The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
E.BurnumIII
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

flat tax

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...
E.BurnumIII
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,773 times Debate No: 19074
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

I agree with a flat tax. You show me why not and show another type o tax that you would think works better.

It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers from not only the lowering of the income tax brackets but the elimination of both the business side and employee side of payroll taxes. U.S. federal tax rates go as high as 35% in 2011, and additional surtaxes are scheduled to hit when Obamacare kicks in. On top of that, employers and employees both pay 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% per employee. All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate. So if your taxable income is $50,000 and your average tax rate is 40% counting payroll taxes, under Cain's plan, instead of $20,000 in taxes, you would only have to pay $4,500, for an extra $15,500 in take home pay! Regardless of your income level, those people that pay income tax will receive a cut.

Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy.

People who criticize the flat tax plan and emphasize its riskiness ignore the vast number of problems & riskiness of our current job-killing, de-motivating, freedom-sapping tax system.

http://www.hermancain.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
E.BurnumIII

Con


Flat Tax- A system under which all taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income.[1]
Immoral- Conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles .[2]
Sound- Free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension.[3]
Theft- the act of stealing[4]
Steal- to take the property of another[5]
Better- more advantageous or effective [6]


I negate the flat tax and offer 3 contentions:


1. A flat tax is immoral.
2. A flat tax is not economically sound.

3. A system with no income tax is better than a flat tax system.




1. A Flat Tax is Immoral

With a flat tax, we must assume that the government owns 100% of our income and allows us to keep a certain percentage of it or it is government theft. Is it not immoral for government to own the property you worked for or if they don't own that property is it not immoral that they can forcibly take the property? Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar, who made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory[7] said, "the flattaxers seem to make the implicit assumption that the government really owns, or should be owning, all of what everyone makes, at least up to some arbitrary percentage decided by the government. Hence, any failure of government to confiscate everyone’s property up to that amount is somehow a moral blot that needs to be rectified. But to me it is far from self-evident that the government, rather than we ourselves, should have the primary right to our own earnings."[8]


2. A Flat Tax is Not Economically Sound

We are debating the flat tax in general and not a specific flat tax, such as the 9% rate. A tax rate of 90% for everyone is still a flat tax and would effectively eliminate the free market but let’s just assume that the flat tax is 9%. In 2011, 46% of Americans were exempt from paying income tax.[9] With a flat tax of 9%, half of the country would see a tax increase on income. This could have disastrous effects on the economy as those who are already struggling to make ends meet are forced to give up a larger percentage of income.


3. A system with No Income Tax is Better Than A Flat Tax System

A system with no income tax is the only moral system because individuals keep all of their income without threat of government theft.

The economy would thrive because every person would keep all of their income enabling them to save more, invest more and buy more goods. Also charitable giving would likely increase as people would have more disposable income. When speaking of assumed tax cuts, Pro states, "Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy." Wouldn't this be furthered by no income tax?


Rebuttal

"It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers"

Not if the tax rate is 90%.

All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate.

Not necessarily. Remember, we are debating the flat tax in general and not a specific flat tax. A flat tax could be anywhere from 1% to 100% of income.


[1]http://www.investinganswers.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[7]http://mises.org...
[8]http://mises.org...
[9]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

ok I made this debate to broad. But I will keep it as it is. Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink. Because you 100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time.

I also don't see how it is immoral. Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away? A small tax won't be that much. Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it. And it wouldn't make people more poor because if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law!

Well, It is not economically sound. Obviously they have their flaws. My libatarian dad has told me some of them. But as he said "a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now. It would temporarily create jobs. And if the goverment never raises the rate then it will forever be good." So even a skeptic of a flat tax thinks it will help the economy, as long as it stays the same. Also it is still economically sound because If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about. Capitilism is about freedom, work hard you get earnings, and pay for what you get. I added the last part but people need to oaay their fair share as I stated above.

I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want? Well they do that now don't they? Just saying.

A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it. You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not.

"Not if the tax rate is 90%."

once again, even though our goverment can be dumb at times, they wouldn't pass a 90% income tax. Maybe a 9% or 6%. And they can't raise it if we use my idea, ammendment.

http://www.heritage.org... read this it is interesting.
http://townhall.com...
http://www.epinions.com...
http://www.financialsamurai.com...
E.BurnumIII

Con

Rebuttal and Analysis

"Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink"

This has nothing to do with our debate. It does not affirm the topic nor negate any of my contentions.

"100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time."

A flat tax can be any rate as long as "taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income" so it is irrelevant if our government would implement a 100% income tax or not. What is relevant is that a flat tax could call for 100% of an individual’s income.

"Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away?"

No. Nobody's income should be taxed.

"Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it."

All of these things are generally funded by local and state governments and not the federal income tax so a flat tax would do little to fix this problem.

"if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law!"

Using this logic wouldn't 0% spark even more economic growth than 10%? If we assume that lowering income taxes improves economic growth, a 0% income tax rate would always beat a 10% tax rate.

"Well, It is not economically sound."

Exactly.

"Also it is still economically sound"

How can something be not economically sound and still be economically sound?

"a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now."

That is not the debate.

"If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about."

Not exactly. Capitalism- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[10]

"I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want?"

When you get down to the basics, it is either one of two things; either the government owns 100% of your income and allows you to keep a percentage of it or they steal a percentage of your income.

"Well they do that now don't they? Just saying."

If you are implying I support the current tax system you are mistaken. If you are not implying that, this argument has no validity in this debate.

"A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it."

It is absurd to claim that a system with no income tax is terrible and then give an example of why it is terrible with systems that have income taxes. Also, a sales tax is no more manipulatable than a flat tax.

"You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not."

The more local a tax is the more power citizens have over that tax so I don't understand where you are coming from when you claim the Federal government would have to interfere with state taxation to keep it from getting out of control. It is far more likely for Federal taxes to get out of hand.


[10]http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Um my stance thing isnt negateing anything. I'm clarifiyng things.

"A flat tax can be any rate as long as "taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income" so it is irrelevant if our government would implement a 100% income tax or not. What is relevant is that a flat tax could call for 100% of an individual's income."

This is not true because I make a billion dollars the goverment takes away lets say 20%, but then the poor people get 20% taken awat too. thats not 100%.

Your for a national sales tax instead. If you look at europe they love them. You start out with a 7% sales tax but then it raises in a year rose 17

Um your local goverment statement is only partially correct. The department of education doent establish schoold, but it does guve many people loans for school. As well as other things. http://www.ed.gov...

You 0% plan still doesnt work, they have to buy supplies aka your sales tax. So either way you can gelp or hurt them.

I meant to say it is more economically sound then your plan and the current one.

"That is not the debate."

Yes it is because you talk about how your is better then mine, I talk mine is better then yours and how the old system needs changing. That is implied since this debate is american and that is a big issue on this topic.

Your definitoon is similar to mine. Mine is about acheivement. So is yours, I just left out the private ownership and work part.

Cool, thanks for explaining your definition of the 100%. But it doesnt work. They only own a percentage of the income, you own the rest.

A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Need more examples?

E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution.
E.BurnumIII

Con

Rebuttal and Analysis

"Um my stance thing isnt negateing anything. I'm clarifiyng things."


Passing a tax rate with a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with whether or not a flat tax is the best tax system.

"This is not true because I make a billion dollars the goverment takes away lets say 20%, but then the poor people get 20% taken awat too. thats not 100%."


That is if the tax rate is 20%. Since we are not arguing a specific rate and we are arguing a flat tax in general, it could possibly be 100%.

"Your for a national sales tax instead."


No, I'm not and I never claimed to be. I am for states and local governments deciding their own forms of taxation as long as they don't tax income. The federal government would be funded by a tax on the states rather than a direct tax on the people.

"You 0% plan still doesnt work, they have to buy supplies aka your sales tax. So either way you can gelp or hurt them."


The difference between an income tax and a sales tax is, a sales tax is an optional tax and an income tax is not. You decide to pay a sales tax by buying goods.

"They only own a percentage of the income, you own the rest."

Is it not immoral for government to own money you worked for?

"A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc."

I am not advocating for a national sales tax so it doesn't matter if it could raise enough money.


"Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Need more examples?"

In an article, "The naked stimulus: Why savings stimulate more than spending," on CNNMoney the author explains why savings are more beneficial to the economy then spending, "Over long periods, it's savings––not consumer spending––that finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth. "President Obama keeps saying that only consumption counts," says Allan Meltzer, the distinguished economist at Carnegie Mellon. "It's foolish. Of course the money that people save doesn't go under the mattress. It goes to individuals to buy a house, or to businesses to build a plant."Let's examine how savings translate into investments, and hence into a crucial source of spending––for the future, the most crucial. When people save, they either purchase stocks or bonds, or they deposit the cash in the banking system. When they buy newly-issued securities, those savers provide companies with the cash to purchase equipment, or buy factories and call centers via acquisitions. When they buy CDs or deposit money in savings accounts, the bank typically lends that money either to corporate customers that spend it to expand, or to the government by purchasing treasuries––and once again, the funds are quickly spent."[11]


"E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution."

First of all, I was not debating this point. I was just pointing to the fact that most of the corruption in government comes at the federal level but if corruption does come about in state government, it is much easier to correct than at the federal level. Since pro brought this up, I will debate it. Pro is referring to article 6 of the constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[12] This clearly says that the federal government only has power over the states on matters delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The tenth amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"[13] gives the states the right to the powers not delegated to the federal government so in some cases the federal government can trump state law but not in the case of tax rates.


[11]http://finance.fortune.cnn.com...
[12]http://www.usconstitution.net...
[13]http://www.usconstitution.net...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

"Passing a tax rate with a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with whether or not a flat tax is the best tax system. "
Yes I said it doesnt prove anything! It's just n add on that you can stop sidetracking on.

"That is if the tax rate is 20%. Since we are not arguing a specific rate and we are arguing a flat tax in general, it could possibly be 100%."

As I said, it would never be 100% until we get really dumb people in power.

"No, I'm not and I never claimed to be. I am for states and local governments deciding their own forms of taxation as long as they don't tax income. The federal government would be funded by a tax on the states rather than a direct tax on the people."

Well it seemed like you where sorry about that. Oh that has nothing to with debate sorry. Just kidding you can clarify but I cant.

'"The difference between an income tax and a sales tax is, a sales tax is an optional tax and an income tax is not. You decide to pay a sales tax by buying goods."

There is one flaw with that statement, everyone buys goods. Almost no one will not buy goods. So a sales tax is pretty much mandatory if your a normal person.

"Is it not immoral for government to own money you worked for?"

Well under your plan they still own it, so is it immoral for the states to own it or only if the feds own it.

"I am not advocating for a national sales tax so it doesn't matter if it could raise enough money."
already addressed this...

In an article, "The naked stimulus: Why savings stimulate more than spending," on CNNMoney the author explains why savings are more beneficial to the economy then spending, "Over long periods, it's savings––not consumer spending––that finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth. "President Obama keeps saying that only consumption counts," says Allan Meltzer, the distinguished economist at Carnegie Mellon. "It's foolish. Of course the money that people save doesn't go under the mattress. It goes to individuals to buy a house, or to businesses to build a plant."Let's examine how savings translate into investments, and hence into a crucial source of spending––for the future, the most crucial. When people save, they either purchase stocks or bonds, or they deposit the cash in the banking system. When they buy newly-issued securities, those savers provide companies with the cash to purchase equipment, or buy factories and call centers via acquisitions. When they buy CDs or deposit money in savings accounts, the bank typically lends that money either to corporate customers that spend it to expand, or to the government by purchasing treasuries––and once again, the funds are quickly spent."[11]

"E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution."

"First of all, I was not debating this point. I was just pointing to the fact that most of the corruption in government comes at the federal level but if corruption does come about in state government, it is much easier to correct than at the federal level. Since pro brought this up, I will debate it. Pro is referring to article 6 of the constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[12] This clearly says that the federal government only has power over the states on matters delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The tenth amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"[13] gives the states the right to the powers not delegated to the federal government so in some cases the federal government can trump state law but not in the case of tax rates."

Saving is better? It is better for the individual because you have more money. But not to the economy. Saving is better to the economy makes no sense. The more goods are bought=more money made=bigger economy=better economy-everyone happy. It's that simple. Savings can cause a double dip recession. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... . I'm not against saving, but to much saving is bad in the long run. And Keynesian economics proves my theory. It says you need a constant flow of enough money so a recession or depression can't start. http://www.wisegeek.com...

Here are more reasons for a flat tax: http://christopher-pascale.suite101.com...
E.BurnumIII

Con

Rebuttal and Analysis

"As I said, it would never be 100% until we get really dumb people in power."

We don't already have really dumb people in power?

"Well it seemed like you where sorry about that."

I never said anything about a sales tax before pro brought it up so I don't see how it seemed like that

Oh that has nothing to with debate sorry. Just kidding you can clarify but I cant.

This actually does have something to do with the debate as I was further explaining the tax policy I am endorsing. Pro wrote, "Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass." The debate isn't, "a flat tax and a tax rate attached to a federal amendment vs. my tax system;" the debate is “a flat tax vs. my tax system." If Pro thinks he needs to add on to the flat tax by passing an amendment to protect tax rates from fluctuating, he admits that a flat tax cannot stand alone against a system with no income taxes.

"There is one flaw with that statement, everyone buys goods. ALMOST no one will not buy goods. So a sales tax is pretty much mandatory if your a NORMAL person."

Actually, in your statement accusing me of making a flawed statement, you made a flawed statement by claiming my statement was flawed and then confirming my statement by admitting we have a choice.

"Well under your plan they still own it, so is it immoral for the states to own it or only if the feds own it."

That is incorrect. Under my plan the states wouldn't have the right to tax income either. I said any tax but taxes on income.

"Saving is better? It is better for the individual because you have more money. But not to the economy."

Since when did it become bad for the individuals who make up the economy, to have more money? I thought that was the goal.

"The more goods are bought=more money made=bigger economy=better economy-everyone happy"

This is not always true. In fact, this very idea is to blame for our current financial crisis. The Federal Reserve printed money making borrowing easy. People borrowed and borrowed and then put this money into the economy. Sure, at the time, there was an economic boom but that boom was just a bubble created by credit and when the debt became too much the bubble busted and the housing market crashed along with the economy.

"Savings can cause a double dip recession."

Actually, deficit spending is to blame. Eventually all the debt catches up and brings down the economy. Saving actually starts the healing process as it allows individuals to begin paying off their debt. The less debt there is in the economy, the more the economy expands.

"I'm not against saving, but to much saving is bad in the long run. And Keynesian economics proves my theory."

Actually, it doesn't support your theory. Econlib.org, "the concise encyclopedia of economics," states, "Keynesians believe that what is true about the short run cannot necessarily be inferred from what must happen in the long run, and we live in the short run. They often quote Keynes’s famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead,” to make the point."[14] So yes, Keynes did believe that spending drove the economy but he knew his theory did not work in the long run. His theory only addresses short term problems which generally leads to more problems as the debt grows.

Final Points

In conclusion, I will list three points that show I am the winner of this debate.

1. I showed that a flat tax is immoral because for there to be a flat tax the government has to own your income or steal it. Pro chose the first option but never explained how it is moral for government to automatically own property you earned through contractual agreement.

2. I showed that a flat tax is not economically sound because raising taxes on about half the country would be detrimental to an already weak economy. Remember, Pro himself, in reference to the flat tax, said, "Well, It is not economically sound."

3. I showed that a system with no income tax is better because there is no moral injustice of government stealing or owning your money and it is a much more economically sound system. When speaking of assumed tax cuts, Pro states, "Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy." Wouldn't this be furthered by having no income tax?

I would like to, thank my opponent for a great debate and thank everyone who takes the time to read this debate.



[14]http://www.econlib.org...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
and why it is bad
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ok I am pro flat tax. you say that you dislike it and show me an alternative. aka sales tax or the same system. And also say why a flat tax is bad.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Negatives cannot be proved. Phrase your challenge as an affirmative and Ill consider it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
16kadamsE.BurnumIIITied
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 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: That was a very clever and unexpected position from Con.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsE.BurnumIIITied
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: poor debate. Con had some very terrible arguments but his second point, flat tax not being economically sound, made sense. Pro couldnt refute this argument successfully so Con won arguments.
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
curious18
16kadamsE.BurnumIIITied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some pretty bad arguments, but pro, like, never really addressed them properly. Pro really should have challenged the definitions, but totally didn't.