The Instigator
Lanzky
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The rich should be taxed heavier

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 2 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 69656
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

Lanzky

Pro

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Contemplate this one: If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for Republicans and seldom challenged by Democrats. It has indubitably shaped much of the economic landscape since the Industrial Revolution was instigated. But sometimes the ideas that we certainly consider as true, are dead wrong; for thousands of years, humans believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. This notion has later on proven to be completely erroneous. Needless to say, an astronomer who still believes that it is true would do some terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policy maker who believes that the rich are job creators and thus should not be taxed appropriately will do equally terrible policy.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I was intending to accept this debate in order to play a game of Devil's Advocate, but then I noticed something suspicious upon reading PRO's opening post: it sounded familiar. I typed it into Google, and what do you know: his entire opening piece is plagiarized from a TED talk give by Nick Hanauer. The text can be found here: http://delong.typepad.com...;

PRO has provided not a single original argument of himself, so I ask that our judges immediately award me conduct points. From that point, I am willing to continue this debate should PRO agree to provide his own arguments, without stealing other's words, and to cite his sources.

With that, I pass the floor back to PRO, and look forward to an interesting discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
Lanzky

Pro

Lanzky forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Since PRO plagiarized and has now forfeited, I'll just move this along. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Lanzky

Pro

Lanzky forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO plagiarized and then forfeited every round.

Therefore, you vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Josh_debate 2 years ago
Josh_debate
@ResponsiblyIrresponsible maybe on a forum where I'm not timed to reply, I sadly don't have time for a debate.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
@josh_debate: Would you be willing to defend that in a debate?
Posted by Josh_debate 2 years ago
Josh_debate
Everyone should have to pay the same percentage of income tax
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"But I'm kinda done with this discussion anyways. Guess you win by default. Guess the debt is an imaginary problem that can only be solved by taxing the rich."

I never said anything of the sort, and that this is your takeaway from this discussion is a testament to how much faith I ought to have in your reasoning and comprehension skills. Your bogus claim that I in some way strawmanned or misquoted you is positively asinine, and not grounded in fact, but in frustration that I duly and thoroughly refuted every point you put forward, where you could do nothing more than callously repeat yourself, without making a single substantive argument. If you read what I wrote, you would know that I said *repeatedly* that solving the rich is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and that it's only a single means to that end--but that the main problem, at least for right now, is the weak economy, whereas the debt is a symptom. Perhaps one day you'll look back on this conversation and realize how utterly foolish you look. I feel as though I spent the last hour or so talking to a wall.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"uh, yeah, nowhere did I advocate Bush, or his policies, which you seem to think I support."

Of course you do. You rail against government, as did Bush. You think tax cuts are stimulative, as did Bush. You think government can't do anything right, as did Bush. You *are* supporting Bush's policies. You can't run away from your own policies when we have empirical evidence showing that they don't work.

"I never said "if only the rich had MORE money", in fact, I am against excessive taxing of the rich, so that doesn't even make sense with my stance (?)."

You can't be serious with this one. If you want to tax the rich LESS, then they will have more money. Did you even read this before you wrote it? What you just wrote is a flagrant contradiction.

"You keep putting things in quotes I have not said."

That's completely not true. I am quite literally copy and pasting what you have said and responded to you sentence by sentence. Point to one thing I quoted that you never said. Let me do it for you: you can't, because it doesn't exist.

" and assigning ideas to me that either 1 never mentioned, or 2 do not align with anyway."

Point to one, because I have done no such thing. I've been responding only directly to the points that you've made. If you'd like to disavow some of your earlier remarks, then that's a completely different story. But it's disingenuous to act as though you never held those beliefs when you clearly advocated them not long ago tonight, which led me to quote you directly and respond to you.

"I shouldn't think you would have to resort to false accusations to make a point."

Never once did I do that, nor did I make an "accusation." I responded directly to your points, all of which were meandering and went in circles, all while you continuously ignored mine and belabored the point that "government is too big and wasteful and spending is the problem!". which i rebutted 18 ways to Sunday.
Posted by Idiosyncratic 2 years ago
Idiosyncratic
uh, yeah, nowhere did I advocate Bush, or his policies, which you seem to think I support. I never said "if only the rich had MORE money", in fact, I am against excessive taxing of the rich, so that doesn't even make sense with my stance (?). You keep putting things in quotes I have not said, and assigning ideas to me that either 1 never mentioned, or 2 do not align with anyway. I shouldn't think you would have to resort to false accusations to make a point. But I'm kinda done with this discussion anyways. Guess you win by default. Guess the debt is an imaginary problem that can only be solved by taxing the rich.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Not only taking more money out of investments of the rich, but not cutting back on spending, will fix a problem that has grown, in spite of already increased taxes?"

First of all, we're not "cutting out of investments of the rich." The rich would do better in a booming economy, and are already enjoying negative real interest rates and $2 trillion in cash hoardings. So spare me the "if only the rich just had even MORE money!" narrative, because it's facile and fact-free.

Again, we've cut spending more than we've raised taxes.

And, again (again), the problem is the weak economy, not the debt. The deficit has fallen and the economy has been improving (in fact, it's been falling because the economy has been improving), so the actual problem, rather than your imaginary problem, actually has been improving.

*drops mic*
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"They can bear a heavier burden yes, but when they clearly can prosper somewhere other than the United States, they will choose to leave, being that is the most economical choice."

Yes and they'll do better in a booming economy, which they would have if we were to raise their taxes and fund essential services in order to lift the economy. But we'll continue to follow your policies, and be stuck with perpetual lower trend growth.

" Taxing cannot keep up with our spending. "

No, the problem isn't spending--it's a lack of tax revenue due to a poor economy. And, again, any extra spending is necessary *because* the economy is in such bad shape.

"Reducing the amount of taxes the government needs to consume is the solution, and that is done by cutting spending."

And cutting spending depresses the economy. We already cut spending significantly in sequestration and the like, and it undeniably decelerated the pace of the recovery. It would've been much worse had the Fed not intervened.

"Ok, so raising taxes and not reducing spending will somehow help the debt to be dissolved?"

As I explained earlier, we're not "dissolving" the debt because we owe much of it to ourselves.

Second, it will at the very least prevent us from escalating the debt-to-GDP ratio, as was the case in Greece, by not cutting spending and thus making the economy even worse so it's harder to even carry the debt burdens that we currently have.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"So if taxes are the solution, then everyone needs an incredible increase in taxes to just balance the rate at which we are losing money, not to mention start paying off the debt."

But we're not losing money--we only lose money if we cut spending (and thus "paying off the debt," which again, we owe mostly to ourselves) and remove money from the economy. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

And, again, I want to raise taxes on the rich because they're unlikely to spend money past a certain point, whereas the poor and middle class are. Raising taxes on the poor and middle class would actually depress tax revenues, and thus the economy.

"Taxing will not fix the problem, because the problem is spending, not the rich."

Never once did I say the rich are the problem--wealth inequality and campaign finance which perpetuates terrible policy, like the ones you're advocating for, is a problem--but the rich are merely the facilitators of those terrible policy.

For the upteenth time, spending is not the problem. Debt is a *symptom* of the problem. I don't know how many languages I need to say this in for you to grasp it.

"And if we keep increasing taxes for the rich, they will eventually up and leave and then their money will go with them."

Keep increasing them? No, they're pretty low relative to historic levels. We haven't had a tax hike since January 2013--and even that was nothing more than a sunset provision--and corporations are still able to offshore their operations to dodge taxes or hoard money overseas to dodge taxes. That's a result of, again, terrible policy. The notion that corporations will take their ball and run if we raise taxes is ludicrous. Why aren't they doing business in Somalia? Because people can't afford their goods, nor are the costs of relocating worth the benefit of doing so. Moreover, many jobs--minimum wage jobs in particular--are non-exportable. Rates would need to be much, much higher for that to even be a considera
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
""As said, the problem is not that the rich have money. Its not that "I think" the government will not spend the money wisely. It is that they will not, and our debt proves that."

No, the debt is a symptom of the real problem--the depressed economy. I'd cross-reference, once again, my Keynes reference to hiring people to dig holes and fill them up again. It doesn't even matter what we're spending the money on, though I've told you already what I think we should be spending it on.

"The problem is that even if the government taxed the rich for 70% of their income or even 80%, they would still be accumulating debt. "

That's not necessarily true, especially if the government spent that money wisely. It may not reduce the deficit all at once via growth and extra tax revenue, but the deficit--or the additional accumulations of debt--would dissipate rather quickly thereafter.

Now, the caveat is that I don't know where the "peak of the Laffer curve is," but there's research suggesting that it may be somewhere in the 90s--assuming we're talking about marginal rates--so that probably would be stimulative, proved that, again, we actually spend that money in lieu of paying down the deficit, at least not immediately.

"They spend too much and, like you said, they have to get the money from somewhere."

You keep saying they spend too much. I pointed out earlier that tax revenues are below historic averages and government spending is around historic averages in spite of the fact that the economy is worse than it's been since the 1930s, in which case we should actually be spending *more.*

"And it cannot all come from the rich. "

I never suggested that it could, but much of it--probably most of it--can.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
LanzkyResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit and plagiarism by Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LanzkyResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagerism=Auto Forfeit, but Pro forfeited every round when he was caught dead red by Con.