The Instigator
Sgt4Liberty
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Spartan9876
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 86951
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Sgt4Liberty

Con

There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more.

I saw this comment from Spartan9876, so I copied and pasted here to start a debate. Are you up challenge?

In your comment you state:

I argue that it is not just to have a society that has such inequalities (I am looking at you USA); there is no justification whatsoever for people to be left destitute while others have billions. There are two ways to correct such an issue: 1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or 2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class.

I will prove that your theory is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better.
Spartan9876

Pro

Well, I am not the best at openings however I will begin with this: The fact is flat tax does nothing in alleviating wealth inequalities; moreover, it also benefits the rich and hence the flat-tax is an unsuitable replacement for our progressive tax system.
I will further prove to you that progressive tax rates work; I have a plethora of examples.
Lastly, I will argue that our progressive tax system should not be scrapped in favour of a flat-tax.
Debate Round No. 1
Sgt4Liberty

Con

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I'm a noob here, so I need to get my three debates in to vote! As someone pointed out in the comments, we would be both arguing in favor of a Progressive Tax considering that our current tax system is in fact a Progressive Tax system. Therefore, I'll have to argue the fact that a flat tax is better than a Progressive Tax. I'm going to just reference your first two statements from a previous comment section.

"1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or "

First off, when has Nationalism ever throughout history equally distributed the property and wealth to all it's citizens (government citizens included)? Whenever governments have nationalized anything, the population in generally is all equally poor, and the government has the majority of the wealth. The incentive to work hard is taken away when people realize that the government would take what they earned and give it to others who didn't work for it. Here's a joke for you, but is a perfect example of what would happen under Nationalisation of Property and wealth.....

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com...

2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class.

Well, I don't think you've done taxes ever in your life. Otherwise you would realize that we already have a progressive tax system. The rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country, meanwhile the poor either pay nothing, or actually get tax refunds when paying nothing into it. So our current tax system, (being progressive) actually benefits the poor the most.

I believe a flat tax would be the most fair, because everyone would pay the same percentage across the board. So if you made more, the dollar amount would go up, but the percentage would stay the same. If you're poor, you would pay a LOT less, but would pay the same across the board.

This would actually help the economy greatly, because Companies wouldn't have to hire a bunch of lawyers to find ways to get tax deductions, and reduce their tax liability. They would be able to focus on building their companies and take care of their employees/workers, which would probably result in higher wages too (since they wouldn't have to pay expensive lawyers). Leaders in business know that the better you take care of your employees, the harder they'll work for the company. Win-win for everyone.

Well there's my 2 cents for what its worth and a few links to articles to support my stance.

http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.libertyunderfire.org...
Spartan9876

Pro

1) I agree.

2) This is where it get difficult.
2.1) Thank you for accusing me of never doing taxes, shows how accusatory you are. The funny thing is, your claim that I have never done my taxes is rested upon the fact that I claimed we did not have a progressive tax system. Since you accused me of something, I will accuse you of something; you must learn how to read. Take a close look at what I said in my intro: "I will argue that our progressive tax system should not be scrapped in favour of a flat-tax". See the word "our"?! That word implies that we are within a system that uses said tax institution; well, I am not an America, but I know you are (quite obvious actually). Moreover, Let us look at your into, shall we? You said my "my theory [of progressive tax] is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better". Since you are arguing for flat tax and you posited that you will prove how the American system is better than a progressive tax system, you are implying that America's does not use progressive tax. So, I will turn your comment upon yourself, I assume you have never done taxes.

2.2) A flat tax system is based off the ideal that everyone should pay the same taxes because it is fair. It is not fair. Let us say there exists a poor individual who makes $25,00.00 in Alabama and a richer individual who made $200,000.00. Moreover imagine a tax rate of 20%; the poor will make $20,000.00, whereas the richer individual will make $160,000.00. Tell me, will they suffer equally? No. The fact is, not only must the tax rate be equal, but the burden must also be equal. It makes sense for the process to be equal, but the outcome of said process must also be equal.
Debate Round No. 2
Sgt4Liberty

Con

think
verb
  1. 1.
    have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.
    "she thought that nothing would be the same again"
    synonyms: believe, be of the opinion, be of the view, be under the impression;
Just thought I'd bring your attention to this word, since I stated "Well, I don't think you've done taxes ever in your life". This statement is derived my perception of you having a lack of understanding how taxes work. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch over that, then you haven't lived much then.

So, let me get this right: In a flat tax situation where the guy making $25k, gets taxes $5k, and the guy making $200k gets taxes $40k and you don't think that's fair?? The guy making more, is paying more right? You think he needs to "SUFFER MORE" to make it fair? Have you ever taken an Economics class? (I don't want to assume, and get you all butt hurt).

What you're advocating is Socialism. At least there's a little free enterprise with our current progressive tax, but a progressive tax under socialism will never work. To make things simple and fun for the viewers, I'll put this college experiment below to read.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an "A" .... (substituting grades for dollars — something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a "B". The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a "D"! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an "F".

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.
Spartan9876

Pro

The two points I will be refuting are:
1) "So, let me get this right: In a flat tax situation where the guy making $25k, gets taxes $5k, and the guy making $200k gets taxes $40k and you don't think that's fair?? The guy making more, is paying more right? You think he needs to "SUFFER MORE" to make it fair? Have you ever taken an Economics class? (I don't want to assume, and get you all butt hurt). "
2) "What you're advocating is Socialism. At least there's a little free enterprise with our current progressive tax, but a progressive tax under socialism will never work. To make things simple and fun for the viewers, I'll put this college experiment below to read. "

I will respond to the second one with glee. I will stereotype you, thus generalise. You are a bloody libertarian American who is telling me what Socialism is. You make me laugh. Progressive tax rates do not equate to Socialism. Your media has brainwashed you as a kid since the McCarthy era over what 'Socialism' is. Socialism is a political-economic system, whereas a progressive tax system is merely just a tax policy. Il y a une difference, non? Ergo, please do not equate the two.

As for the second case; yes, I have a masters in economics. I know you will doubt me on this, but your doubt is founded on misinterpreting and not understanding my vernacular. The problem you are having within your argument is you are equating "suffering equally" to "suffering more"; that is not at all what progressive tax is about. It is about making everyone suffer equally and create a kind of surplus recycling mechanism. For the latter, when a nation does not have such mechanism, inequality rises tremendously fast. A flat-tax system can still contain such a mechanism; however, I am arguing a progressive tax system also has the added benefit of equity. As per the former, by if one has $1,000,000.00 and another has $25,000,000, having them both pay 5% of taxes will impact the latter person more than the former due to their already much smaller income. It is not about making the rich "suffer more" than the poor. It is about equalising the suffering; making both parties suffer equally.
Debate Round No. 3
Sgt4Liberty

Con

Sgt4Liberty forfeited this round.
Spartan9876

Pro

Again, I will repeat my argument.

A progressive tax system better equalizes the burden of taxation amongst income brackets and it better assists in the redistribution of wealth.
Debate Round No. 4
Sgt4Liberty

Con

Sgt4Liberty forfeited this round.
Spartan9876

Pro

Spartan9876 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sgt4Liberty 1 year ago
Sgt4Liberty
LOL, Dennisf is technically right, but I do agree that a flat tax is better than a progressive tax. So I'll stick to that @oreosarecool so that way we can have a legitimate debate.
Posted by OreosAreCool 1 year ago
OreosAreCool
How so? One is in favour of a flat-tax and another is for a progressive tax.
Posted by dennisf 1 year ago
dennisf
We currently have a progressive tx system so both of you are arguing for the same thing.
Posted by Spartan9876 1 year ago
Spartan9876
Man, I am busy; I will accept, but if I do not respond for long stretches, that is of no fault of my own.
No votes have been placed for this debate.