The Instigator
SANTORUM2012
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Contra
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

pich people paying more taxes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 21636
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

SANTORUM2012

Con

Rich people should not have to pay more taxes. You shouldn't be punished in America for having money. Everyone should pay a flat tax.
Contra

Pro

Challenged accepted.

I will be thrilled defending the progressive tax.

Debate Round No. 1
SANTORUM2012

Con

Why should rich people have to pay more taxes they work for their money.
Contra

Pro

-----Progressive Taxation-----

Since my opponent has vaguely stated her support of the flat tax, because they should keep most of what they earn, I will thus support a more progressive tax.

The Progressive tax is the best tax system when it comes to improving income inequality, maintaining fairness, and improving the economy as well as the government's account because of these reasons:

1) Most Proportional and Fair Tax System

The progressive tax takes in account what the payer's income and economic status is. The middle class and the poorer classes are taxed less heavily. Since, the less well-off spend much of their income, lower taxes for them stimulate the economy. [1] [2]

The wealthy do not spend much of their income by the economic law of the average propensity to consume. [2] However, my opponent's main argument is that "they should not pay more because they work to earn their money."

However, we as taxpayers made them rich. A wealthy person does not, and I swear, never gets rich by themselves. The rich utilize the vast American infrastructure paid for by past taxpayers to get rich. [3] The rich use the infrastructure especially. [4] The programs I list are just a few of the programs and assets we have received from our wise investments through our taxes:

  • § Highway System
  • § Medical Establishment
  • § Federal Reserve
  • § Treasury Department
  • § Education System
  • § GI Bill
  • § Education System and Resources
  • § Airline System
  • § Space System
  • § Social Security
  • § Clean Air and Water programs
  • § Medicare and Medicaid
  • § Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • § Judicial System

With more revenue with a progressive tax system, the government can facilitate a better, stronger future with effective government.

2) Reduces Income Inequality

Nations with progressive tax systems, and the benefits increase even more the more progressive the tax system, have numerous societal benefits from the resulting of less income inequality. Some of the societal benefits include a lower homicide rates at all income levels, a healthier populace, less mental health issues, less violence, less obesity, and more particpation in civic events. [5] [6] [9]

3) Leads to Broad Prosperity

Because in a progressive tax system the rich have a heavier obligation to pay, the less well off can have lower tax rates. This can lead to economic growth. Plus, with more consumption, and with small businesses being to compete more with big business in a progressive tax system, businesses have a chance at success, and profits are long term oriented, because downsizing is less efficient with an effective progressive tax system.

  • § Level playing field for Businesses
  • § Stronger, more vibrant Consumer Base
  • § Ethical Business

4) Improves Economy and Opportunity

If the rich do not pay their fair share so that our infrastructure of this great nation is poor, the people of the next generation will have less of an opportunity to climb the economic ladder. The rich should make sure that people of the next generation can become successful too. [7]

Giving businesses more money doesn't solve much. DEMAND is what drives economic growth, as well as investing. A progressive tax improves both, by improving demand, improving opportunity, and more people will be more likely to invest in small business. Plus, the Progressive tax is good economics compared to the flat tax, [9] and even Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, supported a progressive tax. [8] Lower taxes on the rich doesn't come out with a stronger economy, the opposite actually may be true. [10] If my opponent is considering saying "high taxes = bad economy", I have to ask, how do you explain the strong economy of the 1950s when there was a 90% tax rate at the top? It clearly didn't discourage investment.

5) Tax Revenue for Government

I think that George Lakoff said it best:


"Taxes are our dues — we pay our dues to be Americans and enjoy the benefits of American society. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society that is democratic, offers opportunity, and has a huge infrastructure available to all citizens. This incredible infrastructure has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Roads and highways, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid — every day we all use this vast infrastructure. Our dues maintain it.
" [11]

Conclusion:

  • Rich get Rich from Public Infrastructure
  • Rich have obligation to pay just some of their money back to nation
  • Progressive tax is therefore moral and ethical
  • Gives Businesses a better opportunity to compete
  • Progressive tax leads to less income inequality and therefore a stronger, healthier nation
  • Government Can facilitate a Better future, with a Progressive Tax

Flat Tax

With a flat tax, competition is even more uneven between small and big business. The rich get tax cuts, which is ineffective and immoral. The less well-off get tax raises. Many assets in our infrastructure would be cut, and this would be the equivalent of cutting an arm off instead of getting a paper cut. The Progressive Tax is clearly the better tax system.

VOTE PRO


Analogy of the Flat Tax/ Trickle-Down Economic Theory (In pictures!):



Sources:

[1] http://conceptualmath.org...

[2] http://www.investopedia.com...

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...

[4] Lakoff, George. Don't Think Of An Elephant!. 1st ed. Chelsea Green, 2004. p. 25-26. Print.

[5] http://www.thedaonline.com...

[6] http://www.epi.org...

[7] http://www.dailykos.com...

[8] http://articles.cnn.com...

[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[10] http://www.nytimes.com...

[11] http://governmentisgood.com...

*I tried seeing if my round could knock out my opponent compared to her single sentence argument.

Debate Round No. 2
SANTORUM2012

Con

Alright Im going to tell you a little about myself. My name is Alexa and Im fourteen years old. My dream is to become a doctor. As you know doctors make a high annual salary. Sadly, I come from a single-parented family and Im well on the poverty line. Few people in my family are successful. Everyday I go to school and work as hard as I can to maintain good grades. I have to miss many social events so I can stay home and study. My aim is for a scholarship (as my mom cant afford to pay) to Harvard University.

Well, say I do just that and become a doctor making the max of 200,000 dollars a year in annual salary. Why am I obligated to pay more then the lazy kid beside me who never did his work, never went to college, and dosn't get a high paying job. Flat tax is certainly not equal, but its fair. If we remain on a progressive tax for the rich, not only are we sending a bad message to the younder one, but were being morally and ethnically unjust. I don't know if what your religion is but their are also passages in the bible that show that flat tax is the way to go.

Progressive tax for the rich is along the lines of Socialism and Slavery. The act of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not right. It really all comes down to jealousy.
Contra

Pro

--------Rebuttals--------

About your personal situtation, the progressive tax would make the already wealthy pay their fair share, since society let them get that way. Then, society would have a stronger economy and country, with broad prosperity.

"Why am I obligated to pay more then the lazy kid beside me who never did his work, never went to college, and dosn't get a high paying job"

Because you got rich because of that kid and all the rest of middle class America and off the taxpayers. They gave you the resources to get rich. You didn't do it alone. It is not class-warfare. It is math.

You still would be making heaps more of cash than "that lazy kid" would be, and the P.I.T. allows society to become more fair by giving the taxpayers some of their money back, and making sure that the next generation has a chance at becoming rich themselves.

"If we remain on a progressive tax for the rich, not only are we sending a bad message to the younder one, but were being morally and ethnically unjust."

I already showed how it was ethical, moral, and a successful tax system in R2.

"I don't know if what your religion is but their are also passages in the bible that show that flat tax is the way to go."

Try explaining a homily reason that explains why Jesus should have condemned the sheep who demeaned the poor by feeding and clothing them, and blessed the rich man for living in splendor while Lazarus suffered.

"Progressive tax for the rich is along the lines of Socialism and Slavery. The act of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not right. It really all comes down to jealousy."

-----A progressive tax is a liberal/ progressive idea.

-----A government seizure of wealth is a Socialist idea.

-----A regressive tax is a slavery-promoting idea.

Frankly, the flat tax, since it gives the poor tax increases, and gives the rich tax cuts, is bad economics, bad morals, bad ethics, bad for a nation's infrastructure, and overall a bad tax plan. The flat tax isn't fair, since the rich (who got rich from middle class), don't have to pay back their fair share.

It is not class warfare or jealously. It it is math. If a nation helps you get rich, you deserve to pay some more, so that the social contract is kept, and that in the next generation, people can get rich then too.

My opponent hasn't refuted any of my points.

Taxes in General


Ø Government Is Needed


National Security

Assistance to those unable to fully support themselves

Equal Access to Opportunity

Economic Development

Oversight of Financial Markets and Institutions

Protection and Advancement of Public Interest Market Cannot Fix

Providing Investment when projects are too demanding for Market

Revenue Collection Service

This is where the progressive tax comes in play. When you have higher revenue, and a moral, effective, and economic friendly tax system, you get effective government as well, which can then serve all of the functions I put above. I can explain next round if you want examples; I have plenty.



VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 3
SANTORUM2012

Con

The lazy kid beside me is the one who helped me get where I am. This is the only country that pays you to be lazy. nuff said.
Contra

Pro

The lazy kid beside me is the one who helped me get where I am. This is the only country that pays you to be lazy. nuff said.

Not true. In fact, the USA has one of the least generous welfare systems in the modern world. [1] [2] [3] Besides, if you do nothing, you are either rich, or you have no work ethic, and are on the welfare rolls (for up to 5 years in your life-- no longer).

Conclusion:

My opponent has failed to prove my case wrong. A progressive tax is the most moral, ethical, and smartest tax system. It makes a healthier nation, allows small business to compete, makes better opportunity for the country, improves a nation's infrastructure, and helps the economy. It was supported by the founder of Capitalism.

VOTE PRO


Sources:

[1] http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by A_Douchebag 2 years ago
A_Douchebag
Don't raise my taxes, you c*nts.
Posted by Elysian 2 years ago
Elysian
This should be interesting, I will be watching as how this progresses
Posted by Zetsubou 2 years ago
Zetsubou
If Con doesn't do so well I'll take Contra up on the progressive tax/income brackets motion.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
SANTORUM woot!
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
That's too extreme -I'd prefer having the top tax rate by 49% for $1,000,000,000+ ($1 billion in income)
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Top tax rate should be 115%
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
ha
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
and the award for lamest argument goes to........
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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: easy vote is easy
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I agree with Con, I must vote for Pro for obvious reasons. Althought the comics were unnecessary and insulting, conduct.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 2 years ago
Mimshot
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Ouch. This wasn't really close. Con barely laid out an argument at all. All she really offered was an emotional appeal to raise taxes on the "lazy" people holding her back.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not use any facts, she did not engage in any of Pros arguments, and her only argument was about her own personal situation. There are many people out there with many different stories and point of views. If Con wishes to develop a strong and substantiated understanding on this issue she will need to learn why people disagree with her. She did not show a hint of that in this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con might not get into harvard if she thinks the US pays people to be lazy -___________________-
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate is won by Pro even though I agree with Con.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 gives thought out and well sourced arguments, where as Con (just like the candidate she apparently supports) just ranted