The Instigator
meitme
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate

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 3 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 36491
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

meitme

Pro

The idea is that the top payroll tax for people should esentialy be targeted at the tax optimizing rate. We are going to need many more tax brackets to achieve this system. For this debate this will mean the government will attempt to estimate the tax optimizing tax rate for income above 1 billion dollars. Then all income above 1 billion dollars will be taxed at that rate. Tax rates will then be phased down below that level.

Format:

Round 1: Definitions and Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Summarize the round. No new arguments.

EDIT: It seems I didn't define the tax optimizing rate. The tax optimizing rate is the rate at which increasing the percentage of tax decreases the total amount of tax money you receive. The idea is that at some level of taxation people's incentive to work declines so quickly that when you increase the tax rate you decrease the amount of tax collected.
Contra

Con

I accept this debate to hold the position of Con.

I'll argue that we should have a limited government that fulfills its legitimate, consitutional functions. With such a small government, the taxes imposed on the citizens would be relatively light.

Thus, when faced with the choice of maximizing revenues or operating a limited, constrained government, the second option should be taken.
Debate Round No. 1
meitme

Pro

meitme forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

Government should be limited, and its scope shall extend only to protect the fundamental
rights of Americans to their life, liberty, and their property; as well as to adjudicate
any disputes that may arise through the judicial system.

The taxes required to fund such a government would be relatively light.

With a laissez-faire economic policy, government would foster prosperity and a
flourishing society. People would have higher incomes which would allow individuals to spend, save, and invest
more.

Businesses would be free to compete, expand, and invest in capital. With capital accumulation, America would have more production and a higher capacity to produce more goods – thus there would
be higher output and therefore America would be wealthier and enjoy a higher
standard of living (GDP).

These assertions have been empirically proven by the National Bureau of Economic
Statistics [1].

So the wealthy can invest in ways that improve their own financial situations, as well
as raising the standards of living for other Americans. If General Motors invests in advanced capital
which raises its output, and expands its operations, more employees are hired,
society is wealthier and economic growth occurs.

I believe my opponent will forfeit the following rounds so that explains my short arguments.

[1] NBER Working Paper Series; "Solow and
the States: Capital Accumulation, Productivity, and Economic Growth", PDF.

Debate Round No. 2
meitme

Pro

meitme forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

I guess I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
meitme

Pro

meitme forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

This should be an easy decision... vote Contra.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by meitme 3 years ago
meitme
The criteria has been changed.
Posted by Jackdaw 3 years ago
Jackdaw
Thank you for the clarification. I attempted to challenge the debate but I received this message:

You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria.

Would it be possible to change the criteria? Also, to be clear the challenger would have to be opposed to a tax optimizing rate, and it is in the scope of the federal rates correct?
Posted by meitme 3 years ago
meitme
Thanks, I clarified that part. If you want any more clarifications or changes in the rules I will happily oblige.
Posted by Jackdaw 3 years ago
Jackdaw
I suggest being more clear about what you mean by Tax optimizing Rate. If you reword your introduction, then I will be happy to debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
meitmeContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
meitmeContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
meitmeContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.