The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Apollo.11
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

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 3 votes the winner is...
Apollo.11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,000 times Debate No: 22528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

frozen_eclipse

Con

Taxes in the united states should be lowered.
I will take the negitive, arguing that we ought not lower taxes signifigantly.
I hope this will be an interesting debate


Also i have some debates going on if anyones intrested you should go vootefor me.....lol

Topics are

wikipedia should be considered a valid source
potenial vampires who could logically exist would win against ninjas
5 ninjas would win against 5 vikings
The united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan
pornography out to be illegal

Id appreciate your votes
Apollo.11

Pro

Resolved: Taxes should generally be lowered in the United States.


Definitions:

tax:a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. [1]

BOP:

We'll have a shared BOP.

Structure:

Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals/Defenses ONLY (no new arguments--if Round 2 is fofieted, argument vote should be given to opponent).


Sources:
1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Con

Terms....

1.significantly-to a large extent or degree............

http://www.bing.com...


Please voters keep in mind that my opponent wants to not only lower taxes but significantly lower taxes. Witch would be in the billions range.
taxes is what keeps your streets in tack. It gives you everything, include police, social security, and your rights. If your familiar with economics, you'd know that Bush tried lowering the taxes and as a result we are now in a recession. If taxes are lowered government spending will have to decrease otherwise we would have a deficit of tax money, and wouldn't be able to pay for the roads/police/and any other government service. Where does health care come from? TAXES, food stamps? TAXES. Everything supplied to you comes from taxes, what pays the government to keep researching flu shots? TAXES. Bush already tried lowering taxes to try and delay the recession. Obama wants to raise taxes, and increase government spending, and that is how an economy gets out, by increasing it's GDP. In this debate I will defend the general areas that a significant amount of taxes goes into. I have to do this because if we were to cut billions in taxes, witch is a significant amount, then these programs will definitely be in jeopardy. Also keep in mind that I don't have enough space to defend every subpoint so I will defend the general area of tax funding.

Here's what federal taxes goes into....

General Government
$304 billion:

Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury
• Government personnel
• Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.


Physical Resources
$117 billion
:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (15%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources

Current Military
$965 billion:

Human Resources
$789 billion:

http://www.warresisters.org...

military assistance

If we were to significantly lower taxes, Then billions of dollars would be absent to afford these general expenditures. My opponent will hopefully explain why we should cut these general areas,or how we will fund them with out the billions of dollars we get from taxes to fund these programs. Thoe my opponent may take a stand against my claim. The awnser is we cant have the programs we do without the taxes we currently have. We cannot afford to cut billions from our military budget because were in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc... we need to deport,feed,house,provide medical care, and pay their paychecks.

General government expenditures

We need this funding for homeland security, If we cut funding on this relatively young program, then we risk terrorist attacks, unsecured borders in witch illegal immigration will skyrocket with out funding for this program, and more cyber crimes will remain unchecked. This area also funds legislature and the justice department. Obviously politicians want there money and will not wok unless there getting paid what they want. As far as the justice department goes, it a no brainier that we need more prisons. We also know that we fund inmates food,water etc....we cant fund the development of more prisons or inmates welfare, or legislative or state funded operations without the taxes that we currently have. If we significantly lower taxes currently, Key word being currently, then our federal, and state operations will be in jeopardy. There is no other way to fund our expenditures but via the tax system we already have in place.

Physical resources

If we cut billions in the agricultural,energy, science research, and environmental protection our economy will cry. the agricultural sector wont have crop insurance,wont have funds for water Conservation, and will not have the resources to guarantee the healthiness of products. If we cut scientific research then we wont be able to work to find a cure for cancer and other military research, If we further significantly lower taxes then energy, air pollution, water pollution and other conservation programs will be jeopardized. One last point, we wont be able to pay government employees witch is a big no no.

If we significantly lower taxes currently with all the problems we have. Then the American standard of life will be lowered as well. Right now while in the war against terrorism isn't the best time to lower the amount of money we give them. If we reduce this money via taxes the operations will be jeopardized. Also welfare and food stamps will be a nonexistent program because we wont have the money to help the poor families in need or to even provide them health insurance. So I find that if we were to significantly lower taxes currently it would be to much of a negative experience for our economy. Therefore I have proven the roots for negation of this resolution.Thus i believe that con should win this debate.



Apollo.11

Pro

Rebuttals:

My opponent may have typed a lot, but he had only one argument

P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary.

P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures.

Therefore, taxes should not be cut significantly.

Premise 1

I contend against this premise.

My opponent may argue that the "necessary" part may be excluded. But if spending is not necessary, one cannot justify keeping it.

Contention 1: Military Budget Cuts

The United States accounts for 48% of the world's military spending yet only 4.4% of the world's population.




$711 billion could be cut over the next ten years by doing the following [1]:

  • Cut back military retirement pay for new entrants. ($87 bil)
  • Change military compensation calculation ($55 bil)
  • Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years ($387 bil)
  • Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000 ($69 bil)
  • Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores ($9 bil)

These cuts are entirely feasible.

Also, Military Waste and Fraud costs over $170 bil a year. [2]

All this coupled with the fact that increased military spending has NOT made us any safer. There have been MORE terrorist attacks on the US and her allies after 9/11 than all of the time before 9/11 COMBINED. [4]

Instead, 4000 US soldiers have died as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. My opponent must defend how these deaths and this wasteful, unnecessary spending is absolutely necessary.

Spending has increased dramatically in the past decade, yet again, we are no safer. Clinton level spending is entirely feasible.

Contention 2: Social Security

Social Security is unsustainable. [3]

Phasing out SS would save hundreds of billions of dollars.


Clearly, Premise 1 is false.

Argument:

I. Spending Cuts are Entirely Feasible.

See above.

II. Economic Benefits

Taxation in the form if income taxes is forced theft by the government of our property. And the constitutionality of the income tax aside, it limits economic growth.

Were taxes lowered, consumers would have more money to spend. Consumer spending has an exponential effect on economic growth. [5]



Government spending has a much lower efficiency. Growth is linear and plagued with waste and fraud as there is no competition. Statistically, pure consumer consumption drives the economy.

___________

1. http://www.nytimes.com...

2. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

3. http://www.cato.org...

4. http://www.politifact.com...

5. http://www.google.com...

Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Con

I will first point out a contradiction stated by my opponent, then I will defeat my opponents case and express why I believe Con should win this debate.

So my opponent stated I have one contention. But he gave put down two points.

"My opponent may have typed a lot, but he had only one argument

P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary.

P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures."

These are not my arguments that my opponent assumed so please disregard this.

Another statement by my opponent......

." My opponent must defend how these deaths and this wasteful, unnecessary spending is absolutely necessary."

I do not need to defend this because This does not account for the tax funded military In total. This statement, nor does pros contention regarding the military prove how significantly lowering taxes by the billions will help America in any way.

Pros first contention...Military budget cuts......so e is stating because of military budget cuts we should significantly lower taxes? This isn't sufficient enough to affirm this resolution to happen. Here's what pro wants to do....currently


"$711 billion could be cut over the next ten years by doing the following [1]:

  • Cut back military retirement pay for new entrants. ($87 bill)
  • Change military compensation calculation ($55 bill)
  • Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years ($387 bill)
  • Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000 ($69 bil)
  • Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores ($9 bil)"

If we cut back on the first point, then retirees will be more succeptable to be lost when they get back to the states, They will have no money to live, or to obtain skills marketable in our economy. A sub machine gunner doesn't really have transferable skills.

If we change military compensation, Then this would delete college funding via the military,delete their GI bill,eradicate housing,and allowance assistance that the soldiers defending us deserve,

If we reduce the number of army member and marines by 35 percent, then the military is going to cut millions, How is laying people off for no reason going to better defend our country, or stimulate our economy?

If we reduce military personal, then if something drastic happens in that area then we will be strategically less successful in counter operations in that area. Witch isn't justifiable.

With the last point like I said we need to be taking care of our troops and not tossing them to the streets when were done with them.

So lowering taxes significantly should not be done currently. Especially when were in a war against terror right now and facing economic difficulty. These cuts are not feasible. Also about military waste funding. It seems my opponent wants them to lay in their own waste at their bases and camps while there expected to be healthy and fight terrorists. Is that right? NO

My opponent claims there has been more terrorist attacks since 9-11....I don't see how this furthers that taxes should be lowered but I will defeat it and move on. His source is just an opinion from a politician and isn't concrete evidence. Also logically if your in a war then obviously there's going to be conflict after the war is started. But 40 terrorist attacks have been stopped since 9-11, aviation and airport security has been bumped up.

http://www.heritage.org...

http://www.foxnews.com...

http://themaritimeblog.com...

it also established the department of homeland security witch is essential to Americas security.

http://www.dhs.gov...

Heres what they contribute since their establishment post 9-11

Aviation Security
  • Federal Air Marshals (TSA)
  • Secure Flight Program
  • Redress Control Numbers
  • Airline Security Screening (TSA)
  • more Aviation Security »
Chemical Security
  • Ammonium Nitrate Security Program
  • Critical Infrastructure: Chemical Security
  • more Chemical Security »
Fraud & Counterfeit
  • Intellectual Property Rights Center (ICE)
  • Fraud Investigation (Secret Service)
  • more Fraud & Counterfeit »
Information Sharing
  • State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers
  • Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program
  • National Terrorism Advisory System
  • more Information Sharing »
Infrastructure
  • Critical Infrastructure Learning Series
  • Critical Infrastructure
  • more Infrastructure »
Law Enforcement
  • Operation Community Shield (ICE)
  • National Fugitive Operations Program (ICE)
  • United States Coast Guard (USCG)
  • more Law Enforcement »
Nuclear Security
  • Layered Nuclear Defense
  • Nuclear Detection Equipment Performance
  • Nuclear Security Capabilities Development
  • more Nuclear Security »
Secure Identification
  • US-VISIT Traveler Information
  • more Secure Identification »

My opponents next contention.....social security....it is sustainable and our economy is not about to crash because of it . Life without social security funding would be disastrous. If you get disabled you would just be left to die. When you get old and cant work anymore you will be starving,dieing, and possibly without a home, and probroly no access to adequate healthcare. So funding should continue.

My opponents last point......Economic benefits. .....If we didn't have taxes then how would Medicaid, Medicare. roads, infrastructure,public education, agricultural research,law enforcement,libraries,food stamps, poor families,and the war on terror be effective programs???????? All of the governments taxation is just. Were within their jurisdiction and we pay them to protect us and to help us out when we cant help ourselves. If we were to significantly lower taxes currently then there would be disastrous results. AS I've stated earlier bush tried to lower taxes significantly. Guess what happened? a reccesion. WE don't need to affirm this resolution.

So my opponent has not adequately explained the benefits of significantly lowering taxes in the sectors of....military assistance,General government expenditures,and Physical resources. Right now is not the time too lower taxes by the millions. Affirming this resolution would damage our economy more than it would benefit it. THerefore I believe this resolution should be contended.

If we significantly lower taxes currently with all the problems we have. Then the American standard of life will be lowered as well. Right now while in the war against terrorism isn't the best time to lower the amount of money we give them. If we reduce this money via taxes the operations will be jeopardized. Also welfare and food stamps will be a nonexistent program because we wont have the money to help the poor families in need or to even provide them health insurance. So I find that if we were to significantly lower taxes currently it would be to much of a negative experience for our economy. Therefore I have proven the roots for negation of this resolution. Thus I believe that con should win this debate.



Apollo.11

Pro

Defenses of Rebuttals:

"I do not need to defend this because This does not account for the tax funded military In total. This statement, nor does pros contention regarding the military prove how significantly lowering taxes by the billions will help America in any way."

Indeed, my opponent DOES need to defend this. His ONLY argument was, as previously stated:
P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary.
P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures.
Therefore, taxes should not be cut significantly.

If he cannot defend Premise 1, his argument fails. I prove the latter part further down in my last argument. These are not my arguments. They are rebuttals of Con's arguments--something Con failed to understand.
Con drops this point.


"Pros first contention...Military budget cuts......so e is stating because of military budget cuts we should significantly lower taxes?"

*facepalm*
Again, these are contentions of Premise 1 of Pro's argument. These are not my arguments. That's why I labeled them "Contentions."
I even added my "Argument" section in large, bold font.
Con drops this contention.


"If we cut back on the first point, then retirees will be more succeptable to be lost when they get back to the states, They will have no money to live, or to obtain skills marketable in our economy. A sub machine gunner doesn't really have transferable skills."

This is a straw man.
1) This applies to NEW hires ONLY.
2) They are not at a higher risk for becoming lost. Whatever that means...?
3) They will have plenty of money to live from their military pay and the retirement benefits from the military in addition to outside pay, etc. And even assuming they don't, is that the fault of their employer from 45 years prior?! Again, these are only small cuts, not complete removals.
4) We are not discussing employment ability. Regardless, the argument is ridiculous.
(Also a spelling error in the argument)


"If we change military compensation, Then this would delete college funding via the military,delete their GI bill,eradicate housing,and allowance assistance that the soldiers defending us deserve,"

This is false. Military pay compensation is independent of everything Con listed.
This is a straw man.
(Also note the punctuation error)


"If we reduce the number of army member and marines by 35 percent, then the military is going to cut millions, How is laying people off for no reason going to better defend our country, or stimulate our economy?"

STRAW MAN!
1) That is an ABSURD claim by Con. The plan is to cut 70,000 marines over TEN YEARS, not "millions!"[1],[2]
2) And the good reason, as I stated (and Con ignored), is that our massive military is a detriment to our national security, to human life, and our fiscal situation.
3) It stimulates the economy for the reasons I explained in my argument (and Con ignored).


"If we reduce military personal, then if something drastic happens in that area then we will be strategically less successful in counter operations in that area. Witch isn't justifiable."

This is quickly becoming a waste of time. Con ignored my argument.
1) These are not drastic changes.
2) See above


"With the last point like I said we need to be taking care of our troops and not tossing them to the streets when were done with them"

Holy sh1t! That is a STRAW MAN FROM HELL!


"My opponent claims there has been more terrorist attacks since 9-11....I don't see how this furthers that taxes should be lowered but I will defeat it and move on."

For the third time, these are contentions of Premise 1 of Pro's argument. These are not my arguments. That's why I labeled them "Contentions."
I even added my "Argument" section in large, bold font.


"His source is just an opinion from a politician and isn't concrete evidence."

If Con had read the article, he would have known this statement to be false. It was a FACT CHECK of a politician's statement.


"My opponents next contention.....social security....it is sustainable and our economy is not about to crash because of it ."

Unsubstantiated and contradicted by the facts I linked to.


"Life without social security funding would be disastrous. If you get disabled you would just be left to die. When you get old and cant work anymore you will be starving,dieing, and possibly without a home, and probroly no access to adequate healthcare. So funding should continue."

Do I really need to refute this?! You've got to be kidding me. Con, you do realize that per capita, there is LESS money in the SS fund than was put in? That means people have LOST their money by funding SS.


"If we didn't have taxes then how would Medicaid, Medicare. roads, infrastructure,public education, agricultural research,law enforcement,libraries,food stamps, poor families,and the war on terror be effective programs????????"

Jesus! I'm not advocating eliminating government revenue! I am advocating cutting taxation and spending somewhat.
Straw man #...I don't know; I lost count at like 100.


"AS I've stated earlier bush tried to lower taxes significantly. Guess what happened? a reccesion. WE don't need to affirm this resolution."

Correlation does not yield causation. By that logic, I will assert that the recession was caused by the increase in Sudanese civil violence. Dang dead Africans causing our recessions.



Dropped/Straw-manned Arguments:

1. Contention 1
2. Contention 2
3. Argument for Spending Cuts
4. Economic Benefits
(ie, ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS)



I will repost my Economic Benefits Argument for Voters:

Economic Benefits

Taxation in the form if income taxes is forced theft by the government of our property. And the constitutionality of the income tax aside, it limits economic growth.
Were taxes lowered, consumers would have more money to spend. Consumer spending has an exponential effect on economic growth. [5]



Government spending has a much lower efficiency. Growth is linear and plagued with waste and fraud as there is no competition. Statistically, pure consumer consumption drives the economy.








REASONS TO VOTE PRO:

1. Con dropped or straw-manned, not one, not two, but ALL of my contentions.
2. Con dropped or straw-manned ALL of my arguments, invluding dropping my main economic benefits argument while ignoring it in his contentions.
3. Con had many spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors throughout his argument.
4. Con makes wildly innacurate, unfounded, emotional pleas about dead soldiers and grandmas on the street. I trust that voters will see these appeals to emotion for what they are: complete BS.
5. I succesfully showed not only are cuts beneficial, but they are feasible, as well.


VOTE PRO.



___________
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Dasani 4 years ago
Dasani
I will debate you on Pakistan for sure!
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
first
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
i jus noticed that the opponent changed the resolution irst or second round.....so not cool
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
omg.....i wish there was another round...lol
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
taxes do not hold much weight in overall deficits
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
1st round is almost always acceptance.
And you didn't specify structure.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
you know......i really wish you could have tarted first....lol
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
k i will change to 3 days assuming you will accept
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
If you change the argument time to 3 days, i'll probably accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
frozen_eclipseApollo.11Tied
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: Con basically lost/dropped/straw-manned almost every point Pro made...Pro won...huge margain...
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
frozen_eclipseApollo.11Tied
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: Con says: "Obama wants to raise taxes, and increase government spending, and that is how an economy gets out, by increasing it's GDP"...who teaches this? How much does this teacher get paid? I think we have a good reason right there where we can cut some spending!...(Con NEVER backs that huge claim up)
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
frozen_eclipseApollo.11Tied
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: CON dropped a lot of pros arguments, and pro won with large degrees on the most important point: Economics. Also, pro proved all of cons scare arguments actually feasible and possibly have an upside. I think CON did worse in this debate then in some of his other debates, it was disappointing. PRO wins the debate.