The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,610 times Debate No: 28717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




It seems to me that no one would consider it unfair policy to enact a flat tax for income in the United States across all income levels. For this debate let's just say 25%. I know there are many other types of taxes out there: capital gains, investment income, etc. but aren't they all money in your pocket at the end of the day? Should not all forms of "income" be taxed at the same rate? Obviously, our government doesn't think so, but I think it would be fair to everyone to base the taxes you pay on a predetermined percentage of the income you brought in. If I make 25K a year, I pay 6K a year in taxes, if I make 25M I pay 6M, the point here being, if I make 25K a year, I can only afford to pay 6K in taxes, if I make 25M I can afford to pay 6M in taxes.


Hi there!

Welcome to, I can see this is your first debate.

The law that you are proposing is unfair because if a person earns 10k a year, for that person to pay 2.5k in taxes is a lot of money and that person may have problems to buy food or to pay the doctor, but for a person who earns 10M, 2.5M is a much comfortable sacrifice inspire of paying more (he still can pay the doctor).

From the point of view of the government, a flat tax that every one can pay may be insufficient to maintain itself, not that governments have the duty to preserve the happiness of their citizens by redistributing the wealth, making sure they don't suffer from hunger of illness, they can get education, etc.

There is no doubt that the USA government is dysfunctional in many aspects, and this law is likely to make it even more dysfunctional by collecting less taxes and damaging the re-distribution.

By the way, a flat tax means everyone pays the same no mater what is your income (but we will not debate about this).


I would prefer is you replay by making a youtube video.

Debate Round No. 1


lnghrnfnfl forfeited this round.


are you playing?

Debate Round No. 2


This being my first debate, I am unfamiliar with a response via youtube medium, as I have not seen this done on any of the other debates I have read. I should clarify, although my initial term was "flat tax", you are correct that it was a misuse of the term, rather, I meant flat percentage. As you pointed out, that's not what the debate is about.

As for my pro stance of implementing a flat percentage of taxes, there are many other things to consider outside of the box of simple tax. Deductions and exemptions being two. Those earners that earn 10K a year, which is highly uncommon mind you, would obviously fall under certain exemptions and have deductions to where it would be like they hardly pay any taxes at all. In fact, would like end up with a refund at the end of the year. That covers the argument of low earners.

As for the avergage household in America, and everyone else I will use the figures from The median household income in 2011 was around 50K, and the median income for a family and married household is 63K and 74K, respectively, with family households making a large percentage of the populace. For my example, I will use the median family household income of 63K. If the flat percentage tax were used, and after exemptions and deductions, this family's taxable income is like to be around 50K. 25% of 50K is 12.5K payed throughout the year. All this to show, they would actually be paying the same rate they pay now, considering 35K-71K is currently at a 25% rate.

So, in essence, my proposal lowers taxes for those making more than 85K a year and raises taxes for those making less than 35K. Yes, this provides less revenue for the government and might disrupt a balance budget, which isn't currently balanced anyway, but my debate was whether they should implement the tax to be fair, not to balance the budget. Is it a factor? Of course, because the government has made it a factor. If they were spending within their limits it would be much less of a factor, if at all.

During the last Persidential race, there were big debates on whether to use trickle down economics, in where you give your top earners more to work with, or to have them pay more, redestributing the wealth to lower income families. So if I may change directions somewhat, I suppose that was the real debate I was arriving to. Lower taxes for higher income people works better than redestributing the wealth by taking from them in the form of taxes and handing it back out to lower income families in the form of welfare programs or tax breaks.

Let's see two examples, both of which could have countless scenarios given the human mind and other variables, but I'm just going to assume. First example is a person making 2.5M per year is hit with a tax increase. His prior rate was 35% and now is 40%. That means his taxes went up 125K. After taking this tax increase John Doe decides the only way to compensate for the loss is to cut 4 employees currently making approximately 31K a year. Those 4 employees must now apply for unemployment benefits paid for by the government, welfare benefits paid for by the government, and stop contributing their own tax dollars that were once going to the governement. Now this affects many other things such as unemployment rate and the overall economic condition of the United States, but I won't debate about that.

In the next example, the earner making 2.5M per year is given a tax break, lowering his taxes to the standard 25%. His taxes went down 10% or 250K. He can now hire 8 individuals making approximately 31K per year. Those individuals get off governement paid unemployment, welfare, and start contributing to the tax revenue to the governement. This improves the unemplyment rate and the overall economic condition of the United States, but I won't debate about that either.

Furthermore, I think the flat percentage tax has a fair "sound" to hit. If I make 50K per year and am paying 25% taxes and John Doe is making 2.5M and is paying 25% we're both contributing the same percentage, just different amounts. John Doe did better for himself and shouldn't be penalized with a higher tax bracket. Could he afford it? most likely, but is it fair?


Welcome to!

Can you present yourself? You have nothing in your profile. How old are you?

By the way, you are suppose to watch the video I post in my last round.

I will keep debating anyway:

If you want to live in a country where the taxes are very low for the rich, be my guess, take your stuff and move to russia which people live in even worse conditions than in the states.

I don't know if it will be more fair to charge a flat income tax ration, what I'm sure is that 25% flat income tax will lead to great misery.

Do you think unequal tax are unfair? I'm going to explain what is unfair:

  1. To be born with a genetic illness.

  2. To be born in a conflictive area.

  3. To not have enough money to pay a doctor.

  4. To be willing to work and not being able to find a job.

  5. To not be able to get proper scientific education.

  6. To have to go to the war when others do not.

  7. ...

But if you want to argue in favor of a 80% flat tax percentage with a government that guaranties that every one will be able to have food, will page 80% of the rent of the house, unlimited health care, a proper army to make sure our security, free education like in europe, and guaranties jobs for everyone. Then in that case I will support your proposition and I will be the first one to emigrate to USA.

You could also charge 0% tax and just print more money as you need it, but it is likely that people will stop using that currency very quickly.

The idea that an entrepreneur will fire workers to save money is absurd, if you fire your workers you factory or restaurant or whatever will reduce its productivity and you will lose your clients and your income.

And if your business goes well you only hire more people if you really need it. If you don't need it you just put your money in your pocket.

Check it out, it is on my last video.

Humanity needs to remember that money is just a tool, a piece of paper and if it doesn't serve its purpose you can use it in the toilet. For european people it is difficult to imagine a government as dysfunctional as the USA one, no other develop country has a health care system or educational system as bad as that, and now you want to reduce that taxes to the very reach people reducing the income of the government and making it even more dysfunctional.

Really, it is a huge mistake to cut the taxes to the reach, if you become a president of the government don't do it.

Do not base your decision in a funny feeling of fairness, base your decision in the consequences.

by the way, I'm delighted to hear that you would exempt of paying taxes to the people how earn very little.

I left you here a lecture on economic philosophy, I hope you will conclude that charging unequal taxes (%) if something good.

Debate Round No. 3


I was unable to view the youtube video you posted. It was likely blocked by my firewall.

I am 30 yr old white male from the US.

I didn't upload a profile because I didn't feel it was of much importance.

As to your comment of things being unfair, I agree that all the things you listed were in fact unfair. However, they were of a different context. Some of the scenarios you listed, people were born with. Not all rich people are born rich. Some work very hard and build from the ground up. So in my opinion it is unfair to penalize them with a higher tax rate than someone who didn't try, simply because they make more money. The idea that an entrepeneur would lay someone off to save money is not absurb. I've seen it happen in the USA. Entrepeneurs and big businesses alike will make the first cuts in employment when they need to save money, the government is the same way. The US military will cut the amount of troops before cutting the amount of tanks, or planes they operate on a day to day basis. It's called lean! The lean methodology says you can do more with less, as in people. You just have the person you didn't lay off do the job of two people.

As for economics, it only makes sense to me, you can't redistribute wealth for several reasons. 1. People with low income are likely less educated, therefore have poor sense in managing money. If you redistribute money to them it becomes wasted, and they remain in poverty. 2. You must llive in the US and experience I assume, but a minority of people with low income have no inspriration to become rich. Therefore, they remain poor and feel entitled to government assistance. They accept thousands of dollars per year from the government, paid for by the tax payers, and pay nothing into the system. If you leave the money in the hands of the wealthy they can redestribute in their own way, may that be hiring workers that have inspiration to become rich, who do not receive government assistance, and are also taxpayers, or putting it in their pocket. The Robin Hood economic system doesn't work. You can't steal from the rich and give it to the poor and expect things to work. As for your comment about Russia having my ideal tax, and in devastation. I'm sure Russia is in devastation for far more reasons other than their tax system, and would not attribute the state of their country based on their tax system. It is my opinion, that anyone that wants a high tax rate for the rich, only does so, so that they don't have to contribute as much, and can receive more entitlements from the government. As in my example earlier, if I make 2.5M per year, I pay 625K per year in taxes at 25%. 625K isn't enough? To someone that makes 50M a year 625K isn't a lot. But, I would beg to say that for someone that makes 2.5M per year, 625K is substantial. And is a substantial amount to anyone making less than the elite. Currently, the tax bracket for someone making 2.5M is 35% or 875K, how greedy are we to feel it's in the best interest of the country as a whole to make that person pay another 250K? Especially when it's going to unneeded programs, or people with a self-entitlement. Seems the governement should do a better job with spending, over trying to charge the rich more. I stand by my opinion of it being fair, simply because, if we're both paying 25% and I make 2.5M and you make 63K I'm paying more in taxes in one year than you will make in almost 10 years. Our medical programs and education programs are corrupt, I know that. They both charge entirely way too much. But I think that's better addressed by government law rather than government handouts.


It is important for me to know how old are you because I don't like bulling children, but now I know you are more or less of my age I will not feel bad about saying the truth as it is. :-)

It is true that Russia have many many problems: Aids, doctors teaching that condoms don't work, salaries that don't allow you to live: so you have to do something illegal, extremely hight corruption, islamic terrorism...

but let's be frank: this happens because the government is too week, and the government is too week because the taxes are too low.

By the way, there are a few countries like russia in the sense of horrible place for living and very low taxes.

Maybe our debate is a semantic problem.

To help each other to clarify lets make a scale of unfairness from 1 to 7:

1.- Completely unfair. The situation deserves a revolution.

7.- Things are fair.

People getting taxed: I would give 7, there is nothing wrong about having to pay taxes, it just determine your capacity to acquire things.

Me having to pay higher percentage of taxes than poor people: I would give 6. Even if you pay higher percentage you will be still really wealth in comparison with the ones how pay less percentage.

Me having a curable illness but not being able to pay the doctor or having an insurance company trying to avoid to pay my operation. I would give 1. That is totally unacceptable and make a government look like criminal agency.

Taxing the wealth is not very unfair, governments not having enough budget to their basic functions is extremity unfair.

I come from Spain, a country which until very recently had unlimited health care for every one, even for the ones who get inside the country illegally, just like Cuba.

I will not accept to live in a country without universal health care.

Talking about people becoming rich, how about the ones who work really hard and don't become rich?

The way you talk about poor people: uneducated people who can't handle money is very interesting.

Maybe they can't afford education.

Or maybe you are right, maybe they are just evil, maybe we should just let them die or kill them. Is this what you are suggesting? I thought americans were good people, maybe I was wrong.

Going back the the argument about cutting expenses: You only fire people when they produces less money than their salaries, if they produce you money, you can't fire them.

You only get tax on your income (on the benefits), that is what makes your argument absurd.

Plus we already talk about that in the first video, customers are the ones creating jobs, without customers there is no business.

By the way, researches like me earn very little, but we give a lot to humanity because without us, innovation would not exist. Electricity is better than candles, and once you did the research you have the knowledge forever, and the whole humanity benefits from that, i'm not sure if we can say that about restaurants or armies.

By the way, the army is a state institution, without taxes there is no army and they you get an invasion and end paying taxes to another country and getting nothing back from the foreigner government.

Let me ask you a question: As you know, governments create money, so they can print as much as they need, so you could have a government which only prints money but don't charge any tax on their citizens. Do you think a government which don't charge taxes but prints money is more fair than a one who do both: printing more and taxing?

Finally I leave you here the presentation of the darwinian economy, a brilliant book about economy which actually is written for american people.

Again, please if you win the elections, do not cut the taxes to rich people, it is a huge mistake it will create great misery and drive america to the same place were russia is now.

Debate Round No. 4


lnghrnfnfl forfeited this round.


It is very rude to start a debate and run away at the middle of it.
This time I can't put the video explaining USA economy at the side. :-( please click the link

USA has a problem, it has more and more debs, and it is going to exploit in our face soon creating the greatest depression that humanity ever face.

The only solution is to increase the taxes, to the very wealthy people in great amount to pay the debts; increasing taxes to the poor will only lead to a violent revolution.

Printing money is ok, but it generates inflation but that is fine, because you can reduce inflation by raising the taxes, if people have less money, they buy less stuff and with less demand prices goes down.

The previous argument about the army is absurd because the army is not a business, it has no clients to serve, and it is not like a restaurant or a software company.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Azul145 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped a few arguments and did not post as much as con therefore ruining his chances at winning.