Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

TIps, advice, or just want to argue?

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few nit-picky things:

1. You said "establish." Doesn't the US already have a progressive tax?

2. Why does it say in your rules that the opponent must argue for a 10% flat tax? Isn't the resolution only in reference to a progressive tax? Doesn't this carry the extra baggage of 10% being, perhaps, too low to fund essential government services?

3. Why exclude countries outside of the U.S.? The U.S. has never had a flat tax federally, so the only argument your opponent could conceivably make for a flat tax would have to do with (1) the morality of taxation (which begs the question of why any taxation ought to be permitted) (2) state flat tax systems, but even that is negligible or (3) general arguments for tax cuts, but even a tax cut doesn't necessitate a flat tax.

I mean, you'd at least want to consider the flat tax in the Russian Federation, right? There's plenty of IMF data on it that I won't mention (it was brought up in one of my debates once upon a time ago, I think), but it's at least an interesting case to consider. I don't think your opponent has too many options in this case. A progressive tax is precedent in the U.S. since the inception of the income tax, is it not?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 5:18:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few nit-picky things:


1. You said "establish." Doesn't the US already have a progressive tax?

We do, but I want it to be higher. Your right, it should say "keep"

2. Why does it say in your rules that the opponent must argue for a 10% flat tax? Isn't the resolution only in reference to a progressive tax? Doesn't this carry the extra baggage of 10% being, perhaps, too low to fund essential government services?

To share the BOP. The opponent can only argue a flat tax, and not some other foreign and unlikely system. I might be willing to raise/lower it if my opponent agrees

3. Why exclude countries outside of the U.S.? The U.S. has never had a flat tax federally, so the only argument your opponent could conceivably make for a flat tax would have to do with (1) the morality of taxation (which begs the question of why any taxation ought to be permitted) (2) state flat tax systems, but even that is negligible or (3) general arguments for tax cuts, but even a tax cut doesn't necessitate a flat tax.

To keep it on topic. The "Country X does this and they make Y amount of GDP". Thats just a stupid and irrelevant argument, and can;t be considered.

I mean, you'd at least want to consider the flat tax in the Russian Federation, right? There's plenty of IMF data on it that I won't mention (it was brought up in one of my debates once upon a time ago, I think), but it's at least an interesting case to consider. I don't think your opponent has too many options in this case. A progressive tax is precedent in the U.S. since the inception of the income tax, is it not?

As I said, I'm trying to keep data relevant to current circumstances and factors in our country.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 5:28:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:18:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few nit-picky things:


1. You said "establish." Doesn't the US already have a progressive tax?

We do, but I want it to be higher. Your right, it should say "keep"

Fair enough.

2. Why does it say in your rules that the opponent must argue for a 10% flat tax? Isn't the resolution only in reference to a progressive tax? Doesn't this carry the extra baggage of 10% being, perhaps, too low to fund essential government services?

To share the BOP. The opponent can only argue a flat tax, and not some other foreign and unlikely system. I might be willing to raise/lower it if my opponent agrees

I understand sharing the BOP, but you could just declare that the criterion for deciding arguments is a preponderance of evidence, which is what I do for all of my economic debates.

The only point is, though, a generalized progressive income tax is much easier to defend than a 10% flat tax. You didn't even lay out rates, either, so you have a bit more flexibility in your arguments than your opponent does.

3. Why exclude countries outside of the U.S.? The U.S. has never had a flat tax federally, so the only argument your opponent could conceivably make for a flat tax would have to do with (1) the morality of taxation (which begs the question of why any taxation ought to be permitted) (2) state flat tax systems, but even that is negligible or (3) general arguments for tax cuts, but even a tax cut doesn't necessitate a flat tax.

To keep it on topic. The "Country X does this and they make Y amount of GDP". Thats just a stupid and irrelevant argument, and can;t be considered.

It is a stupid and irrelevant argument but not because it's outside the US, but because it's post hoc. You have a right to call out correlation instead of causation, but you shouldn't limit the arguments strictly to the US where this hasn't been tried, anyway.

I mean, you'd at least want to consider the flat tax in the Russian Federation, right? There's plenty of IMF data on it that I won't mention (it was brought up in one of my debates once upon a time ago, I think), but it's at least an interesting case to consider. I don't think your opponent has too many options in this case. A progressive tax is precedent in the U.S. since the inception of the income tax, is it not?

As I said, I'm trying to keep data relevant to current circumstances and factors in our country.

But it can be is the point. There are plenty of parallelisms throughout the world. The tie-ins from the US, as I said, are heavily in your favor because the US government has never imposed a flat tax.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:10:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:06:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:28:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:18:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few nit-picky things:


1. You said "establish." Doesn't the US already have a progressive tax?

We do, but I want it to be higher. Your right, it should say "keep"

Fair enough.

2. Why does it say in your rules that the opponent must argue for a 10% flat tax? Isn't the resolution only in reference to a progressive tax? Doesn't this carry the extra baggage of 10% being, perhaps, too low to fund essential government services?

To share the BOP. The opponent can only argue a flat tax, and not some other foreign and unlikely system. I might be willing to raise/lower it if my opponent agrees

I understand sharing the BOP, but you could just declare that the criterion for deciding arguments is a preponderance of evidence, which is what I do for all of my economic debates.

The only point is, though, a generalized progressive income tax is much easier to defend than a 10% flat tax. You didn't even lay out rates, either, so you have a bit more flexibility in your arguments than your opponent does.

*I'll tell you over PM*

3. Why exclude countries outside of the U.S.? The U.S. has never had a flat tax federally, so the only argument your opponent could conceivably make for a flat tax would have to do with (1) the morality of taxation (which begs the question of why any taxation ought to be permitted) (2) state flat tax systems, but even that is negligible or (3) general arguments for tax cuts, but even a tax cut doesn't necessitate a flat tax.

To keep it on topic. The "Country X does this and they make Y amount of GDP". Thats just a stupid and irrelevant argument, and can;t be considered.

It is a stupid and irrelevant argument but not because it's outside the US, but because it's post hoc. You have a right to call out correlation instead of causation, but you shouldn't limit the arguments strictly to the US where this hasn't been tried, anyway.

But if its stupid and Post hoc, why even consider it in the first place? There is no point.

I mean, you'd at least want to consider the flat tax in the Russian Federation, right? There's plenty of IMF data on it that I won't mention (it was brought up in one of my debates once upon a time ago, I think), but it's at least an interesting case to consider. I don't think your opponent has too many options in this case. A progressive tax is precedent in the U.S. since the inception of the income tax, is it not?

As I said, I'm trying to keep data relevant to current circumstances and factors in our country.

But it can be is the point. There are plenty of parallelisms throughout the world. The tie-ins from the US, as I said, are heavily in your favor because the US government has never imposed a flat tax.

Anyways, I'm arguing this idiot who is denying that the ruble value went down 8%. Its a basic fact, but he keeps saying it went up -_-. Send back up to the politics section
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:11:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:10:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:06:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:28:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:18:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few nit-picky things:


1. You said "establish." Doesn't the US already have a progressive tax?

We do, but I want it to be higher. Your right, it should say "keep"

Fair enough.

2. Why does it say in your rules that the opponent must argue for a 10% flat tax? Isn't the resolution only in reference to a progressive tax? Doesn't this carry the extra baggage of 10% being, perhaps, too low to fund essential government services?

To share the BOP. The opponent can only argue a flat tax, and not some other foreign and unlikely system. I might be willing to raise/lower it if my opponent agrees

I understand sharing the BOP, but you could just declare that the criterion for deciding arguments is a preponderance of evidence, which is what I do for all of my economic debates.

The only point is, though, a generalized progressive income tax is much easier to defend than a 10% flat tax. You didn't even lay out rates, either, so you have a bit more flexibility in your arguments than your opponent does.

*I'll tell you over PM*

Ok, but I'm about to log off to go and get coffee (because that's what college students do to stay awake), so I'll respond in a bit.

3. Why exclude countries outside of the U.S.? The U.S. has never had a flat tax federally, so the only argument your opponent could conceivably make for a flat tax would have to do with (1) the morality of taxation (which begs the question of why any taxation ought to be permitted) (2) state flat tax systems, but even that is negligible or (3) general arguments for tax cuts, but even a tax cut doesn't necessitate a flat tax.

To keep it on topic. The "Country X does this and they make Y amount of GDP". Thats just a stupid and irrelevant argument, and can;t be considered.

It is a stupid and irrelevant argument but not because it's outside the US, but because it's post hoc. You have a right to call out correlation instead of causation, but you shouldn't limit the arguments strictly to the US where this hasn't been tried, anyway.

But if its stupid and Post hoc, why even consider it in the first place? There is no point.

I mean, you'd at least want to consider the flat tax in the Russian Federation, right? There's plenty of IMF data on it that I won't mention (it was brought up in one of my debates once upon a time ago, I think), but it's at least an interesting case to consider. I don't think your opponent has too many options in this case. A progressive tax is precedent in the U.S. since the inception of the income tax, is it not?

As I said, I'm trying to keep data relevant to current circumstances and factors in our country.

But it can be is the point. There are plenty of parallelisms throughout the world. The tie-ins from the US, as I said, are heavily in your favor because the US government has never imposed a flat tax.

Anyways, I'm arguing this idiot who is denying that the ruble value went down 8%. Its a basic fact, but he keeps saying it went up -_-. Send back up to the politics section