The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

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: 11/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 81073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




we spend 3.5 trillion a year. our deficit is like half a trillion.

we can only find insufficient things to cut. you can rail against things like the department of education or depart of housing etc, but you will find you are talking about small fries. we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance. to oversimplify s the proportions aren't quite that and mroe could be added to say healthcare. that means cutting those departments is cutting a fraction of the budget. you could cut general governance in half, and it'd only be like ten percent of our budget. paying for the poor as the major problem is a myth as hte feds only spend not much beyond ten percent on them.

reputable sources say our debt is manageable.... but it won't be forever. we need to balance the budget. cutting entitlements ain't gonna work politically. cutting general governance will only take you so far. the poor as the problem is a myth. we've been borrowinng against our future so long that it's starting to catch up with us. it isn't all that politically feasible, but increasing taxes is the most politically feasible thing to do.
and it's not like this is without precedent. our tax rates have been much hghe on a regular basis in the past.


Balancing the budget by raising taxes is like curing the disease by killing the patient. There is actually a much simpler solution to this problem; repudiation. While to renege on a debt which is owed privately is in fact tantamount to theft, this is not the case with public debt. After all, the primary revenue stream for the state is taxation. Taxes are collected under penalty of incarceration. Since it is a violent act to take a man against his will and lock him up in a prison, it is only through the use of coercion that the public debt will be repaid and it is wrong to raise money through threat of violence. We all condemn the mugger for threatening to beat someone up if they do not hand over their wallet but if we are to be consistent in our moral principles then we must also condemn the government for using this same business model.

Raising taxes will only funnel more money into endless war, government bureaucracy and interest groups. The responsible thing to do is to cut taxes and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. This would create political pressure on politicians to cut spending and without such confiscatory tax rates the economy would have more room to grow.
Debate Round No. 1


con gives no real solutions.

but as to repudiation. is that moral? no. con lambasts taxes because it is theft he says, but he's okay with some just not a lot apparently? if a little is okay, a little more isn't necessarily so bad either. and repudiation is just as bad as theft cause it's not paying back what you owe... sure there's no taxes forcibly being collected, but it's still wrong.


Let me be clear : I am completely opposed to taxation. There is no such thing as a good tax, and if I could press a button today to shut down the government and end taxation immediately, I would push such a button.

Let's look at the difference between private debt. You lend me $200. Maybe I need to get my car fixed so I can go to work. I then go to my job, work for a while, and save up the money to pay you back. Here this is a healthy process. The debt is voluntary and constructive, so far no problem.

But what happens with public debt? An organization loans the government money, which is spent on war, giving to some favoured group or on interventions which stifle economic growth at home, with the understanding that the state will use it's power of taxation to mulct some unsuspecting sap of their money and pay them back. This is quite a different thing indeed. Instead of a healthy, voluntary activity this is a criminal conspiracy. The creditor knows full well that the government will use coercion to repay them. They're in on it; so if they get stiffed because the debt is repudiated, then that's what they deserve.
Debate Round No. 2


con says no taxes are justifiable. this just puts him in the category of a loon. a radical to say the least. how else are basic government functions suppose to be paid for? even the most ardent libertarians i know think there's some basic governance that's justifiable and hence a ittle tax is okay. his view more puts him into the category of an anarchist.

con says the people that loan to the government are in on the governments crimes. again almost no one thinks it's a crime to tax people... high taxes, maybe. but aside from that, even if i loan you a hundred dollars to buy drugs you still should pay me back. i dont know if a court would enforce it, but it's still the moral thing to do.
con is just trading on questionably moral thing for another questionably moral thing. id say he's going to a worse morality at that.

again con offers no real solutions. at least to the common man and no extremist fringe politics that he pushes.


It's simple, necessary services such as roads and police can and should simply be supplied by the market. This is the inescapable logical conclusion to accepting that it is wrong to use aggressive violence to get what you want. If you denounce aggressive violence (and you should), and if you subscribe to the principle of universality [(that if it is wrong for one to act, it is wrong for all to act)and you should], then you must oppose also oppose taxation and the state.

It is a crime to tax people. You are saying to them 'give us your money, or we will hurt you'. This is quite literally the crime of extortion. This is the business model of the mafia. Pay your protection money or we will break your legs. Pay your taxes or you will rot in a cage surrendered by criminals. I agree, a personal loan of $100 to buy drugs (or to do anything) should be repaid. Drug buying may be 'malum prohibitum' but it is not 'malum in se'. But if I loan you $100, on the understanding that you will pay me back $125, which you will obtain by stealing the purses of old ladies, then I am scum for making this deal and deserve to get stiffed. Similarly, if I loan the government money with the understanding that they will threaten people with incarceration in order to take their hard earned income, then I deserve to get stiffed.

Do the responsible thing. Cut or better yet eliminate the taxes.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 2 years ago
Economics ,as far as a government, is slightly different than individual economics. You can't raise taxes on people whose income is collected. Rich people and or corporations merely adjust the cost to consumers to maintain profit margins. So you're increasing taxes on the middle class by making what they buy more expensive. You have to take a stand. Who demonstrates a more intelligent approach to spending money? The government with their half a million dollar natural gas station in Iraq that every expert says could have been built for 60 grand. Not to mention it costs an Iraqi a years wage to covert their car anyways. Or do you think people who buy things that need to be made by employees or who invest in gold or simple bank accounts that then are used by banks to leverage loans to the middle class for business expansions, car loans, house mortgages,etc. is a smarter way to go. Cutting govt. Corruption is the trick. Holding them accountable is. Obama still after 5 years hasn't appointed a federal reserve oversight chairman like he promised.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
this is the third time ive posted this with trying to get someone of slightly higher calibur to take it. let's see if anyone will?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
it must be a telling thing that the more mature debaters dont take this. usually the stuff that i might be more wrong on someone takes it right away. they dont on this one. all i ask for is someone who is 25 with ten debates and an ELO higher than mine, with mine being really low anyways. i'm thinking this all means there's some truth to my argument.
Posted by chlln 2 years ago
First income tax was by Abraham Lincoln to fund the civil war. It was 5% as was supposed to be repealed after the war. It never was, and has now grown 500% or more. The solution is not to keep raising taxes to fund our out of control government, but to curb in the government.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
Knock some of this off first before thinking about raising taxes.
4.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
$150 billion in tax revenue is lost every year to offshore tax havens. U.S. Multinational corporations are hoarding an estimated $2 trillion total offshore
$160.8 billion annually, loss of taxes due to lesser rate on Capital Gains Tax over Earned Income $160.8 billion annually
$104 billion reconstruction effort in Afghanistan (big failure, fraud and waste)
$7 billion worth of usable military equipment in Afghanistan destroyed rather than selling or shipping back.
$5.5 million to send professional athletes around the world for what the U.S. State Department calls "sports diplomacy."
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
You know there's actually a certain point on an inverted bell curve where the government loses revenue by increasing taxes.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
anyone who'd take this..... feel free to start a debate and challenge me if you can't take this debate as is.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
I'd take this.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
I accept
Posted by Bosoxfaninla 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.