progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax
Debate Rounds (3)
the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?
imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.
Hypothetically, if a man who earns $500,000, and who could, with more work, start earning $800,000 a year. However, he is not actually earning the extra $3,000, or even a fair ratio of what it would have been. Multiply this effect, and it is disastrous to our economy. Progressive taxing PENALIZES values like hard work, investment, and entrepreneurship.
Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.:
"Consider what will happen, though, if the government imposes a modest tax rate of, for example, 10 percent. With a low, flat rate, very few people will have an incentive to avoid taxes, so the economy will do well and the government will collect about one-tenth of the income earned. As tax rates rise, however, taxpayers gradually become discouraged and businesses discover that it is not profitable to employ as many people. These factors combine to reduce earnings--and therefore lead to a reduction in taxable income"
In theory, the increase in economic growth would even create more taxable income with a modest flat tax than it would with progressive tax rate which targets and punishes those who generate the most growth in our economy.
You mentioned that I should imagine a trillionaire who owns the earth, but you didn't give any warrants to that, or even a single impact. Please don't waste my time with a bunch of useless words.
the rich will still try to make money, they always have even when taxes were as high as ninety percent.
Take your idea, a 90% tax on the rich. To earn just a measly $100 dollars someone must invest to the point were they earn $1,000. That meant that if someone starts with investing $100, they must increase their principal investment by 1000%. ONE THOUSAND PERCENT. The stock market only rises at an average of 7% a year. Do you understand how difficult it is to make any sort of significant return on any amount of money invested with this type of tax? How then, will the working class have any motivation to drive the economy. The answer is simple. THEY WON'T.
Furthermore, you asked to debate whether a progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax. By definition, fair is synonymous with level, or equal. What is more level, equal, and fair than giving the same tax rate to everybody??! The rich make more money, so they are taxed more money. The poor make less money, so they are taxed less money. Everybody pays at the EXACT SAME rate, and contributes their FAIR share.
ninety percent is a little high. a random fairer amount would be twenty five for wage earners, and fifty for those who make more than say doctors as tehy are the highest wage earners. the fairest amount would be whatever it takes to pay for hte ppor. according to your idea of fair, it would be more fair ussing your ideas to give everyone a flat fee.... say a thousand or ten thousand. why should hte rich be expected to pay more as a flat tax just because they make more? but really what's fair is what it takes to pay for the poor, as the rich have excessive wealth. you claim people will be disincentiveized from making money, but they wont.... they will continue doing what it takes to make more money, usually cause it's money building upon itself anyway. you haven't shown that people will stop trying to earn money, when the truth is historicaly people will continue with lots of money. the bottomline though isn't that idea of motivation, it's that we need to help the poor. cause if the rich aren't making as much or taking as many resources, that leaves more for everyone else.
Also, why are you bringing up a point that the rich are taking resources. Our energy resource crisis (which I assume you are talking about seeing as you were not very specific) is actually invested in almost completely by the upper and middle classes. A flat tax actually encourages investment as I said before, thus solving this problem in the best way. Even if you were talking about monetary resources, please refer to my first paragraph and previous arguments. The government would have access to acquire MORE taxable income with a flat tax than they would with a progressive tax.
Than you for the debate, and I look forward to further encounters
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hunts 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not capitalize one word, so they lost the spelling and grammar. also fairer is not grammatically correct it should be more fair. I found pros arguments very short and non-factual so con won for the more convincing arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.