should we have high or low taxes?
Debate Rounds (3)
I wish you, my opponent, the best of luck. I look forward to your next argument.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years 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||6|
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.
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.