The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 35167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA,,, aside from utilizing government health care to save money.

where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases?

background, we have a seventeen trillion dollar debt, and a deficit that fluctuates up to a trillion a year. everyone worth their salt as an expert says we need to do something about the deficit.

about ten percent of the budget is spent on the poor, so even if you cut that in half, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

even if you privatized social security, we'd still have current expenditures to maintain our promise to current retirees, which almost everyone agrees should be done. and most people dont want it privatized anywaays.

perhaps gutting medicare and medicaid would us from having to increase taxes, but is that really what we want, and really necessary? health care is a basic necesssity, a basic right, if you aren't just lazy, no?
plus we should be going in the direction of government health care, or tightly regulated private insurance. all other countries spend around ten percent GDP on healthcare, whereas we spend around 17 percent. that's a savings of a trillion dollars in itself. in fact, if we dont want to increase taxes, or gut government health care, the only other way to save the country's finances is via government health care.

where else would we cut anything of signfiicance? sure there's plenty of waste and fraud and abuse out there, but as far as i can see, the only structurally significant reform is government health care or increasing taxes.

to put it in perspective, roughly, we got 500 billion on defense, 500 billion on interest and debt payments, 500 billion in social security, 500 billion on general government expenses, and 500 billion going on a trillion in health care.

most "poor' people and general government expenditures, which are often a rallying cry of conservatives, is not much in way of significance.

historically, we had much higher tax rates, and other counties do too, and they all show how a country can do just fine that way.
i grant that im not sure how superfluous government pensions and perks are factored into the whole budget, there's surely places of mention in these areas.

as per "growing" ourselves out of the problem, historically the government's revenue is only 18% of GDP, which is back to its historical average. i dont see how one could expect to do much better.

so aside from government health care, i dont see how else we can balance the budget other than by increasing taxes.


I would like to thank my opponent for bringing this debate to hand. It's not only an important topic, but one that has faced, and will continue to face America for many years in the future. With that being said, I truly feel that my opponent has missed the mark with his/her comments and arguments. I will begin by refuting these arguments, and proceed with my own afterwards.

1. The question "where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases?" is the wrong question to be asking. Cuts don't require tax least...not the right cuts. You see, in order to balance the budget, one of two things can happen. First, we can assess how much we have to spend, and not spend more than that, or we can assess how much we're spending, and earn enough to cover that. Obviously a combination of the two is also possible, but this debate seems to be strictly about either raising taxes or cutting programs. I'll allow that to stand and debate on the maker's ground.

2. Why not make cuts to defense, social security, general government expenses, or health care? You present a straw man argument about cutting the spending that's used on the poor (I'm assuming this means forms of welfare). While any form of cutting spending would help us balance the budget, I agree that we shouldn't start here. I say that we cut programs, and in my own argumentation I'll tell you where and why and how this will work to not only balance the budget, but make the areas in which cuts were made more effective.

3. In 2013, total expenditures from the U.S. Government is 3.8 trillion dollars (do a quick search of wikipedia and it's easy to find). Our total revenue is a meager 2.9 trillion dollars. This is a deficit of 900 billion dollars. Now...even if all of this revenue came from taxes, which it doesn't, then this would be a nearly 33% increase in just MEET the expenditures of the U.S. Government. 33 PERCENT!!!! This simply cannot happen. In order to win this debate, my opponent doesn't just have to prove that cutting programs won't work, but rather that raising taxes (more than) 33% is a viable and sustainable way of living and thriving.

Now let's move on to my own argumentation and theory of how to balance the budget.

Step one: Privatize the military. Entirely. This means that 500 billion dollars that we spend is now going towards the 900 billion dollars we need to balance the budget. Over half way there and I only needed one sentence! Imagine what I'm going to do when I'm finished...Now obviously you say that we need the military because how else are we going to defend our freedoms in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, Russia, China, Ecuador, Cuba, and everywhere else that I've missed? Easy...DON'T WORRY ABOUT THOSE PLACES. Worry about us. By eliminating the national military, we not only save 500 billion dollars, but we actually make our self defense better. When we eliminate the national military, we are forced to rely on state militias to defend our home turf. This is actually a much more efficient way of doing it anyway. When state militias are formed, it creates pride in one's own state, and develops competition amongst state militias. These are both very good. First with the pride factor, people love their sports teams for the simple reason that they grew up where those teams are. While this isn't universally true, it's usually the case. The same applies for militias. People are going to be proud of the militia in their home state. But it also increases competition. Militias will be the new standard for combat. If Wisconsin (god forbid) had the top militia, then others would be trying to match and exceed the standard set by Wisconsin. Basic market principles have proven this time and time again. So now we have militias competing at being the best at protecting the citizens. That sounds like something I want my defenders doing. Plus, they'll have specific information in how to deal with attacks, natural disasters, and other concerns in their areas. We no longer have major snafu's from governmental organizations when the next Katrina hits. Because Louisiana's militia has trained for this. They're able to do it more effectively.

But i still have 400 billion dollars to go.

So let's eliminate social security. BAM!!! now we're making 100 billion dollars every year! Not only does this solve our problem of balancing the budget, but it gets rid of a failing system that clearly can't keep up with growing demands. We've got a win-win here and I haven't even had to talk about worthless government programs like Ron Paul's ever so beloved EPA. Go me! Why the social security you ask? I'd say "good question" but I hate lying. We should first discuss how social security works. Basically, those who are working, pay into the system, so that those who have already payed into the system and since retired are able to receive the money that those still working are paying into it. The money being payed into the system isn't being invested like a bank would do, but rather just being given out. This wasn't a problem when it was created because there were 16 people paying in to every one person taking out. Now...we're down to a 2-1 paying in to paying out ratio. This trend is a bad one. At this rate, Social Security will be bankrupt by 2041. Which means I won't even have retired yet. So we cut our losses and bite the bullet of having all the baby boomers and their kids pissed at us. Sorry grandma. OR...we privatize it and turn it into a profitable business that is able to sustain itself far into the forseeable future. Either way we've cut spending enough to more than balance the budget.

It's actually pretty easy to comprehend. If a business isn't making enough to pay all the bills, it shouldn't just raise prices on its goods and services, it should fire people, or change its business practices. The government is a failing business that we try to save by charging more for the "chicken parmigiana". It's a ludicrous notion that raising taxes will solve all of our problems. In reality, more taxes means less money to spend, which both scares consumers and gives them less money to spend. A scared consumer won't spend the money they do have, and because they don't have as much, even if they wanted to spend they couldn't. You can't expect an economy to thrive when people won't and can't spend money. Instead, you cut programs until you don't exceed the revenue, and you don't have any problems with consumers. Instead, you have a government that isn't in the red, but rather is able to live within its means and survive well into the future. I look forward to saying the same thing over and over again another two times.
Debate Round No. 1


too many off point remarks for me to take on, and too many radical points that aren't politically feasible, let alone whether theyd be good ideas.

i debated this issue a few times, not that i dont want to again, just dont have the time to spend on less worthy debates. if i lose for FF or whatever, such is life.


Firstly, sorry if I offended you with my "off point remarks" I never personally attacked you. I tend to use sarcasm as a point of humor. Typically people understand that, but I'm sorry if you didn't. And as far as "politically feasible" is concerned, all political theories are politically feasible. Even if they're not, this debate isn't about what we're actually going to try and do. You said that you felt that increasing taxes was the ONLY way to solve the budget deficit, and I proved you wrong. Sorry you weren't expecting these "radical" points that a significantly growing portion of the United States populace support and believe. It's called libertarianism and the more you understand these points the more you'll realize they're not just radical philosophies, but actual solutions that will help the country. I gave you sound argumentation supporting my points and you blow them off because you aren't in the mood. Sorry, but I'm not your boyfriend, and I didn't ask for this did. So put your big girl panties on and step up to the plate.

P.S. I'm glad that whoever put you in charge of determining worthy debates feels you're competent, because I'm not seeing it.

P.P.S. That's me being offensive, not sarcastic.
Debate Round No. 2


Well...I do believe I was wrong about one thing. I didn't say the same thing over and over again. Thanks for the "debate"
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 RoyLatham 3 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were wretched and implausible. -- we'll just let terrorists develop nukes and ignore them; we'll just end Social Security and screw everyone who put money into the system expecting it to be there; etc. Con made bare assertions unsupported by an numbers or studies showing they would work. So all Pro had to do was dismiss con's arguments as empty opinion. But Pro decided to withdraw from the debate, leaving the bogus arguments unanswered. Pro should have proposed revenue increasing measures like cutting regulations along with viable cuts like agricultural subsidies and federal education spending. Pro's lack of capital letters was annoying. withdrawing without forfeiting is not a conduct violation; it is just conceding arguments.
Vote Placed by ConservativeAmerican 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Conduct goes to Con due to Pro FF. Pro never refuted Con, just claimed his ideas were 'radical'. No sources were used.