The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

To be played.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 4615
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

gahbage

Pro

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example.

Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on.

In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
Sweatingjojo

Con

READ HERE GAHBAGE!

I'm changing it up to give us more rounds. I'm gonna give you 3 topics for your round 2, and then you're going to pick which one, pick your side, and post your opening argument.
For My round 2, I post my opening.
Your Round 3, you post your rebuttal.
My Round 3, I post my rebuttal, and also I choose a different topic that I posted below, along with my side, and opening argument.
Your Round 4, You respond with your opening argument.
My Round 5, I rebutt your opening argument.
Your Round 5, You Rebutt my rebuttal.
My Round 5, I twiddle my thumbs, as it would be unfair to go again.

1. The Estate Tax, in its current form in the US, is appropriate. (For this, you can only be con, and I can only be pro)

2. Brothels (Whorehouses) should be legalized in the US.

3. That eliminating United States government budget deficits should be prioritized over increasing domestic spending. (November NFL P.F. Topic)
speaking of which, ray, you should join the debate team.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I'll pick resolution one and be Con.

I believe that the Estate Tax is currently inappropriate for the U.S. I'll use the definition of Estate Tax as shown here on debate.org; "Upon dying, a person's wealth should be taken by the government".

Contention 1: Government seizure of leftover wealth would interfere with that person's wishes on their will.

What if I were to will all my wealth to my [hypothetical] son, only to have it taken by the government? What financial problems may be caused for my son?

Contention 2: The government should keep its hands off my money.

What right does the government have to just take my money once I die? It is still mine, regardless if I am alive or dead, and I should be able to will it to whomever I choose.

Contention 3: The government would have different monetary intentions than me.

What if I was saving money to support my son? What would he do if the government took that money? What would the government use it for? Surely not what I intended.

That's all for now, folks.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Well Lets see, first I will begin by stating that it is inappropriate to use the definition as presented on this website because this definition is not representative of the current situation in the United States, as the resolution mandates.
A more accurate definition would be this "A tax assesed upon the estate of an individual post mortem."

I have two contentions to make before moving on to my opponent's argument.

1. The Estate Tax is only assessed when an individual's assets are over $2,000,000, or a couple's assets over 4,000,000. We aren't taxing just everyday folks, preventing them from giving some coin to their next of kin. We're taxing those who have a substantial amount of capital.

2. The Estate Tax is not assessed for wealth going to a spouse. The government isn't taking a cent away from a widow or widower.

Moving right along...

"Contention 1: Government seizure of leftover wealth would interfere with that person's wishes on their will.

What if I were to will all my wealth to my [hypothetical] son, only to have
it taken by the government? What financial problems may be caused for my son?"

The estate tax does not prevent anyone from willing money to any individual, it simply taxes part of that money.

If you willed all of your wealth to your son, and say your wealth was the bare minimum to be taxed, $2 million, then your son would have $1.1 million left. Certainly the only financial problems that your son may face include not being able to by a Ferrari. The existence of the estate tax ensures that there is a way for the government to bring in additional funds in a way that does not cause undue financial stress upon anyone.

"Contention 2: The government should keep its hands off my money.

What right does the government have to just take my money once I die? It is still mine, regardless if I am alive or dead, and I should be able to will it to whomever I choose."

The fact that you decide to live as a citizen in the United States is indication that you are in agreement with the idea that you will sacrifice some of your liberties to maintain an overall good. That is the idea of taxes as well. Give the government some money, so that we don't all die.

Also, it is commonly accepted that money has any value post mortem, regardless of if you believe you'll be in Heaven, Hell, or simply in a box 6 feet below the ground.

Yes, you can will it to anybody, but is it fair that person will get an exorbitant amount of money without working?

"Contention 3: The government would have different monetary intentions than me.

What if I was saving money to support my son? What would he do if the government took that money? What would the government use it for? Surely not what I intended."

If you think you can budget better than the current government, I would recommend you run for Congress.

Sure the government isn't interested in buying a Ferrari, but if you have a good relationship with your local Congressperson, I'm sure he can write an earmark so you can get a nice car.

All joking aside, the fact that you are a citizen in the United States indicates your consent to be taxed for the promotion of society.

If $1,100,000 isn't enough for your son, he must be an as$hole.
The government would use the taxed money for the federal budget, which you consent to by living here.

To finish, I'd like to quote former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who justifies the existence of the estate tax because it is "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich".
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

Oh I see. So not ALL the money is taken. Still, I believe any tax on this would be unreasonable.

"If you willed all of your wealth to your son, and say your wealth was the bare minimum to be taxed, $2 million, then your son would have $1.1 million left."

Even if my son were to receive a large sum of money, the government had nothing to do with that taxed 45%. Why should they decide to take my [possibly] hard-earned cash?.

"That is the idea of taxes as well. Give the government some money, so that we don't all die."

I [obviously] am for some sort of taxation, but some seem more reasonable than others. If I was already paying the income tax for my salary, why should I pay even more to pass it on. What is that, a tax for dieing? ("You fail at living, so we get your cash!") Why tax one object for two different reasons?

"Yes, you can will it to anybody, but is it fair that person will get an exorbitant amount of money without working?"

An interesting question, but you need to analyze what they will do with that money. Let's say my son gets all $2 million. What do you think he'll spend it on? Expensive land? Beneficial insurance? These must be taxed. With an expensive house comes expensive utility bills. His money will be gone no later than when most other people's will.

"If you think you can budget better than the current government, I would recommend you run for Congress."

Oh yeah? Watch me! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE! *laughs hysterically and runs away*

Just kidding. I meant that maybe my son needs some more money for his situation, but he might not get enough because the government gets some of it.

"To finish, I'd like to quote former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who justifies the existence of the estate tax because it is "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich"."

What's wrong with being rich? Last time I checked, America has a capitalist economy, not a communist one. Keeping one equal class system is not our goal here.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Sweatingjojo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

Hm...interesting...extend all my point across.

100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 cha
Sweatingjojo

Con

Sorry about phailing to reply in my allotted time.
But anyway, you're completely false.

"Even if my son were to receive a large sum of money, the government had nothing to do with that taxed 45%. Why should they decide to take my [possibly] hard-earned cash?."
I repeat, taxes of wealth by governments are used to create a conducive environment toward positive human existence.
If the government wasn't taxing and turning that revenue into results, then you would have had a much harder time accruing your wealth. No roads, no fair police force, no schools to be educated in, pretty much no nothing. And the creation of something out of nothing was done with taxes, which made you the wealthy person as you are. The Government supported you through your life, and its now time to return some wealth back to the government, if its over a certain amount. 2 Million Dollars. Once again, if you don't want to be taxed, then you should feel free to buy yourself an island and declare total sovereignty. Why should the government decide to take your possibly hard earned cash? Because they need it to create and maintain a conducive environment toward positive human existence.

"If I was already paying the income tax for my salary, why should I pay even more to pass it on. What is that, a tax for dieing? ("You fail at living, so we get your cash!") Why tax one object for two different reasons?"

The estate tax is not a punishment for death, just as the income tax isn't a punishment for earning money. Its a tax, and thats all. The money that one makes in life isn't always the money one makes in work. This maxim is especially true for the people who will end up with an estate worth more that two million dollars.
Think stocks, bonds, think properties. One tax is on income from work, the other is on the value of your estate post mortem.

"What do you think he'll spend it on? Expensive land? Beneficial insurance? These must be taxed. With an expensive house comes expensive utility bills. His money will be gone no later than when most other people's will."

He can spend it on whatever he wants to spend it on, after all you willed it to him. What you're saying has no logical value, using an assumption of how he may be taxed in the future as a reason why his wealth should stay untouched for now.

"Oh yeah? Watch me! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE! *laughs hysterically and runs away*"

You Lose.

"I meant that maybe my son needs some more money for his situation, but he might not get enough because the government gets some of it."

I'm sure that he can get that money for his situation by working, or as he seems to be already of higher means, using financial institutions to gain money.
And wouldn't it be nice if we could all just keep all of the money that we work oh so hard for?
Well it wouldn't, because humans are naturally self interested people, and then the earth would go to crap. Governments are, of varying degrees, of the people, and with that, they ensure that society if conducive to that nation's population.

"What's wrong with being rich? Last time I checked, America has a capitalist economy, not a communist one. Keeping one equal class system is not our goal here."
Argumentum ad Communism.

I'm not saying that there can't be rich people, but there shouldn't just be as$ lazy rich people, as would be allowed if some of their accrued wealth was not taxed.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

"The Government supported you through your life, and its now time to return some wealth back to the government, if its over a certain amount."

I've been paying the government back already through income tax. Why pay an extra something when I die? I understand taxes are necessary, but this "luxury tax" is just a unnecessary tax on my total profits.

"Think stocks, bonds, think properties. One tax is on income from work, the other is on the value of your estate post mortem."

Is that necessary, though? How much money is actually made from the estate tax? And almost (if not completely) everything on my estate is taxed anyway.

"He can spend it on whatever he wants to spend it on, after all you willed it to him. What you're saying has no logical value, using an assumption of how he may be taxed in the future as a reason why his wealth should stay untouched for now."

You brought up the fact that he gets extra money without paying for it, and I said that it doesn't matter because whatever he uses it on will be taxed anyway.

"You Lose."

Not yet XD

"Argumentum ad Communism.

I'm not saying that there can't be rich people, but there shouldn't just be as$ lazy rich people, as would be allowed if some of their accrued wealth was not taxed."

Whatum does that meanum?

And I agree, lazy @$$ rich people are not good. However, due to taxes already in place, their money will diminish soon enough, and they will have to work for more.
Sweatingjojo

Con

I'm gonna be fast this time, because I'm starting to feel that we are beating a dead horse.

Taxes are only seemingly unnecessary when one don't benefit. C'est la vie. Not everything that our government does is custom tailored just for you.

The US gains tens of billions of dollars each year through the current estate tax design. That's a decent bit, and without it, the government would be deeper in debt. (The argument of reducing spending is non resolutional, so it can't be used.)
45% is less than everything, actually its less than half.

"You brought up the fact that he gets extra money without paying for it, and I said that it doesn't matter because whatever he uses it on will be taxed anyway."
It does matter, because it won't be taxed anyway.

It means that I noticed your use of comparing something to communism to make it seem like it is more wrong.

Financial institutions and good management could lead to one's wealth going on forever, with no necessary maintenance. That's what the estate tax is for.

Thanks for debating me, hopefully we'll find something more invigorating for next time.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I got smash'd.

25 characters
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Don't forget about this one either. =X
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
On a side note, you know you're rebuttal's not good enough when it's shorter than your opponent's last round rebuttal.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Yours, for successfully refuting my points. Curse you and your superior knowledge of the American/Capitalist economy and government!
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
yes well whose fault is that?
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I hate it when you start debating, and then suddenly you change your mind on the resolution. >.<
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Before I read your argument I just want to say that I'm expecting to get destroyed. XD Remember, I called it. haha
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
damn straight that was a weak opening.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Meh...weak opening.

25 characters.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Interesting way to debate.

And I'm not sure if I'll join the team yet.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03