The Instigator
Sam4luck
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Friedman
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Will the Buffett Tax System be beneficial for the economy?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Friedman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 18443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Sam4luck

Pro

I believe that the Buffett Tax System will prove beneficial for the US and world economy because it will lead to a progressive system that will move towards a more balanced and shared economical existence. While many millionaires have argued against this and that according to the estimates from the Tax Policy Center, the average federal tax rates paid by people with incomes over 1million is about 29% while that of people with income between $50,000 to $75,000 is only about 15%, this policy will be aimed at people who are multi-millionaires and pay less tax than middle income group people and it is also a fact that these kind of millionaires are existing in numbers.
Friedman

Con

Hi,
I'm a newbie around here and would like to start by thanking the community and the site creators and managers for building this forum.
I object to this form of taxation on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the American ideals of humanity and the original ideal of equality in this country (i.e. the common link between all men, in the sense of the word as a species, being their own creation as men). How can a government founded thus be judging people by how much they make?
In addition it is mathematically and economically foolish to believe that this could enhance society or individuals. In systems ecology their is a single index called Ascendency (that is really how it is spelled) which represents a system's ability to persist and compete against other contending systems. This number has to do with the organized or useful flows (of energy and information) and the size of a system. As the organized flows increase if the overall complexity of the system remains the same of necessity the conditional flows (i.e. the conditional entropy or entropy resulting from flow choice by individual organisms in unique circumstances) will be diminished.
We could always throw some amount of freedom out the window, but the consequences of doing so are far graver than they first appear. For as a system becomes more deterministic in its flows it becomes brittle, and even small disturbances can cause it to fall. As the top of a literal food chain predators (especially omnivorous ones) provide these conditional flows very readily and as they become impeded the system will loose that overall complexity that allows it to function well in a myriad of circumstances. America's role in the expansion of the human system has been great as more people are included in better things and we begin to interact with more people on an individual level. To punish the strongest workhorses that have helped pull that wagon all this way will slow the improvement of conditions not only in America, but around the world.

If you want to see where I got the math principles look at this book: http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sam4luck

Pro

Hi Friedman,
I'm a newbie too.I would like to thank you for participating in this debate with me and also the website for providing us with this opportunity to interact.
I would like to talk about the American ideals of humanity and equality that you have touched upon. Even though I'm not from America,I'm pretty sure it means that every person should have equal rights and points alike that I'm sure you're well aware of. The Government of America is not for judging people by their income. It is a body that represents the nation on behalf of the people and does everything to safeguard their interest. By 'their', I mean each and every individual, be it a millionaire or a beggar. People pay taxes for the welfare of this body so that they get good returns in times of need. When a billionaire pays a part of his hard earned money to the Government as a tax, it means the same to him as it does to a person in the middle-income group. The motive of the Government is not to differentiate between these groups but to save the economy of the country from sinking. In a family, when some trouble crops up, all the people look up to the elder persons for support and help. Similarly, America can be considered as a family where, when considered with relation to the economy and its declining status, the Government has looked up to the 'elders' in the millionaires and billionaires to help it in its time of need. What needs to be curbed is the feeling of unevenness among the people on the basis of earnings and tax-payments. I see no reason for the billionaires to see inequality and diversity in this. In fact, they should take pride in the matter that they are able to contribute more to the development of the country, especially in times of such financial crisis.
To wind up my views in this particular argument, the workhorses that have pulled the 'wagon' are not at all being punished but are given more chances of saving their nation from facing an otherwise inevitable loss. It is only their privilege and a reward for their hard work and support to their nation as an integral part of it and its economy which they should respect. Warren Buffett did not propose this policy on the basis of nothing. He is a philanthropist. To quote the dictionary meaning of 'philanthropist', it means in simple language, "one who takes active part in promoting human welfare."
Friedman

Con

First, skipping over the pleasantries, the analogy of a family is inappropriate to the civil life of free men (meaning mankind). How free are children in a family? This varies family to family, but in the vast majority of cases they are much less free than any grown up would be content with. The whole point of government is that it is not a family to quote G. K. Chesterton in his treatise, What is Wrong with the World, "Now I take, as I have said, this small human omnipotence, this possession of a definite cell or chamber of liberty, as the working model for the present inquiry. Whether we can give every English man a free home of his own or not, at least we should desire it; and he desires it. For the moment we speak of what he wants, not of what he expects to get. He wants, for instance, a separate house; he does not want a semi-detached house. He may be forced in the commercial race to share one wall with another man. Similarly he might be forced in a three-legged race to share one leg with another man; but it is not so that he pictures himself in his dreams of elegance and liberty."
The collective nature of society that you suggest actually would replace what the home is, that small human omnipotence, as so eloquently defined by Chesterton. The nature of American government as conceived of by the founding fathers is one that says that we as a collective are separate people. The measure of American culture and personality is in reality a measure of a fundamental humanity, not of being British or French or German etc. as it is in other countries.
Next you speak of the opportunity that the "more fortunate", which I contend is not always the case with the wealthy in society, have to help their country, and I agree that they do have this opportunity. I disagree however that this is their opportunity. Tax are of necessity compulsory and therefore they have no opportunity to chose. If they gave of their own volition extra money they had to the government, I would personally question the prudence and efficacy of this move, but would be perfectly happy with their decision that they used their human richness (i.e. the richness of choice that they have as a human being) to make. This would be them caring for their brothers and sisters, as you put it, instead of the government using them to care for their brothers and sisters. Given this freedom they are humans in this respect and are not demoted to the status of tools in the hands of the state.
Debate Round No. 2
Sam4luck

Pro

Sam4luck forfeited this round.
Friedman

Con

I am truly sorry to see that my opponent has forfeited this third and final round of the argument. I was looking forward to his reply, but in lieu of the synergy between debaters I shall attempt to give you my best.
America is more than the legal status of a nation. It has been since its inception the bond between free individuals. As such no on is required to recognize it or help it or pay dues to it save in the practical world, but, however, in its essence in its true and strongest form it recognizes the freedom and equal opportunities of all.
The nature of America is that it should only require the minimum of its citizens to keep people free. In times of hardship or peril when it needs more than the minimum, it will find friends that can help it. The fear we feel in times of trouble need not debilitate us. Our longing for security needs to be checked by our love for freedom.
As Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" The same question can be applied to any situation.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Sam4luckFriedmanTied
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: Forfeit, unanswered arguments from Con.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Sam4luckFriedmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff