The Instigator
GreatThinker
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Jonngotti
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Negative Income Tax

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 1 vote the winner is...
GreatThinker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,491 times Debate No: 8861
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

GreatThinker

Pro

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.
Jonngotti

Con

i totally agree with you 100%.
Debate Round No. 1
GreatThinker

Pro

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

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
GreatThinker

Pro

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.
Jonngotti

Con

Jonngotti forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonngotti 6 years ago
Jonngotti
hey, yea sorry this was a total joke and it was about an entire year ago i havent been on in a while...in retrospect it was very immature of me...however i did find my counter argument for round 2 funny...but now i have a loss on my record for a debate i didnt even partake in......once again lol sorry...funny though, my counter argument...anyway i liked your previous debates
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Thanks!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Tempted to take on the usual grounds.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Capitalism and Freedom. Wikipedia basically sources it from Milton Friedman. That's where to go. I'm reading it now.

It isn't in stock anymore at some bookstores, so you may have to order it.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Hmm...it's a nice idea, but how much revenue would the government raise then as compared to now, relative to the costs that would be saved in downsizing the government? I haven't heard of this negative income tax idea before and I'd like to learn more ... other than wikipedia, where do I go?
Posted by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Con should just say that the a fair tax is inacted (the one where only sales taxes is used and income tax is completly elimanted). I'd except but I wouldn't be able to complete the debate 'cause I have other stuff to do.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
The entire second paragraph is basically copied and pasted from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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."

The rest is paraphrased. Here is the exact text from Wikipedia:

"For example, if the flat tax rate is 25% and a government payment of $10,000, then:"

"With an NIT, the need for minimum wage, food stamps, welfare, social security programs and so on, would be eliminated,"
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I recognize PRO's argument. It seems to be what I read on Wikipedia.

*checks*
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
How did you get the idea that this is intended to eliminate the IRS? The department would certainly be downsized along with the tax code, but it would still need to exist in order to process the paperwork. Making the IRS smaller wouldn't make it that much harder to sue.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
The idea is to eliminate the IRS and welfare at the same time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
GreatThinkerJonngottiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50