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

should we have high or low taxes?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,850 times Debate No: 31584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




My philosophy in regards of taxe rates is that I think that we should have lower tax rates which will bring in more revenue for the economy thus making more money for our economy to continue thriving in the free market.


I feel as though this could be very interesting debate. I will be arguing that it is more beneficial to have a higher progressive tax rate. While higher taxes do result in less money going directly to the citizens of a country, tax money can be used to provide beneficial services to a population.

I wish you, my opponent, the best of luck. I look forward to your next argument.
Debate Round No. 1


no its not good to have higher taxes because thats why were in trouble now, so u think its wise to set high tax rates, what about the people who cant afford to pay higher taxes, are we just going to condemn them for not paying their taxes. in result to higher taxes means more debt over time. were trying to put money back into the economy. its like playing jenga when it comes to taxes if u raise taxes to the point of the people eventually revolting aginst u what happens what ever piece u take out of the jenga game it collapses, so therefore we need lower taxes in order to bring in revenue. think of the people's financal well being before raising taxes put ur self in the poor people's shoes.


Thank you for your argument. First I will present my arguments for why raising taxes, particularly on the wealthy, are more effective than reduced tax rates on all.

1) Tax revenue would help lower the deficit.
Simply put, if we were to raise the tax rate on the wealthy, we could give much needed aid toward solving the debt crisis. On principle it seems sound. If the government takes in more money, it would be able to allocate more financial resources toward helping the national debt (which is way too high). I have a tangible example to provide you with, so that you may see how this would work. Lets go back to 1986. The tax rate on the top 1% in this nation was around 33%. Ever since this date, the wealthy have maintained a tax rate of below 30%, and tax revenue has obviously decreased. Had the rate of 33% been maintained, the national government would have gained massive amounts of revenue to allocate toward the deficit. How much? 1.7 trillion dollars.

Now, the rampant government spending needs to stop to fully solve the debt crisis, however it is clear that having that 1.7 trillion would be unquestionably helpful. (1) And note that this is also only applied to the top 1%. Imagine the possibilities if this principle were applied to the other 99%. Obviously they shouldn't be taxed a third of their income, but this is the beauty of a progressive tax system. The wealthy pay more, and the less wealthy pay less.

2) High progressive tax rates provide many services for everyone (and not just the poor)
We forget just how much our government actually gives us. We all think of things like Medicare or Social Security, but really our tax dollars go to fund vital functions. Tax revenue helps to pay our teachers, policemen, and firefighers. It also goes toward services like public libraries, and even museums (like the Smithsonian). Tax revenue is used to repair roadways. There is so much our taxes go toward. What about national defense? Tax revenues also go to pay our soldiers who bravely fight for our nation.

Taxes also can go to social programs. It is necessary for a government to offer aid to those who need aid. Instead of examining Obamacare, look at the NHS in the UK. The entire nation has guaranteed health insurance, meaning that everyone (rich or poor) receives some help. Almost every other developed 1st world nation has a universal health care system (2), which is paid for by taxes. Other programs, including food stamps and public housing, provide needed aid toward those who couldn't provide for themselves. A higher tax rate would mean that we could possibly expand these services, or create new ones as needed. Raising revenues would go a long way toward helping the economy too. Germany has a much higher tax rate on the wealthy than America, and their economy is growing much faster than ours. How? They invest the money they receive in taxes and invest it into their nations infrastructure.

The rich can afford to pay higher taxes, as they hold most of the disposable income in this nation. Raising the tax rate on them greatly, and minorly on others, would bring about more benefits for the United States.

Now I will examine my opponents arguments.

1) What if people cannot afford to pay higher taxes?
This is why I support a progressive system. It taxes those who can afford to be taxed at a higher rate more than members of the middle class. If we abided by such a system, a middle class family would experience a raise in their taxes, but they would be able to afford it. they wouldn't be taxed at the same rate as a CEO of a major company.

2) Higher taxes will raise the debt
This is completely irrational. The only way that the national deficit will grow is by two ways. 1) interest and 2) spending. We can't do much for the first, but we can fix the second. This is why I also support bringing common sense back to Washington politics. The federal government has no idea about how to responsibly handle the revenue it takes in. Fix this and the deficit will also be helped.

3) The "jenga" theory
I am going to refer to your analogy as the jenga theory (mostly because it sounds proffesional) you mention that raising taxes will cause a revolt. This is highly unlikely, unless the American citizen has the maturity of a 5 year old. Most adults understand that taxes are a fact of life, particularly when they see what the tax revenue can go to. They rarely become violent in response to higher taxes. I believe the last time this happened was in the late 18th century.

4) Higher taxes got us into this mess
Incorrect. The tax rates were lower in the Bush years, and the economy spiraled out regardless of this fact. I am not saying higher taxes would have avoided the problem, but they certainly wouldn't have caused it.

That is all I have to say, I look forward to your next argument.

Debate Round No. 2


Right their ur saying that tax revenue would help the economy u just agreed with me on that and ur saying that u want to raise taxes on the rich. Well that has not been done yet show me some evidence that our deficit has been lowered by any amount during obama's term. Don't agree with me next time cause I will call u on it. Also he has not done what he said he would do eight the taxes he's switched his views on the taxes he wants the poor to be more weaker now then ever before they can't just keep on receiving hand outs like food stamps cause that's still giving money away and raising the debt. So next time don't agree with me on lowering the taxes give me some evidence that Obama has taxed the rich. Duh, he's taxed the poor indtead. He's a liar.


You never said that the rich should pay more taxes. You were arguing for a general lowering of the tax rate, this covers the rich and the poor. I did not agree with you. I never agreed with you on lowering taxes on anyone.

I see no real argument here to be made...Your position seems at times contradictory or confused.

Also, I have seen no indication that Obama has taxed the poor more. It is your job to prove that he did, which you failed to do. You seem to have an issue with Obama. If you want to debate whether Obama is a good president, you are free to do so.

And by the way, there is no next time to call me out on something. This is the last round.

So, seeing as no new argument was truly presented or any substantive rebuttal was made, I feel it would be better for all involved to simply end this debate here.

Thank you for the debate and your time.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheBatman 3 years ago
This was an interesting debate. I actually support lower taxes, but I wanted to try my hand at playing devil's advocate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
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: Pro provided actual arguments backed by sources, not just talking points. Con ignored the bulk of pros arguments and used words like "u"/"ur" so spelling to pro as well.