The Instigator
xuinkrbin
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MaddSkillz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Taxing all sales can result in economic benefits

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
xuinkrbin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 51446
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

xuinkrbin

Pro

A 2% tax on EVERY purchase, retail, stock, currency market, commodities, etc., in the United States would raise enough more than enough money to fund the federal government, pay down the debt, give Everyone a rebate on the tax up to the poverty line if not more, maintain anti-poverty programs, and eliminate the income tax, while keeping the tax burden heavily on Those with higher levels of wealth and increasing economic growth.
  • US GDP is ~$17 trillion a year according to the U.S. Commerce Department.
  • US stock sales are ~$21 trillion a year according to the World Bank.
  • Currency purchases in the US are ~$205 trillion a year according to the Foreign Exchange Committee.

With a 2% tax, approximately $4.5 trillion in taxes can be raised, all existing income/payroll taxes could be repealed. The economic benefits of removing the burdens of the income tax from Consumers and replacing it with a simple 2% sales tax could reasonably be expect to be significant.

The new tax would also be progressive in nature. Anyone with an income up to the poverty line would pay 0 tax and Anyone with income below the poverty line would have a negative tax rate, as well as being eligible for the payments made under the current earned income tax credit. As One's income increases, the amount of money available beyond the poverty to spend/invest/trade increases, raising the amount to tax.

MaddSkillz

Con

No it will not help all the inbred rednecks would get pissed off about having to pay extra taxes
Debate Round No. 1
xuinkrbin

Pro

MaddSkillz appears to have conflated "economic benefits of a particular tax scheme" with "political resistance to said scheme". However, if We presume no such conflation, I shall address the point just the same.

The Individuals to Whom MaddSkillz refers would almost certainly pay less in taxes unless They engage in frequent transactions of, say, stocks, bonds, currency trades, swaps, etc. As a result, the taxes such Persons pay would not only by minimal, the amount of tax would be regulatable to a certain extent by efforts to economize. This economization incentive would in turn have an additional economic benefit by placing downward pressure on prices which would help to temper inflationary pressures elsewhere in the economy.
MaddSkillz

Con

MaddSkillz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
xuinkrbin

Pro

Since Maddskillz forfeited the previous round, I request a clarification as to whether such forfeiture qualifies as a concession to this debate.
MaddSkillz

Con

MaddSkillz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
xuinkrbin

Pro

MaddSkillz, having forfeited the prior two rounds, I ask you concede the debate officially.
MaddSkillz

Con

MaddSkillz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
xuinkrbin

Pro

If I may be so bold, Maddskillz appears to have conceded not just the last few rounds but the entire debate. I refer Readers to the points I raise in rounds 1 & 2 as My closing arguments.
MaddSkillz

Con

MaddSkillz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by xuinkrbin 3 years ago
xuinkrbin
Regarding "sales taxes hurt disproportionately the poor, since more of their take-home pay is spent on necessities, so an across the board tax on sales is least likely to be the fairest." -- I think You missed the part where I said, "give Everyone a rebate on the tax up to the poverty line if not more". This would negate the disproportionality with respect to poorer Individuals.
Posted by bogrbon 3 years ago
bogrbon
Anyone who knows the basics of economics would know ALL taxes and subsidies result in a dead weight loss economically on a maket, so from a full view, this is factually untrue. However, taxes can redistribute wealth, and put it toward things that will improve overall quality of life, at the expense of some to help many others, so depending on who is talking, and what priorities a person has, this may or may not be a beneficial idea. The difference lies in positive economics vs normative economics.

(Note: sales taxes hurt disproportionately the poor, since more of their take-home pay is spent on necessities, so an across the board tax on sales is least likely to be the fairest.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
xuinkrbinMaddSkillzTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF