The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
happycman
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

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 4 votes the winner is...
happycman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 430 times Debate No: 61877
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

conservatives often push for flat taxes. a set percentage of one's income. but, why not just say that eveyone has to pay the same amount? why tax the richer more just because they make more income? and if this casues more tax to be paid overall on the poor, so be it?
these are all the arguments made when it comes down to progressive taxes v flat taxes. we could just extend the arguments to flat fees v flat taxes
happycman

Con

Hi, this is my first debate and I need to finish 3 in order to gain access to voting privileges. Anyways, this random topic looks interesting enough so let's begin.


Before I state my cases, I would like to offer 3 definitions to serve as clarification and standardization (these definitions were simply taken from the Cambridge Dictionary):

1) Conservative (political):
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

2) Flat Tax: a tax rate that is the same for everyone, whether the person's income is high or low.

3) Flat Fee: an amount that is charged or paid that does not change according to the amount of work done, or the number of times something is used.


My argument is simple and built upon the widely accepted definition of "conservative" (stated above). PRO must take into account that being conservative means being traditional and cautioning change. Consdering the fact that what is traditional is relative to the specific region and considering PRO's disapproval of flat taxes relative to flat fees, let's solidify that PRO holds the belief that "flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach in the United States."

The proposition, keeping in mind the definition of conservative, implies that there was a time in American history when the country was taxed in the form of a flat fee. I can't think of any major nationwide instances in which flat fee was used for taxation. When the United States declared its independence, they mostly, if not always, imposed rate-based tax. When the declaration was ratified, they just built upon the principals of rate-based tax. From that point in history until the present, rate-based taxation has been by far the most common type of taxation. It is not at all traditional, henceforth not conservative to impose a flat fee taxation over a flat rate taxation. In fact, the instigator's proposition is wholely radical, thus it goes against the basis of being conservative.


I believe the last paragraph was enough to refute the proposition. However, I will briefly elaborate upon why a flat fee taxation would never work in a capitalist nation like the US. It's actually quite simple; the poorer classes would either not have enough to pay or the richer classes would be paying too little. You are then presented with two scenarios:

1) If the flat fee is high enough, the rich will sustain the government to continue to run. However, the poor would be completely unable to pay their taxes. Those barely able to pay will be unable to gain access to basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter.

2) If the flat fee is low enough, the poor might be able to pay their rent and put food on the table. Also, the rich can probably thrive to a higher degree with such a standardized low tax fee. Unfortunately, the government would not receive the funding it needs to keep afloat. Simple as that.

There you have it. The two reason why flat fee taxation is a ridiculous idea. Flat tax vs progressive tax is another matter completely.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

all i can do is reiterate my last post in why i think my approach is most conservative.

plus even if there wasn't enough revenue from a flat fee approach, it would only mean we would have to cut spending. this is a conservative principle to begein with.
happycman

Con

Excuse my grammatical error in my last post. Anyways, without reasoning, PRO refuses to acknowledge most of what I have said and ignores the fact that I prove, by widely accepted definition, that a flat fee approach is not reasonable. I would like to ask PRO, do you believe cutting spending is the way to go? Do you think the government will really do that? Isn't the government already in too much debt to rely on a reduced taxation?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

there are practical issues with my approach, but that's just practice, not theory. in theory, my approach is more conservative.
happycman

Con

Once again, PRO fails to acknowledge and respond to the key points that I have brought up. Once again, I will reiterate the theoretical side behind my argument to perhaps clarify what PRO fails to see.

Being conservative means sticking to traditional methods and being cautious of change. Since the United States has been independent, a rate-based taxation has always been the most used form of taxation.

Flat rate taxes = Traditional approach = Conservative approach

Flat fees = Incredibly radical, never used on a national scale = Non-conservative approach

This is my case in Layman's terms. I hope it persuades PRO and anyone who happens to stumble upon this debate that flat fee taxation is NOT the conservative approach in comparison to flat taxes (rate-based taxation).

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2chappycmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Pro never refutes Con's points, thus the resolution is negated and Pro had terrible spelling.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
Sojourner
dairygirl4u2chappycmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Con successfully refuted the proposition and Pro offered no rebuttal. S&G to Con for Pro's failure to capitalize.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
dairygirl4u2chappycmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought nothing to the table, Con adequately demonstrated the flawed position.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
dairygirl4u2chappycmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no rebuttals to offer. All pro did was to present her subjective views despite the firm foundation con had as an argument. The historical approach provided by com was definitely better than the subjective approach provided by pro.