The Instigator
PierceTheGreat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

There should be a progressive tax system

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...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 65259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

PierceTheGreat

Pro

I belive there should be a progressive tax rate becuase someone who is sucsseful in socitey should give more back to help others that are less sucsseful. It would also benifit the middle and working class, while lowering income inequility. This is especially true if taxation is used to fund progressive government spending such as transfer payments and social safety nets. Studys also show that countrys with a prpgresive tax system are happier.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

Thank you con for that.

Seeing as there are no guidelines I’ll take round 2 as opening statements and further rounds as rebuttals.

I will be upholding 3 contentions.

P1)Fairness and equality.
Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.


P2) Simplicity.
A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer.


P3) Economic success.
I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.

Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable.

If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.

This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.

Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product.

Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.

This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect.

Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays.

That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government.

Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success.

We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.

Sources.
1.Logic


I look foward to my opponents rebbuttals.

Debate Round No. 1
PierceTheGreat

Pro

P1)Fairness and equality
Why do you assume that just becuase they have more money they work harder. Alot of people who are weathy inheritied or are born into their economical situation. Simlar to those of the working class. Its not becuase their lazy , its becuase they where put in a bad situation. And i dont really get how that would be fair to the working class either, why should they have to pay as much as someone whos weathy? You have to look at the bigger picture and relize that 1,000$ to someone who is weathy
isnt the same to someone who has less money;the 1,000$ to the person with less money is alot more to them than to someone thats weathy.

P2) Simplicity
I honastly dont think a progressive tax is that much harder to understand.

P3) Economic success
You mention higher prices to buy products. But the middle class would have much more money to pay for these products due to not paying as much in taxes. Its that simple. Now you say that the rich would use this money to increase their business. But ypu cant assume they will do that. Why would they do that when they could just move their head quarters out of the country and not pay taxes period. This is a very common buisness practice that many deem unethical. Burger king is doing that now to avoid paying taxes. Now if we put restrictions on that with a flat tax you still cant make the assumtion that they will use that money to create jobs. Why? Becuase their is so many other proftible ways to use that money.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PierceTheGreat

Pro

A progressive tax system carry significant benefits to economically disempowered households . These households are not working class because they are "lazy", many are working on minimum wage to support their families. A progressive tax also allows a government to collect more in tax revenue to support, education and medical assistance. Also this tax system will allow small businesses to collect more income by placing a less of a tax on them. This same rule applies to households while stimulating the economy, due to the increased purchasing power of households through saved money. This increased power will increase businesses income.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PierceTheGreat

Pro

PierceTheGreat forfeited this round.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

p1.Dosent matter how they aquired the money or income its theirs. Its not fair to take more from them less from others.

2.Yes it is.
Progressive vs one simple flat tax.

3. No they would not beacuse they would have less jobs providing less income.


I will be upholding 3 contentions.

P1)Fairness and equality.
Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.


P2) Simplicity.
A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer.


P3) Economic success.
I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.

Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable.

If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.

This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.

Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product.

Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.

This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect.

Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays.

That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government.

Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success.

We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.

Sources.
1.Logic

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TF2PRO 2 years ago
TF2PRO
PierceTheGreatimsmarterthanyou98Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Easy win for con.