The Instigator
Mfuss
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dude100
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Would lowered governmental taxes lead to an increased standard of living in the long term?

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: 4/12/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 89552
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

Mfuss

Pro

I will be voting in favor of government taxes being lowered, in turn standard of living will be increased in the long term.

Please note that the long term is to be defined as: A time period greater than ten years.

Round 1:
The first round will be for acceptance & posting of common definitions used.

Round 2:
This will be for the initial arguments from each side.

Round 3:
Round three is for rebuttals to the second rounds arguments.

Round 4:
The final round will be for closing rebuttals/arguments.

Government taxes to include: Federal Income Tax, State and/or Local Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Unemployment Tax, Foreign Tax, and Value-Added Tax.

These are defined as below:

Federal Income Tax: A tax levied by a national government on annual income.

State and/or Local Income Tax: A tax levied by a state or local government on annual income. Not all states have implemented state level income taxes.

Payroll Tax: A tax an employer withholds and/or pays on behalf of their employees based on the wage or salary of the employee. In most countries, including the United States, both state and federal authorities collect some form of payroll tax. In the United States, Medicare and Social Security, also called FICA, make up the payroll tax.

Unemployment Tax: A federal tax that is allocated to state unemployment agencies to fund unemployment assistance for laid-off workers.

Foreign Tax: Income taxes paid to a foreign government on income earned in that country.

Value-Added Tax: A national sales tax collected at each stage of production or consumption of a good. Depending on the political climate, the taxing authority often exempts certain necessary living items, such as food and medicine from the tax.

Standard of living: A standard of living is the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area.

Assumptions:
The taxes are to be lowered on a 10% of there current rate basis, and increase with inflation and float rates. State taxes will be used as a mass average of 7.212% for all states, and the decrease in the tax rate would lower it to 6.4908%.

Please change definitions of the taxes added if you are unsatisfied with the definitions above.

I look forward to debating a person with 'advanced education.'
dude100

Con

The reason why I say no is because long ago in the United States, business was taxed less based on the same reason why people today believe business should be taxed less, which is because of the "Trickle down economics theory." This economic theory is based on the idea that business will invest in other business which will invest in other people/businesses ect... Which is logical but there are a few very large flaws with this theory. For example because taxes were low, monopolies came into existence, not that they don't still exist, but they exploited people even worse than how they're exploiting people now. So to combat this we the people developed labor unions which in turn did practically nothing because the companies which existed were the sole providers of jobs/ merchandise. They controlled everything. Big businesses had too much power as a result of lack of restriction (Taxes to be distributed for the people). this is because they weren't taxed as much. it didn't stop until people started violent riots in the street, death threats ect... back then your 8 year old daughter would work in the sweat shop just to help put food on the table and when she got her fingers cut off she was simply fired because she was no longer productive. You can see that business thrives on unemployment because people were expendable. It was only after increased taxes, the breaking of companies, and socialized policies, that the standard of living in the United States increased. Now that we've seen what business does with its freedom (less taxes) we know that we can't trust businesses to do the "right thing" with their money. Ill give you another example, Outsourcing is a more modern way in which businesses have started exploiting people not only in other countries but here in america as well. After the labor unions of the USA established the necessity of labor laws, businesses decided to do the same thing they did to America, only to a different country. A great example would be china. This is where the trickle down economics theory backfires, being able to invest in labor that's dirt cheap overseas to produce mass quantities of product makes you a sole provider of merchandise because you can afford to sell it cheap in america. This directly exploits the people of other countries, and indirectly exploits the people of the USA. How you ask? well since all the blue collar jobs have left and gone to China and India, Americans are forced to go into debt for merchandise which they no longer afford because they're no longer employed. And people wonder why corporations go bankrupt. Consider this, if we didn't socialize fireman they would stand outside your home and negotiate the price it would cost to put out the flames before going in to save your children. That's capitalism no government restriction. However, as is they're socialized so we don't have to worry about that, phew! that gives me some peace of mind. All laws which restrict business are called socialized policies in other words rules that businesses have to follow like minimum wage, benefits, workers compensation ect... However those things don't matter much if a company doesn't need to employ you. once again big business thrives on unemployment because you are just as expendable as anyone else. The only way to make yourself less expendable is to get an education which nobody can afford right now because the prices are too high. In short, the only thing that can save the USA is a very large increase in taxes to keep business in check whilst simultaneously funding our necessities like sustenance, shelter, insurance, and quality education. On a side note insurance companies should be labeled as unethical business practices because they are profiting on the misfortune of others, There's no incentive to pay your claims because they'll lose money and when they do pay your claims they'll just jack up your rates all the while not caring that your house just burned down or your spouse just passed they don't care as long as they can make profit or reduce loss of profit. In my personal opinion all insurance companies should be socialized.
Debate Round No. 1
Mfuss

Pro

While I can see the merit to ceratin points in the Cons argument, I can simply not accept the fallacy that “…business thrives on employment because people were expendable.” The fact that you believe a business in the industrial era could function, nay thrive, on employment brings into question a general understanding of business procedures via a manufacturing platform. A company in the industrial era needed workers to run their business otherwise there would be no production, as the industry has a very low barrier to entry (few skills being required) there will indeed be a very large supply of workers which can indeed replace a worker if there is an opening. While I do not agree with the treatment of workers in this era, I would argue that a job on a plant floor increased their standard of living through giving the family more disposable income to spend on demand elastic items that would improve the overall standard of living.

“Now that we have seen what business does with freedom (less taxes)…”

I would also like to reference that the monopolies I believe you reference (Standard Oil & US Steel) were in a zero corporate tax period, not “less taxes”, which is indeed the argument we are having. [1.]

“Outsourcing is a more modern way in which businesses have started…”

The outsourcing of labor does hurt the blue collar workers whom of which do not progress with the job demand of the overall economy. Of course there will be low skill labor lost, what replaces it is a far nicer thing that requires a higher barrier to entry, certain skills, that cannot be replicated on an assembly line nor by machinery. I would advise the blue collar workers to work on maintenance and repair of aforementioned machines, they will not only keep themselves employed but will likely move to a higher standard of living. The workers are unemployed through lack of action, a person who can only perform tasks on an assembly line is not someone who needs be employed. A worker must evolve with the overall industrial market to still merit themselves a job, and a higher paid, higher skilled job at that.

“The only way to make yourself less expendable is to get an education which nobody can afford right now because the prices are too high.”

This is one interesting idea, while I partially agree with your statement I strongly reject the latter half of that statement. The idea that you need formal education to be successful in the future is completely insensible. There are many jobs which require little to no education with openings right now. (See Figure 1) [2.] Several of these jobs prefer an associate’s degree from a community college which on average in the US now is currently $2,076 for a full year, bringing the total for an associate’s degree to $4152.00. [3.]

“…the only thing that can save the USA is a very large increase in taxes to keep businesses in check…”

This is something that is interesting as I would presume you may be veering slightly off topic and looking to increase the corporate tax rate, to ‘keep businesses in check.’ I don’t want to break your disillusion however the United States has a far higher corporate tax rate than near next to any other industrialized nation other than Japan. Lowering the corporate tax rate will allow the United States to be more competitive, increase the standard of living and increase overall economic development. [4.]

Sources:

1.] http://taxfoundation.org...

2.] http://www.bls.gov...

3.] http://www.bankrate.com...

4.] http://ratecoalition.com...

OCCUPATION

GROWTH RATE, 2014-24

2014 MEDIAN PAY

Wind turbine service technicians

108%

$48,800 per year

Occupational therapy assistants

43%

$56,950 per year

Physical therapist assistants

41%

$54,410 per year

Physical therapist aides

39%

$24,650 per year

Home health aides

38%

$21,380 per year

Commercial divers

37%

$45,890 per year

Nurse practitioners

35%

$95,350 per year

Physical therapists

34%

$82,390 per year

Statisticians

34%

$79,990 per year

Ambulance drivers and attendants, except emergency medical technicians

33%

$24,080 per year

Occupational therapy aides

31%

$26,550 per year

dude100

Con

"Foreign profits held overseas by U.S. corporations to avoid taxes at home nearly doubled from 2008 to 2013 to top $2.1 trillion, said a private research firm's report, prompting a call for reform by the Senate's top tax law writer." - just because the corporate tax rate is high doesn't mean that their profits are actually being "taxed" with all that extra money which is currently being held over seas, we could afford to pay for quality education, insurance, paying off student loans and other debts ect... The fact remains that if there is a way for a corporation to legally cheat the system they will certainly do it. Fun and games are over, it's time for the US to collect, and for the public to crush those corporations beneath our heel and set the ground rules for their continued existence. Think about this, all companies which have been "bailed out" why the US government were payed for by US tax dollars. Technically these companies should be owned by the public after all we did just purchase them. Last I checked I haven't received a check in the mail from GM nor has it been added to my tax return. "Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost. According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years. During 2010 it got even worse. Last year, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day shut down in the United States. According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation." - Though you are correct about service and creative class on the rise in the USA which require "less education" not "no education", this does not make up for all the people left behind. The growth rate of those occupations is not enough to compensate the rate of loss from manufacturing jobs. The growth rate of those occupations go up a maximum of 12% a year in recent projections. This doesn't compensate for the massive loss from manufacturing jobs in the US. How can we expect that all those people to go back to school so that they can get a job, when in the mean time they have no means of supporting themselves. I remain firm in my argument that less business regulation will be the death of our country. The middle class is taking a huge hit because...
- "More than 75% of students required to take remedial classes never graduate"
-"A high school graduate earns 84% less than a typical graduate from a four-year college"
-"50% of college dropouts have incomes lower than $35,000"
-"Those without a college degree are twice as likely to be unemployed as those with one"
With an increasing lack of education in the United States, less than 30% of each generation will have sustainable jobs and each generation after that, think about it, 30% of 30% of 30% of the middle class will have sustainable jobs based on education rates. unemployment will get exponentially worse in the United States.

in conclusion the combination of corporations greedily hoarding their money overseas where we don't have access to it, as well as diminishing education rates, the massive loss in manufacturing jobs all add up to a country of people where the cost of living continues to go up while average income per person continues to go down. The observable fact that corporations have been legally avoiding their taxes overseas should prove to you the necessity of restricting said corporations from cheating the system. As you can see there's a huge hole in the "trickle down economics theory" and all of our money is being thrown into it never to return... the best we can do is make sure that it doesn't happen again in the future. There's no way to tax all that money now because it's within the jurisdiction of another country. Why do we restrict businesses because they cheat. You wouldn't want our soldiers to be mercenaries right? we don't allow them to set the price of their services (capitalism & no taxes) they fight because it's the right thing to do and they get paid what they get paid (socialism & taxes). Firefighters don't negotiate the price it's going to take to put out the flames (Capitalism & no taxes) they just do it because it's the right thing to do(Socialism & taxes) they get paid what they get paid. Police officers don't set the price of their services and then go on strike when terrorists gather hostages because we didn't pay them enough(Capitalism & no taxes) they just do it because it's the right thing to do (socialism & taxes). Don't you think other things should fall under this moral category? what about insurance? Currently in the form of profitable industries (Capitalism) theres no incentive to pay your claims and even if they do they always jack up your rates for it unless you're already paying a ridiculous price for their more advanced plans (not feasible :/ for the average american). All insurance companies profit on the misfortune of others (personally I consider this an unethical business practice). When bad things happen they'll look for every excuse not to pay for it. Socialism is a matter of business ethics, I have no problem with billionaires making tons of money as long as the process doesn't diminish the standard of living for our people. Let them be rich I don't care as long as it's not at the expense of the people which falls under the category of tyrants and dictators. We the people have a history of being.... unfriendly to those types of people.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.citylab.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mfuss

Pro

Mfuss forfeited this round.
dude100

Con

ill just reiterate what I wrote in the comments section since you forfeited the round

On your list of occupations some are not feasible for living in this country the least that people have to pay now days is $2000 (including bare minimum insurance) a month this however doesn't include other things like children and school. If someone gets a job as an aide or an ambulance driver their average income even with good credit would make it extremely difficult to buy a home as a single person and exceedingly more difficult to raise a child let alone pay for an education to better themselves. Even earning $30,000 - $35,000 a year is pushing your luck.

your projection of the price on education for the average cost of an associate's degree in a community college is misleading. That price is actually dependent on a number of factors such as where you live, what your income is, how far is your commute?, how much is financial aid offering, how much did you get in scholarships. I would like to add that only a small fraction of people get aid when going to school many people can't qualify and not everyone can get scholarships. this leaves the majority of people behind because those people need money that they don't have. You could get a job but oh wait there aren't any, the very jobs your suggesting these people acclimate themselves to are currently unavailable because they don't even have enough money to go to community college in order to get the job in which you're suggesting. You could get a loan but oh wait you can't because your credit is in the dumps because the lack of income has prevented payments. These people have to put food on the table, take care of their families and you make getting them acclimated appear simple as if everyone could do it. On a similar note what happens when there aren't any of those jobs left? Say everybody did exactly what you suggested, they all managed to get an education and they all qualify for a position. There aren't enough positions for everybody. This is a fact not a theory. There is not a job per person in the united states. Also on another note a great alternative would be to join the military in order to provide additional help in paying for an education, but oh wait even the military is rejecting applicants because even they can't afford it.

Needless to say America has become a place where people are expendable and we know it. The united States is a country where fortune favors the selfish and we all know it because we're forced to step on anyone who gets in the way of a better future. when you're going to community college, and you go to see your math professor, everybody is always there. In the room it's always crowded and you have to fight to receive help on your work. there are only so many hours in a day your teacher might not even get to see you that day better luck next time. At work we fight for promotions, people play the race card to get what they want, my sister wanted to become an OT and she couldn't afford school so she needed a loan. Fortunately for my family we're taught street smarts and she always breaks down into tears to make them feel guilty lol. Hey it works not joking but on a more serious note we shouldn't have to do things like that to get to where we're going. Im happy to say she's an OT now but she's going to spend the next 20 years paying off her debt, that's messed up. She shouldn't have had any debt for a job that benefits society. I can understand why people should pay for electives and archeology and history, but when it comes to health fields and science/ technology fields those should be free because those jobs are what this country is reliant on.
Debate Round No. 3
Mfuss

Pro

Mfuss forfeited this round.
dude100

Con

This argument has pretty much moved to the comments section please check the comments section to see the further argument.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
Instead of fighting each other in competition, we would work together. Competition would be reserved for material wants rather than material necessities. So less worry about making ends meet and more focus on the prize ahead. Happy production :).
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
It's a simple matter of business ethics because if you're a Hospital, and you save lives, and you profit on this or perhaps you monopolize it, then you can jack up the prices as high as you want and nobody can do anything about it because you become the sole provider of life saving people/ equipment. This means that you could deny care to a patient because the patient can't pay up. This means you could force people to choose which finger to get stitched back on because their insurance will only cover 2 out of 3 fingers lost. Insurance companies don't pay for "an act of god." which means if you get hit by a natural disaster, insurance won't replace anything lost. Completely unethical. Many people spend their entire lives paying for an insurance that will not insure them when they need it the most. Insurance profits on the misfortune of others. Bare necessities should be a given as an American. Employment should be provided by the state for those who can't find employment anywhere else. I don't believe in a welfare system I believe in paying taxes to put those people to work. Come up with projects that need to be done. last I checked we were still recovering from 9-11 and Katrina. You're saying that paying taxes for all repairs isn't worth it? How about rebuilding our entire trade center for starters, bigger and better than before. How about turning New Orleans into a bigger better port for more trade than ever before. We need more tradable labor in our country so how about building some charter schools for software engineers. That is the future of all countries building a world where everything is at our fingertips. By paying more taxes and empowering the public, we the people could achieve incredible things. And here's the kicker, paying taxes to employ people, to rebuild the trade center, is Socialism. But because we have insurance instead, our country looks weak. All because people would rather keep a little extra money in their pockets.
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
Simple Business ethics that's all I ask for. I would rather pay higher taxes for security and health then allow other companies and corporations to set the price for my well-being. Examples of everything we pay for that I believe the public should have control over are sustenance, shelter, insurance, military, and education. That's ethical because then safety, security, health, and education become guaranteed aspects of being an American citizen. Don't you want those things for your kids? but maybe you don't care about other people's kids. Maybe you don't care about our people. In a society where everything is competitive somebody always has to lose. Thats all great until people lose their homes or they can't even afford groceries. That's when we americans should say enough, it's not fun anymore. It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
pro 7- are you kidding? mankind has been doing this throughout history like in ancient Rome and even in modern day I'll give you some examples.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
pro 6- So what's the alternative? technically if we allowed our military to set it's prices, then whoever has the most money has ALL THE POWER if you don't agree with them, they have the strongest fighting force and they'll just kill you. There's no argument required when you have the biggest guns because nobody can fight you. Nobody would be able to stand against them. A mercenary's loyalty is to his paycheck not his country. They are like pawns for the highest bidder, it's completely unethical to both civilians and soldiers. They'll kill for money not for justice. Not even congress knows the details of their contracts, we have no way of knowing whether or not they're helping our enemies.

http://www.salon.com...
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
pro 5- Im not sure what you're trying to show me bc you link isn't working could you post it again plz? anyway's ill show you some more statistics on the subject.

https://www.dosomething.org...

http://www.politifact.com...

http://visual.ly...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.utexas.edu...
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
pro 4- it's slowly getting better but there are a couple of HUGE details that your data neglected to mention. 1 quality of jobs, as I stated before we're still payed less, just because there are more jobs doesn't mean that they compensate for income lost. 2 the manufacturing community had a HUGE labor union which forced increases in salary which heavily contributed to trickle down economics. As is, we're trading higher paying jobs for lower paying jobs. 3 part-time vs full-time not a lot of full-time jobs, why? because they require benefits. 4 tradable labor vs non-tradable labor, manufacturing jobs were tradable labor and we cut a lot of them in favor of the non-tradable labor jobs you've suggested.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu...

http://www.economicpopulist.org...
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
Pro 3- I read the paper on fee.org it's a complete fallacy, those increased wages represent the "increase" in wages today which don't account for inflation. example $6 an hour in 1950 is over $60 an hour today, 6$ an hour in 1970 is over $35 an hour today, $6 an hour in 1980 is over 18 dollars an hour today, $6 an hour in 1990 would be 11.25 today. until recently minimum wage was less than $9 an hour in every state. It also doesn't account for the cost of living today but you say oh don't worry about it, just lower taxes and things will get better we just have to let all those people starve for the next few decades while things pick up. Ummmm our corporations are the primary suppliers of merchandise which means we have little choice but to buy at the price they set. There's no getting around the fact that our corporations ARE the economic superpower of the United States less taxes will make it easier for the power to be tipped into their favor even more. Last I checked this country believes in checks and balances. So now you're saying that we should just let them do their thing even though it's clear how corrupt they are? What do you see in our future? currently they control the majority of our jobs (income) as well as our merchandise (Cost). They control EVERYTHING, and your asking the public to give up what little control we have? nonsense
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
pro 2- through you are correct we're talking about taxes, this is still related. As I said before we shouldn't be paying for something that isn't our problem, the public shouldn't pay for things that are on the list wall streets mistakes. It doesn't reinforce your statement that we should get rid of taxes, that seems like a childish thing to do. We need to empower the US citizens by distributing taxes amongst the publics needs. It's a matter of business ethics your alternative suggests that we create a hierarchy system in America where people continue to have a lack of equal opportunity. You choose to leave innocent generations behind the few people who actually represent our future. You prefer To keep a little extra money in your pocket which would otherwise go to the greater good. The only reason why it would be "cataclysmic" is because they allow it to be, they could have easily payed out of pocket but the public payed for it instead.
Posted by dude100 7 months ago
dude100
yea sorry about the links for some reason even a few of your links aren't working.

pro 1- Those corporations being held over seas are listing their profits as "foreign profits" which is technically true but alas the profits aren't being taxed for our country and all that money which would normally be taxed is going into their accounts but it's not coming back out. The fact remains it puts a huge strain on trickle down economics because not a single dime is being put back into circulation within the united states. That which is taxed is not used for what we want to use otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.