The Instigator
Futurepresident2048
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 71815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Futurepresident2048

Pro

The federal income tax should be abolished. In 1776 America fought for freedom from a power that was over taxing the people of America. Our country was created out of a hatred for taxation and after living for so long without it we brought its creation in the 1900s. The federal income tax does nothing but take away the fruits of all Americans labor and give the government more money to waste fully spend. We must end this complicated, horrible system and save the American people money.
AlternativeDavid

Con

"In 1776 America fought for freedom from a power that was over taxing the people of America."

This is not true. The United States revolted against the British due to the fact that the colonies had no say in which taxes were levied on them. Not because they were being overtaxed. In fact, people in Britain were being more heavily taxed than those on the colonies. Though to be fair, it was only 10x the rate of taxes on the colonists. [1]


"The federal income tax does nothing but take away the fruits of all Americans labor and give the government more money to waste fully spend."

You heard it here first folks. The federal income tax does literally nothing except for rob Americans. It's not like our tax dollars go towards ensuring social security and the military.


---

I don't believe that Pro has provided any reasonable arguments in favor of his position thus far.


[1] http://foreignpolicy.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Futurepresident2048

Pro

"It's not like our tax dollars go towards ensuring social security and the military. "

The federal income tax accounts for less than 1/3 of the federal governments revenue. Social security is an invalid argument since many would agree like me it needs to be removed as its running out and it's a horrible idea.

You argue that we fought for taxation without representation which was what they said back then. However, after the war we lived without the income tax all the way till they needed it for the coming WWI. We were able to survive without it for such a long time.

After the government implemented it, we saw a huge increase in not needed spending. All the extra tax does is give the government an incentive to spend more, and spend more then it has, for too long the government has been throwing us into debt with spending more then we have and this tax helps them. It would be better to simply increase sales tax since that is a voluntary one.

You have failed to present any reasonable arguments and really back up your statements against me.
AlternativeDavid

Con

"The federal income tax accounts for less than 1/3 of the federal governments revenue."

I'd like a source for this. Even if it's true, why is this bad? No information is used to explain why this is so wrong.

"Social security is an invalid argument since many would agree like me it needs to be removed as its running out and it's a horrible idea."

Insolvency of Social Security could easily be solved by eliminating the income cap [1]. Also, Social Security is not a horrible idea. It was created so that people would not die if they ran out of money after retirement, or after being injured at their job. Not everybody is rich, and some people would not have the means to save money without social security [2]. Taking care of the elderly was a state matter before the SS act, but the Great Depression proved that the states were not prepared to adequately take care of them [2].


"...after the war we lived without the income tax all the way till they needed it for the coming WWI."

If what Pro is insinuating is that we don't need it outside of impeding wartime, then I'd like to point something out. The geopolitical setting we currently have is so fragile that there could very well be another war in the next ten years. As an example, there's the conflict in Ukraine [3], a country that's requested NATO support [4], nobody knows how it will turn out.

"We were able to survive without it for such a long time."

Survive is such a terrible baseline expectation. You should never accept less than "prosper". Of course we survived without the federal income tax, but we would also survive if an asteroid 2 km long hit new mexico. We'd be in terrible shape, but we would still "survive".

"After the government implemented it, we saw a huge increase in not needed spending"

Proof? What does Pro define as "not needed"? That phrase is completely subjective. Pro may not think that subsidies for parks are necessary, but a father may feel like parks are necessary because he goes to one every other day with his daughter.

"All the extra tax does is give the government an incentive to spend more, and spend more then it has, for too long the government has been throwing us into debt with spending more then we have and this tax helps them."

How would more money fail to incentivise more spending? Also, how would taking 1/3 of someby's paycheck help them get their debt under control. That's exactly what Pro is suggesting here.

"It would be better to simply increase sales tax since that is a voluntary one."

I've seen this argument, and it makes me sad every time without fail.

The sales tax is a regressive tax. This means that people with less money pay proportionately more than those with more money. If I have $50,000 to spend, and Joe Shmoe has $5,000,000 to spend, whatever I pay will be proportionately higher than what he pays. Unless he buys one hundred times as much as I do, which he likely will not, this is an unfair system.






[1] http://www.npr.org...;
[2] http://www.ourdocuments.gov...;
[3] http://www.summer.harvard.edu...;
[4] http://www.nato.int...;
Debate Round No. 2
Futurepresident2048

Pro

If you'd like sources then instead of being lazy go and look it up for yourself.

In conclusion, you have only tried to debunk all my statements with your own words yet have said nothing on why we need the federal income tax which proves my point that it's just the government robbing Americans of money. Social security was created in that idea you mentioned but has failed as it is running out, personalized social security would be better. The income is not needed anymore and we must remove it, many people agree and have and will continue to push for it and our government must stop spending more than it has.
AlternativeDavid

Con

Ouch, there goes Pro's conduct points.


"you have only tried to debunk all my statements with your own words yet have said nothing on why we need the federal income tax which proves my point that it's just the government robbing Americans of money."

I'll let Pro in on a little secret: I don't even have to use the words "income tax" if I don't have to. My job is to refute claims made by the one with the burden of proof, which in this case is Pro. I never have to prove anything. It is sufficient to disprove.

"Social security was created in that idea you mentioned but has failed as it is running out"

Did I not literally just give a way to fix that?

"many people "

Who?

"The income is not needed anymore"

I don't think Pro actually gave a reason why it's unnecessary. All he did was try to prove that Social Security is bad, and that the country has debt. I didn't even see how banning the income tax would improve things.

"our government must stop spending more than it has"

Pro's solution to fixing a spending problem is to just take money away. This would hugely injure the entire country, and probably the entire world if it was done all at once. Pro never even said how this plan would be implemented. Is this an all at once thing? Is it a gradual shift away? I don't know, and neither do potential voters.


---

In conclusion, vote Con for the above reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
Also * debater*
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
Ya dude i'd be down for something like that sometime soon.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 1 year ago
AlternativeDavid
Haha well this is a debate for another time anyway.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
If I want to build a swimming pool, I can get funds together through donations, I can start a company or whatever. But I can't go up to your door with a gun and say pay me or this swimming pool or you get locked in a cage. What I'm asking for is moral consistency. Either way, it's fairly late out here so I'll be leaving now.
May the best senator win.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 1 year ago
AlternativeDavid
Are you suggesting that laws not apply to minors and nonvoters?
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
But I didn't. That's the thing. And because someone else did gives no right to force it on me or others.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 1 year ago
AlternativeDavid
Patrick, you make it sound as if you did not vote for who got to steal your wallet.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
"You heard it here first folks. The federal income tax does literally nothing except for rob Americans. It's not like our tax dollars go towards ensuring social security and the military. "
But if a mugger takes your wallet and uses it to build you a swimming pool, he's no less a mugger.

By the way, hey David.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 1 year ago
AlternativeDavid
Since it's late,I'll post my arguments tomorrow. I hope for a good debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.