The Instigator
alkhoppus
Pro (for)
The Contender
11edwarj
Con (against)

There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
alkhoppus has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 393 times Debate No: 110831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

alkhoppus

Pro

I've started two similar debates as my first debates on this site, but they are separate issues and I want to keep them as such. I also want things to be cordial and full of open discussion!

My view is simple. I think that there should be one tax rate for everybody. I believe that percentages already mean that the more you earn, the more you pay - and that having a set percentage for every wage earner would be fairer than increasing the percentage paid as wages go up. It's true that because of this system, that as earnings go up it can often be shown that the percentage of wages paid in tax also increases. Not just on what they earn above the different thresholds, but on overall pay. This is unfair, and it's always disguised as "people paying their fair share."

If people paid their fair share, everybody would pay the same percentage of their wage, and this would still mean the rich pay a lot more than the less well off. Please tell me your justification for charging a higher and higher percentage as people earn more, and why you feel this doesn't detract from incentive to do better and be more successful.
11edwarj

Con

1. Rich people can afford to pay more.
2. Poor people can't afford to pay more.
3. Taxes that go up are good because going up is good.
4. If taxes are flat, it will be boring.
5. Flat coke is bad, therefore so are flat taxes.
Debate Round No. 1
alkhoppus

Pro

Right but you missed my point - I'm not saying there should be a set amount that everybody pays. I'm saying there should be one percentage. By the very nature of a percentage, the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less. If everybody pays 15% then someone who earns $20,000 a year is going to pay $3000 in tax and someone who earns $150,000 is going to pay $22,500. Therefore, I fail to see why gradually increasing the actual percentage someone pays is the only means by which the rich pay more and the poor pay less. The only fair system, where everybody pays their actual share of their actual wage, is that the same percentage applies to everybody.

I didn't advocate for a flat tax. I advocated for one tax bracket.
11edwarj

Con

1. You don't get the point.
2. The poor can't afford to pay the same percentage as the rich.
3. Although the lump sum may be more for the rich, the point is that the rich can pay for a higher percentage.
4. This would mean an increase of tax on the poor which is rude
5. If there is only one bracket, people would get bored of it.
6. If there is only one bracket, you can't factorize it.
7. Limiting things to one bracket is against the 2th amendment.
Debate Round No. 2
alkhoppus

Pro

It's disappointing that my first debate on here has been with someone who should be debating in a different category.

1. The point is that you accepted this for a laugh.
2. The poor can afford to pay the same percentage as the rich. Most poor people in the western world have cars, mobile phones, pay their rent and so forth. I've never suggested increasing the tax bracket paid by the poor, just eliminating the other ones. Therefore they would pay the tax they already do pay. So it's not the poor having to afford to pay the same percentage as the rich, it's the rich not being expected to pay a higher share of their wages than those less well off do.
3. Just because they can afford it doesn't make it fair. Adding to the percentage paid when income exceeds a certain amount is the very definition of penalizing someone for doing better.
4. No , as explained in point 2 - at no point did I suggest increasing the lower tax bracket. Just eliminating the other ones which increase as income increases.
5. Sigh.
6. Sigh.
7. Sigh.

Kinda hoped for better from this website.
11edwarj

Con

If you have to resort to personal insults, you've lost the argument :) G'day.
Debate Round No. 3
alkhoppus

Pro

If you're not going to actually debate with saliant and sensible points then there's no debate to lose. And I didn't insult you. Personal or otherwise. Simply expressed my disappointment at the lack of effort to give any substantive argument.

But hey ho. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
MagicAintReal
A flat tax.
You should check out the 9-9-9 tax idea...it's interesting.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.