The Instigator
BobTurner
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tylergraham95
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

the federal income tax should be abolished

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 4 votes the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 48007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

BobTurner

Pro

the burden of proof is shared. i say the federal income tax serves no purpose and should be abolished.
tylergraham95

Con

I accept!
Debate Round No. 1
BobTurner

Pro

when you tax something, you discourage it. you discourage productivity, savings and innovation and ship jobs overseas. we pay taxes on everything we do and the government has an exclusive privilege to our property. we want to encourage production, so we should not tax it. rather, we should tax consumption through a 23% national sales tax. we'd have more jobs and more opportunities with this. businesses right now are already suffering because of obamacare and excessive regulations.
tylergraham95

Con

My opponents argument simply doesn't make sense. He argues that income taxes discourage the earning of income. Would you really think to yourself There's no point to working because I'm only getting paid 40k annually, instead of 45k anually!
No!
Pro proposes a very high sales tax. This is completely asanine. For starters, the sales tax is the only form of regressive tax. Furthermore, high sales tax does discourage spending. Low spending=low GDP=shite economy.
Also, taxes pay for roads and such.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTurner

Pro

we are in round 3 so no new arguments, just summaries.

i didn't say taxes would make people not work. i said they would go overseas and they have. that's where manufacturing jobs have gone.

a sales tax is not regressive because there is a prebate that ensures that poor people are untaxed and many goods, like food, are exempted.

spending does not mean bad economy. that is correlation not causation. to produce something it must be made.

the tax is revenue-neutral so we can still pay for roads
tylergraham95

Con

High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes.
Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food.
Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact.
What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
That's part of the definition of GDP.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
For future reference, you can't simply say correlation does not imply causation to disprove a statistic. You must explain why there isn't a causation relationship. Consumer expenditure directly contributes to GDP.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
its actually 27 minutes because there's a 10 percent tax on it.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
I should have read the parameters more closely haha. I didn't realize this was 500 character limit 30 minute respond time.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
BobTurnertylergraham95Tied
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: No sources were used. Con backed up his opinion far better than Pro.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
BobTurnertylergraham95Tied
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 proved that FICA has a purpose and should not be abolished.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
BobTurnertylergraham95Tied
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 backed up his arguments with logic.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
BobTurnertylergraham95Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty clear win for Con. Pro couldn't back up his assertions and his retorts were not clear and comprehensive. Perhaps longer rounds are needed for a subject like this.