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

The top 10% should be taxed 90%

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/2/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 53936
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




1st round is for acceptance only


I accept, I assume that the resolution means that the richest 10% of the people should be taxed 90% of their income.
I await pro's arguments
Debate Round No. 1


America is drowning in debt. George Bush took a surplus from Clinton and gave tax cuts to the rich and started 2 wars that we couldn't afford. Obama took office while the wars were still going on, so he had to spend money on those, plus the tax cuts to the rich, plus spend to get stimulus back to the economy...all while the debt gets higher and higher.

The way we got out of the great depression was with social programs.

The government taxed the richest people up to 94% and used that money to put people to work building roads and bridges, which made America's infrastructure stronger.

The rich still had more money than anybody else and the country got back on it's feet.

This country gave the opportunity to people to become rich. They need to pay back some to the country so that we can stay a strong nation.

The "trickle-down" theory never worked because companies are not making new jobs with the record profits they are making. They may be making new jobs in China and India, but that isn't helping the USA. That's treason.

So in order to save America, the rich need to either create jobs here or be taxed 90% so the government can create the jobs with that money.


Now I am not an American so I cannot give any arguments for the USA. Also, if the argument was to be specifically about the USA. It should have been specified at round 1. This is not

Pro's point does make sense in developed nations such as the United States where income is very high.

That said, I do infact wish that the richest people in the world are taxed the most, with tax level reducing as the income level reduces. However, the reality of the world in which we live in makes taxing 1 in 10 people 90 % of their income very disadvantageous.

In the developing world (where the majority of people in the world including myself live in) it is not beneficial to tax the top 10% as much as suggested by pro.
Pro said that point as well
"The "trickle-down" theory never worked because companies are not making new jobs with the record profits they are making. They may be making new jobs in China and India, but that isn't helping the USA. That's treason"
Yes, the businesses will open up in China and India, generating jobs there for 2/7 of the world's population. Now considering Pro's resolution that 90% tax shall be imposed on the top 10% of India and China, the jobs will never be generated which brings about unemployment etc.
Neither China nor India have extremely wealthy top 10% of the population as pro seems to suggest.
Even India's top 1% richest people only have an average annual income of 12.5 lakh ruppes or a mere 20,775 US dollars
We can derive their income after taxes using simple math 10% of 20775 = 20775 x 10/100 which gives us 2077.5$ PER YEAR

So the top 1% of the richest people in India will only earn 2,077.5 dollars per year after the taxes which pro suggests. Mind you, this is only the top 1%, I will not even get into the top 5% let alone 10%.
Nobody in their right mind will open up a business in India under these conditions.

China is better but still not satisfactory
The 1% richest in China have an average annual income of 91,639 US dollars.
This results in them earning a mere 9,163.9 US dollars annually.

I am aware that the cost of living is low in China and India and that the top 1% will survive but the profit is so little that few people will open businesses. And again this is only the top 1%, if the same calculations were done for the top 10% or 1 in 10 people, the results will be exponentially more dysmal.

This brings up another problem. 'Rich' People who do not want to pay 90% of their taxes in countries like India or China or anywhere else for that matter can
a) store their money in swiss banks abroad and avoid paying taxes (which is being done even today) or,
b) live in countries with little to none tax, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Staying on with the UAE, another point can be raised from here.
The success story of this little nation can be linked to 2 things. Oil and foreign business.
Oil is mostly in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE. However oil money from Abu Dhabi benefited themselves only for the most part. Dubai however, does not have a drop of oil. Yet, their infrastructure and economy is far more developed compared to Abu Dhabi.
Because Dubai sucessfully attracted millions of expats (and businesses with them) to the city by making it a tax haven (in other words no taxes). This made Dubai go from a desert fishing village to a Global trade Hub and a center for business from all over the world. And of course, this was due to it being a tax haven.
This is not to say that all countries should adopt the same strategy (it will not work for reasons I won't get into), it is a good example of what could happen if taxes on the rich are kept at the minimum level required.

I demonstrated above that taxes on the so called 'rich' top 1% in developing countries like India and China results in them recieving very little profit money after taxes, they will be unlikely to open large scale businesses.

10% of their population includes a large portion of the middle class, and stripping 90% of their income away from them will result in a 'brain drain' where educated people will emigrate to other places with higher wages and lower taxes such as Dubai, which became the developed city it is today due to its encouragement of people to open businesses by keeping taxes at zero.;;
Debate Round No. 2


2 points:

1. If you taxed the richest top 10% of the world's population by 90%, Nobody in India or China would be affected (unless they were billionaires in those countries). It would only affect the rich people in rich countries.

2. I'm talking about taxing people, not businesses. Businesses provide jobs, and are not the same as rich individuals.

Thanks for the debate



Rebuttals to pro's points (his/her arguments will be in quotes and Italics)

1. "If you taxed the richest top 10% of the world's population by 90%, Nobody in India or China would be affected (unless they were billionaires in those countries). It would only affect the rich people in rich countries."

There is no world government currently to implement this action. The only closest thing we have is the UN where the only possible Big 5 member who may not veto (annul) this resolution is China, even this is very unlikely (they probably will veto). UK, France, US and Russia will be against this without doubt. And for good reason.

2. "I'm talking about taxing people, not businesses. Businesses provide jobs, and are not the same as rich individuals."

I understand Pro is talking about taxing people but the reality is that rich people own the largest businesses, invest in them which logically results in them generating the most jobs FOR THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. Taxes which take 9/10th of the income are not great incentives for being an entrepreneur is it now?
Even if the rich people are already rich, they will see little to no point opening up new businesses or expanding them to a level which puts them eligible for the 90% tax rate. Hence this will not work. To make matters worse, they rich can just store their income in a foreign account as black money( taxes that have not been paid) or they could just live in a tax haven like Dubai which means that the middle class will end up paying the 90% of their taxes. This will lower the average consumer buying power which makes business EVEN LESS PROFITABLE. So whatever businesses are left will go to tax havens or store their black money which means the 90% tax rate will affect the next lower income class. Starting to see a cycle?

And this cycle will be devastating to the long term economy of any country (rich or poor) which implements this cycle. This is especially true in emerging markets in Asia which rely on their growing consumer buying power for future growth.

This is why I argue that the richest 10% should not be taxed 90% of their income despite the fact that I am indeed a pro-socialist believe it or not. However, I live in no socialist utopian paradise. I know the world we live in and I can say and prove that taxing 1 in 10 people 9/10th of their income will be detrimental at this time for reasons argued above.

I leave the rest to the voters and encourage them to make a rational judgement on whether pro's resolution will work or not work. I know most people will like to see a world where rich are taxed for improvement of infrastructure etc. But I must appeal to voters to please make a rational judgement and not emotional judgement.
Thank you nonprophet, for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
This debate is blocking votes
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Please vote on this :)
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Oh, and Aburks right. After the first tax cycle, the middle class would become the 10%.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
WTF do you keep making these unwinnable debates. You do realize that the stock market would crash completely?
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Why don't you just post in the forums instead of creating these unwinnable debates?
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
Relax, "Benshapiro". This isn't a win-lose debate. It's an exchange of ideas.

You're blocked from it, anyway.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
If whoever accepts has basic knowledge of economics this is a guaranteed loss for Pro.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
@aburk903 I'm talking 90% of their income, not the wealth they already have.
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
What you've proposed is impossible, as they would immediately become lower than the top 10%, leading to new taxation in a vicious cycle ending in a communist state.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
I would accept this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.