The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 151 times Debate No: 94718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point.

if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut.

tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.


Now, I would first like to start with your common misunderstanding that higher taxes will always equal higher revenue. Well you may not have ever heard of the laffer curve. While the one I have made is sort of low quality because I had little time to make it, I think you will understand the point.

Well, just n case you didn't understand, it is simple economics that help us understand that for some time, when you increase percentage, the revenue increases also. But at some point, the increase stops, when you have it to high, you begin to lose revenue. Now, I will use a real world example of how lowering taxes can actually increase revenue. In the great depression, the government decided that in order to increase revenue, they would increase taxes, but as a result, this lowered taxes and people stopped working. But when Raegan DECREASED the taxes, they revenue increased accordingly. I hope this settles that part of the debate

Now, on to your claims about the budget. If we increase our revenue my lowering taxes, and combine that with switching medicare and medicaid to the private sector, along with selling useless government plots of land. We should be able to bring the deficit down over time

And now on to another question, do we really owe anything to China and Japan? We saved China in WWII from a major threat that could very well have taken over there country. And Japan, while we did bomb them and kill citizens, we rebuild there country to a major power, so how could either of these countries find it moral to demand there money back in our time of trouble.
Debate Round No. 1


"According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually"

that says revenue went down with Reagan's tax cuts. i'm not going to take your word for it that it went up. it's counter intuitive. the most straight forward idea is, cut taxes, get less revenue and vise versa. I understand there's the laffer curve, but most economists say it changes from the obvious method I just described when we're at seventy percent taxes. right now taxes are less than half that.

you also can't just privativze health care and get the same result. somebody has to pay for it or else you are going to not have healthcare for people. I've not seen any proof that you can find a way to pull it off. again i'm not going to just tke your word. the most straightforward idea is, cut healthcare spending, people have less or no healthcare.

I would guess government plots of land account for a percent or fraction of anything, so I will just ignore that as something unconnected with reality.

I don't know what your point was mentioning china and japan. it doesn't really have anything to do with this debate. just pointless ramblings as far as I can see.


I brought up the deficit because you did. And with the US owing Japan and China 2.4 trillion, I found it important to say that. And I'd be happy to tell you why the deficit matter, it matters because our country relies on investors who currently find us as a viable option. But if we get to much debt that people end up putting timelines on, why China and Japan mattered, then they won't invest anymore, and our economy will spiral, as with Greece, Spain, and Portugal, so you can see why that wold have a lot to do with how we spend our money, and yes, our economy is stronger than theirs, but we aren't invisible. I however apologize for any confusion and admit that I should have explained why I brought it up, I do see why you thought of them as pointless rambling.

Now, while the 1981 ERTA would stop revenue for a short time, after the rich realize that the use of their money would be taxed so much they would feel free to use it. Please refer to the chart on page 2 which is based on IRS and JEC research.

ow, when a wealthy business owner is using their money and is giving more to gov't, this means that they have done something to expand the business they own, so they AND their workers are having more income flow, that of which the government can tax.

Also, I think that it is agreeable for the government to try to raise taxes on something other than income, which as I stated potentially hurts the economy. How about a 33 cent tax on each phone call made? Some would be in opposition to this but it would be a viable source of money, with an average of 3 billion phone calls made each day this would bring in nearly 1.0 billion dollars a day. This would of course be a viable source of income, and it would be far less harmful than taxing ones income, which discourages work effort.

Also, a recent study on the effects of taxes and revenue done by Christina and David Romer, two highly respected professors at the University of California, recently stated that the curve is actually somewhere around the 33% mark. Also, Christina Romer was an important person on President Obamas boar of economic advisors, so despite her liberal leanings, she made this conclusion.

Now, you claim that government owned land isn't valuable, but when you include mineral rights our land is worth $128 trillion. This is 6.7X our entire debt. Of course I don't support selling an entire seventh of that, but at some point we need to consider spending it, because the fact we own these assets is probably what keeps investors coming. And if we are to headset on not losing potential revenue from these lands, thus making them mean less to investors, which might make then not want to put money into America anymore, which as I said would destroy economy. You see, Greece had assets, but wasn't willing to risk utilizing them accordingly, so investors lost interest.

Also, privatizing healthcare works. When you introduce the people who used to not be available to the private sector one from the public sector, because the companies will recognize them as valuable to win over, and unlike gov't programs which don't have to compete and whose budgets don't matter as much, the companies will compete to give the best prices and quality to the new group of people. Its simple economics, and this would also free up a lot of our budget.
Debate Round No. 2


there's six hundred million acres of land. most of that land is probably not good for commercial use, as that's why it's government land to begin with. top acrew farm land is ten thousand, medium is five, and low is three thousand. assuming the best case sceaniaro and making it three thousand each, that's one point eight trillion. it's more than i admit but it's hardly enough to even run the country for a year. even if you were to make it ten grand per acre it's not enough.
if you have somethin that says otherwise, a source, i am open to it but i will be very skeptical.

you just assume that you can prvatize healthcare and people iwould be able to afford it. also, should they have to pay their own premiums when they've paid into medicare all their life? that's not fair or responsible. also they are basically like people with preexisting conditions as insurance companies don't like covering old people. and we see that with obamacare companies care barely afford to cover who they're suppose to now. if you add a bunch of sick peole it won't be possible to cover them. plus insurance compaines use medicare as a benchmark for how much to charge and then charge a little more. that means as it sits medicare is the cheapest option, if you privatize it it'd probably just get more expensive. tht's because medicare regultes the prices a little.
it all adds up to not making sense that'd it'd be chaaper or fairer to privative healthcare.

you want to possibly tax phone calls. i applaud you for at least wanting to find way to increase taxes. most are against that. but tht's still a tax on middle and low income people which i just oppose. i think they pay enough in taxes, and the rich should have to pay, especially when they earn half of new income the top one percent does.

ive found other numbers for the laffer curve but will research your numbers. i think it's fair to say we'll have to agree to disagree at this point.


I certainly don't think the phone call tax is necessary, I believe that it could be considered as a last resort if we truly can't find any waste in our budget, which would be pretty hard to believe if we couldn't.

Also, our land, when including the offshore drilling rights, is worth $128 trillion

Please remember that I don't necessarily believe everything the article says I was just referencing its statement in the offshore drilling value.

Now I don't believe in an immediate switch to private market healthcare, and existing members of it should rightfully be grandfathered in, as the government did promise it to them. But our continuation of this budget given to them if very irresponsible and we need to at least control their money problems. And by the way my claim of completely privatized healthcare was simply an ideal, I know that for know they are necessary.

And f the rich make, as you claimed, "half the income", then why is it moral for them to pay for more then 70% of funding. I of course support having them pay for most things, but milking that cow is not as simple as just raising taxes.

And in response to the laffer curve thing, it really is more complicated then, increased taxes equal increased higher revenue for all wage groups. It has been proven that the rich end up paying for more when the tax percentage is lower on them. The middle and lower classes are different cases.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 months ago
this says the romer study is higher at least for high income people
No votes have been placed for this debate.