taxes on the Middle class?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 90182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Yeeet2016

Con

I will be arguing that an increase in taxes on the middle class is useless and provides no benefits.
1. Accept
2. Debate
3. Rebuttals
Yugandda

Pro

Accepted.
-We are talking about America I am assuming? or just in general
-Is this for the current economic state or "in a perfect world scenario"?
Debate Round No. 1
Yeeet2016

Con

America and in the current state. First off i will point out the actual facts of what an increase in taxes can cause on the econy. It us well documented and easily proven that an increase in taxes causes tegular consumers to spend less. Under the Obama economy our national GDP has fell below 0.9 for one of the first times in history. There is obviously a clear correlation between the GDP and an increase in taxes. Under Obama we have also seen an economy where the middle class is taxed more than the rich who not only don't pay fair taxes, but they usually don't even pay in general. It's also a known fact that corporate inversion continues to allow the top 1% to control and manipulate our economy by storing millions of dollars over seas. Recently the Panama Papers released showed exactly how corporate inversion work and who is using it. Although it is illegal, billionaires and millionaires continue to use it for their own benefit. Back on taxes, an increase in either a business tax or corporate tax would wreck small businesses and allow millions of jobs to leave and go over sease. This isn't just anecdotal but under Obama we have seen thousands of these small businesses forced to evacuate the disease ridden, regulation that is America. I have proved clearly that any increase in taxes on the middle class who are the work horses of this country would be devastating. As incomes drop, jobs decrease and wages stagnate the last thing we should do is increase taxes. We need consumers spending MORE money in the economy not less, to do this we must simplify our tax bracket. We must simplify it into 4 brackets, 0% 10% 20% and 25%. This along with a decreased corporate tax which would be 15% would increase wages and bring jobs back to America. We've seen under former presidents like Reagan, when a conservative controls the economy not only do wages rise but jobs WANT to come back to the US and not leave it. Under Reagan our economy was the greatest it has ever been. The tax plan show above is none other than Donald J. Trumps tax plan. Remember we are debating this economic issue and NOT Donald Trump himself. One of the last points I will make is that this tax break on the middle class has the ability to create a dynamic economy by removing regulation on small businesses and allowing American people to get back to work again.
Yugandda

Pro

The middle class is defined is made up of individuals making between roughly 40,000 and 100,000 dollars a year. For the sake of this argument lets use 60,000 dollars a year for a basic individual income. That would put them in the 25% tax bracket. This would result in a net return of 45,000$. In this debate I will argue that government welfare programs fund more to the people than the 15,000$ dollars lost in my example. There are many government programs that we take for granted. Many of those include public schooling, public roads, a legal system, protection, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, G.I. bill, pell grants, food stamps, government subsidized housing, federal student loans, 401k and etc. Now lets look at a few of these programs. the united states spends over 400 billion dollars on Medicaid per year. Now even if we take all Americans and split the spending evenly, each citizen would get roughly ~1300$. Next lets move onto schooling. On average, the cost for a kid to go to school, paid by the government, is ~10,000$ every year. Lets also say that there were no governmental forms of transportation including roads and buses. Lets just say the average price of a private road to access is a flat $1 (even though its a lot higher). Think about how often you use transportation. Even if you use a road only once a day (most private roads are extremely short) this would add up to an additional $365 per year. I could go on and on about how social programs outweigh the amount taxed on the middle class and bring up more social programs.

sources:
http://budget.house.gov...
http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Yeeet2016

Con

You have completely avoided my main question.

I asked if taxing the middle class more was a positive or a negative.

You just showed me a bunch of random statistics that mean nothing in this conversation. Now I will prove why less taxes will grow the economy instead of hurting it. Under Preisdent Obama's 7 tax bracket we have see the middle class of this country hammered with taxes. This becomes a problem because there's not enough people spending in our country. For an economy to work especially ours we need people spending, lower interest rates, lower taxes and a higher GDP. All of which have been neglected under Obama. When people have more money in their pocket and are being taxed at a lesser rate they tend to spend more money. Under this president we have seen the corporate, federal and business tax all increased. This has forced small businesses to leave the country due to these higher taxes. Another crucial fact is that Obama passed Dodd Frank a bill with thousands of regulations on businesses that killed community banks. Anyways back to the point. As these jobs leave the country, we see more and more people losing their jobs. This creates an economic disaster where people are left job less AND paying higher taxes. This is simply absurd and what makes it worse believe it or not is Obama care. Obama care states than any business with 50 or more employees who work 30 or more hours a week cannot qualify for it. So ahen a company gurantees this healthcare to it's workers, they then must fire many workers and cut their hours so they can give them this healthcare that they promised. This again leaves millions job less and I haven't even talked about how high the premiums are. Deductibles under the ACA and premiums have all risen under Obama. This creates AGAIN an economic disaster in which people are paying an absurd amount of their own money. My last point is just that, this is THEIR money and they deserve to keep it, higher taxes kill jobs, businesses and the middle class.
Yugandda

Pro

I did not "dodge" your question. You never made any rules in the first round so I assumed 2nd round was constructive only. Your only attack on my case was, "You just showed me a bunch of random statistics that mean nothing in this conversation.". That literally the only claim you made against my case. And even if you think my statistics are absurd, you've created an Argumentum ad lapidem (to the stone) fallacy by not responding/attacking my claims. Therefore the entirety of my case stands. Moving back to your one point of me inserting a lot of random statistics I find this highly hypocritical. All you have done is brought up Obama's policy's and not the actual core of my argument.


I will have to fundamentally disagree with the statement you made, "For an economy to work especially ours we need people spending, lower interest rates..." Lower interest rates just create economic uncertainty. It makes people become unwise with their money and frantic about spending. You might argue that this would create stimulus and I would agree. But it would create stimulus for the wrong people. Of course the millionaires you were talking about would make better economic decisions than your every day joe, So in turn the middle class, with poor economic choices, would pour money into the upper class. And How would lower taxes stimulate the economy. Wouldn't higher taxes be just like lower interest rates and stimulate the economy. Would it not be better to invest that money into assets instead of getting it taxed. You stated that smaller businesses have left the country due to a high tax increase yet you brought up no evidence. You went so far off of topicality that you had to say, "anyways back to the point". You stated as businesses have left the country more and that more people have lost their jobs. Then why have we seen unemployment plummet in the past 2 years? Your claim of corporate inversion is incoherent with this resolution because anyone can use corporate inversion regardless of social class. Furthermore, as you stated, most types of it are illegal. So this is just a miscarriage of justice and does not follow the coherence theory of truth. You stated that conservative presidents such as Reagan helped our economy. You stated that our economy "was the greatest its ever been" with Reagan. Ronald reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion in his eight year presidential career. This shows that economic principles such as trickle-down economics do not work and do not promote the general idea of a "fiscal conservative". My opponents last point was that it was their money and they deserve to keep it. Then why is he advocating only for a middle class tax reduction. Under his/her/they criteria we should adopt a flat tax. Donald J Trumps tax plan as he/she/they presented does not follow his criteria and as such I cannot see following the flow of this debate.


I would like to point out again that I do not have to defend any claims made in my case what so ever due to the fact that my opponent never attacked my case. My entire case still stands while I have refuted all of his claims.


Thank you and I urge and a pro vote



Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org......;


https://mises.org......;

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by echelius 7 months ago
echelius
I would urge potential voters to read two debates between me and Yeeet2016: 'Conservatism vs. Liberalism', and 'Conservatism vs. Liberalism!'.
I neatly refute many of Yeee2016t's claims, the same claims that he/she uses in this argument.

And Yugandda, I am very disappointed. Yeeet2016 gave you facts that were not at all backed up, and you didn't even bother call him on his conservative B.S.
Posted by Yugandda 7 months ago
Yugandda
Theres a reason why theres a round limit, word limit and time limit in the debate. It is so that we both can make our points equally.
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
So i post facts in the comment so that people can take it into consideration but then you say that? It's a debate and I wanted to add something, stop being a cry baby.
Posted by Yugandda 7 months ago
Yugandda
I would like for the voters to not take my opponents comment into acount because he did not make it in the actual debate. thank you
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
First of all trump doesn't support a flat tax or a vat tax. Second of all almost everything you just stated was incoherent or blatanly false. Lower interest rates allow normal people to borrow mote money then pay it back in the future. This creates economic growth, which in return obviously increases wages. Again, Regan was a fantastic president because he bankrupted the Soviet Union, increased wages by lowering taxes and returned our prisoners home. You simply have no understanding of how an economy works if you believe higher interest rates make any sense at all. Also, you have ignored the many facts I have provided in this debate by ignoring my claims about Obama. It is an undeniable fact that under Obama wages have dropped, taxes have increased, governement spending has raised the debt and unemployment still runs rampant. Adressing your point about the unemployment being lower, if someone looks for a job then stops looking for one they are considered statistically employed. This is a fact and proves how these results are often times skewed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did a whole article on this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.