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

There Should Be an Estate 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,691 times Debate No: 44553
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




For topic background:

The estate tax is needed to increase government revenue and be sure that money is not inherited by children so that millions upon millions will only go from the wealthy to the wealthy.

We need an estate tax, ideally all tax revenue would go to education, so that money will not consolidate with wealthy families.

Therefore, we should institute an estate tax of 45% on those who have an inheritance of $800,000 or more.

This new tax revenue will lower the deficit and increase social mobility.

Respectfully submitted,


An estate tax is really horrific, considering that money from a dead family member is being taxed.

An estate tax is also quite inefficient in its purpose, as studies suggest that the expense to the government of collecting the estate tax is almost as high as the funds received from it, thus making it a highly inefficient way to get revenue.

However, I do agree that more tax could be set aside for education, but not from death.

I would propose a plan to divert some of the tax money used for the military on education and social mobility projects instead.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CON successfully argued an alternative approach to get money to education and social mobility. As a 1 round debate, PRO never got to respond to CON's contentions while CON was able to respond to all of PRO's. CON did not capitalise on this but still did decently enough to merit arguments. Neither side used sources. CON should have linked the study referenced. PRO had two grammatically confusing sentences (only mildly so, but in a debate this short, that's more than enough), so S&G go to CON. Both sides did well with conduct. In the future, I recommend making debates more than 1 round.