The Negative Income Tax

The Negative Income tax involves a yearly, fixed government payment used in conjunction with a flat tax rate. It would eliminate the need for social security, welfare, food stamps, and minimum wage.

For example, say the government had a flat income tax rate of 25%, and gave out a fixed, yearly payment of $10,000 to each and every working or disabled individual. A person earning $40,000 per year would be at the break-even point. They pay no taxes, because their tax payment equals their government payment. A person earning $1,000,000 would pay close to the full 25% tax, as the government payment would be negligible compared to the $250,000 in tax payments. A person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes but receive $10,000 in payment, for a net income of $13,000, or $9,000 in net government payments. The net payment is 25% of the difference between their income and the break-even income.

i totally agree with you 100%.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that from now on.

i thank my opponent for his interest in my counter argument, however he refuses to support his original statements with information.

"I'd appreciate it if you wouldnt do that from now on"

if you look closely at this sentence, my opponent merely generalizes his statement. My opponent has not one source to back this information up, nor did he provide any useful statistics when responding to my argument.

Clearly, my opponent doesnt want to take this debate seriously. I am hoping after reading my counter argument he will respond, by providing some useful information and actually look as though he is interested.

Isn't that just to easy? Seriously, I hope you are, in fact, joking, or at least trying to get me to win or something. You try to distract people from the fact that you essentially ruined this debate by attempting to label ME as the one not taking this debate seriously.

Mind you that YOU were the one who said "I totally agree with you 100%." How was I supposed to provide a counterargument to a statement that merely affirmed what I said?

By saying "I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that from now on," it should have been obvious to you that the implication was that you either take this debate seriously and provide a counterargument, or, if you do, in fact, agree, then don't accept the debate.

If you were looking for sources from my statements in round one, that's my bad; I forgot to post it. It's the Wikipedia article on Negative Income Tax.

Oh, and if you're planning to provide a legitimate counterargument in this last round so I can't respond, I have to say that that's extraordinarily cheap.