while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue
Debate Rounds (3)
the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property.
and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land, but for excessively large properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. and of course again propety outside one's own, should be taxed largely.
this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible.
a person shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it.
bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions.
(next in line is income tax. this way we can get a firm revenue,,,, if people want to make money, they are going to have to pay income tax. last in line, so as to encourage commercial activity, sales tax. which would have to focus on those with more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay, and ensuring enough revenue.
First, Id like to add that property taxes are typically set at a flat rate per 1000$ of officially assessed value. So technically property taxes are already calculated through mill levy and assessed property value.
Property taxes are only accumulated through state and local governments, the federal government does not acquire a certain percentage of property tax. A sales tax is also imposed for local and state revenue, which in some states accounts for the most revenue out of all the other taxes.
My argument will consist of that property tax shouldn"t be at the focus of our internal source of revenue while homestead deductions should still exist due to the conditions of certain individuals. I believe that lowering taxes will produce greater revenue in the long term.
To begin with, homestead exemptions will take a financial load off of many farmers who make a living off of the property that they own. It wouldn"t be fair to them if they have hundreds of acres. Farms can have good seasons and bad seasons. Homestead exemptions can also be referred to Homestead protection where an individual is protected financially if their spouse were to die. If people were bombarded with bills and other things they can"t afford. Their home would be protected from creditors and in-turn would protect the primary residence from forced sell(to pay off crediors) . Homestead should be able to provide tax deductions for those who qualify.
Why I believe property tax shouldn"t be our main focus for internal revenue due to the fact that property tax revenue can only go to the states and local government. Sure, there are a lot of local governments struggling financially, but our federal government has dug themselves into a 17 trillion dollar debt. We need to focus on the federal internal revenue. States and local government already have plenty of ways to acquire money.
Of course, the universal argument of lowering taxes all together. Lowering property taxes could possibly bring people out of financial trouble, those who already don"t qualify for exemption status. I"m not a tea partier by any means, but history has shown that our internal revenue increased under certain tax cuts. 2007 was the year with the highest internal revenue under bush tax the rich tax cut because everybody was spending, investing and working.
we can respect tradition, and have federal government get money by income taxes. but the states usually have state tax, and there's usually local taxes on income. these should be focused towards property instead.
you may have a point, perhaps or perhaps not, that taxes should be lower or stay the same. but the real focus on this debate is the source of the revenue, not how much it is.
an while it's not really applicable fo those reasons, you point about keeping taxes lower, the 2007 point isn't applicable anyways. that was the height of the housing bubble. so of course there would be high revenues. we can't base revenue ideas off what happend when there were bubbles, cause they are articial situations, and they don't predict what normally will be the case.
your points about farmers are special exceptions, and we can recognize that in our laws. they already have special rules for farmers in income tax, if we focused on property taxes, we can have special rules for them there too.
i'm not sure why you bring up being protected from creditors with one's home, given this doesn't have to do with the source of our revenue. even if it was a valid point, we have property exemptions to protect people from creditors to begin with anyways. they are also known in credit law as homestead exemptions. most states are pretty generous with them, and they cover pretty high valued homes.
what the govenment has done with our seventeen trillion dollar debt doesn't really have to do much with this debate. we have to get revenue one way o the other, particularly the local governments, and htey should be forcusing on property taxes.
If you're articulating that we should raise property taxes then I disagree because the property tax is already progressive.
Sure, the Bush tax cuts are applicable because when he cut taxes it was the highest revenue we've ever had through the fiscal year. The bush tax cuts had no part in the housing bubble. To my point about the 17 trillion dollar debt. I had stated that we should be focusing more on federal internal revenue rather the states and the local governments because thats where they need it the most.
even if property tax is progressive, it can be even more progressive.
you say that the tax cuts had no part in the bubble, but i'm not necessarily arguing cause and effect or anything like that. all i'm saying is that revenue would be highest when there is a bubble. the revenue isn't high because of hte tax cuts necessarily, but revenue is clearly higher than it should be when there are bubbles.
You also stated that property tax should be the main source of revenue, i again argued that it shouldn't and that the main source of revenue should be going to the federal government, regardless of whether or not everyone should have property. The circumstances of everyone getting property just doesn't fit the current fiscal situation this country is in.
Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 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: Conduct - Tie. S&G - Con. Pro failed to capitalize words throughout her rounds. This is not in accordance with proper spelling and grammatical rules. For this, Con is awarded points. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide any real rebuttals towards Con's counter-arguments after Round 2. Round 3 see's Pro simply stating that she's already explained something, instead of actually fleshing out her contention more. In addition, Con showed in his final round that he had indeed provided rebuttals and then went on to show the errors in Pro's arguments in terms of failing to counter his rebuttal in regards to the property tax. Pro ultimately failed to overcome the rebuttals presented by Con. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources throughout this debate whereas Con did.
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.