The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

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
raquelhs has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 94720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




raising federal taxes will be inevitable and be the most responsible thing to do

the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point.

if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut.

tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.


Taxing American citizens is the opposite of the "responsible" thing to do.

First, raising taxes has been proven in the past to fail. When Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowered taxes, the economy soared and millions of lives were improved.

Second, when you reward something, you get more of it. When you punish something, you get less of it. Why should we penalize hard-working citizens because Obama went crazy with spending? When small businesses are taxed, they have to make changes that they can afford, which will result in many lost jobs. And when they can't afford to pay the taxes, they close, and even more jobs are lost. Taxes are already relatively high, and you want to put additional burden on people who are trying to provide for their families?

And basic economics and math proves that simply taxing the wealthy will not solve anything.

Where do we draw the line? How much is too much? How much is too little? How much of the hard-working citizen's money will suffice?

And of course we can make cuts for social security and medicaid. They are already going bankrupt. We shouldn't be enlarging these imploding programs. Freedom is a zero-sum system, power given to the government is freedom taken away from its citizens. The government has to cease its endless spending, which is the real problem. The government has gotten too big and it's ruining our economy and putting it on the backs of the next generation.

Raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral.
Debate Round No. 1


you say the economy soared with reagan and bush tax cuts. maybe it increased a little but that was at the expense of going into debt, meaning it's bad for the long term health of the country. eventually the bills will come due. just look at revenues too and see that they went down with those tax cuts.

you say taxes discourage working. if we tax just high income it's not about working it's about wealth building businesses. it's beyond wage labor. even when we had taxes in the sixty percent people still tried to make money they always have and always iwll. they ust wont make as much money.

cutting healthcare spending is not responsible and it's immoral. as well as social security income. people depend on those programs. i can see cutting benefits for the rich but that wont be enough to pay for current spending. taxes are necessary.

not raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral


Increased a LITTLE? The economy boomed! Millions of jobs were created, many areas of government spending was reduced dramatically, and more wealth was created. And you're wrong, revenues increased.

One think you have to understand is that congress decides the spending. During Reagan's presidency, the majority of congress consisted of Democrats. They refused to lower the spending as much as Reagan wanted to.
America was also battling the Cold War, and so Reagan spent a lot more on defense.

It's also important to remember that Reagan had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

The stock market also boomed after he cut taxes.

Taxing the wealthy will not work. Unless we tax everyone who makes at least 250,000 a year at 100%, it still would not balance the budget.

People will always try to make money in order to put food on the table, but when taxes, regulation, and government spending are the lowest, it creates more opportunities for everyone. Countries like Venezuela, which have incredibly high taxes have fallen apart due to the opposite.

I did not say we should cut the programs entirely. No, it's irresponsible to be wasting American citizen's money on a system that so many take advantage of, and is already going bankrupt.

So, explain to me how it's not immoral to be taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on something they have no say in. That's the very definition of theft. Haha it's funny how you tried so hard to turn my moral argument around, because the truth is, you know you can't. If you're going to take someone's income away from them, at least acknowledge you're doing it for your own self-interest and face the facts.
Debate Round No. 2


this shows that revenue has gone down with tax cuts and up with tax increases

it's a very simple idea, cut taxes, get less tax revenue. apparently con beleives in voodoo economics where that kind of common sense doesn't make sense.

thus con just ignores that while tax cuts might spur the economy it's at the cost of long term fiscal health cause most of it needs paid back. reagan doubled the debt or tripled it, and bush doubled it too with their voodoo economics. i'm not sayng obama is clean but he's not trying to claim fiscal superiority either and he's not innocent there either.

taxing the rich more is moral. it's not fair that a regular person should have to pay for poor people when the rich have excess. i realize the government only spends like ten percent on the working poor, and the rich more than pay for that with current progressive taxes. but social security and medicare involve a lot of subsidizing the poor so i can see rich taxes going higher. plus when the top one percent are getting fifty percent of new income, and everyone else is seeing stagnate or decreasing income, i would focus on the excess.

con is just mistaken that we'd have to tax the rich at a hundred percent. the top one percent pay a trilion a year in taxes. so if we cut spending by ten percent and raised their taxes by fifty, when the deficit soon doubles to a tirllion, we'll be about where we should be. and that's for those making i think three hundred and fifty and more so there's room to tax more than the one percent.
i'm not adamentaly opposed to not increasing taxes on people who are jsut above average but not rich, but it's not my first priority.

con acts as if social security and mediare are abused. it's not. it just goes to people who have paid into the system who are old. you can't find enough fraud to make a meaningful dent on that. cutting health spending amounts to cutting essential health care. con just lives in a fantasy world where there's always some magic way to cut spending on essential programs. even if you wanted to privatize it all you still got to pay for current and near retirees and that's going to take a long time to tackle. it's not a short term fix and it's probably not responsible either to make people fend for themselves in a bloated health system or nonsecure financial health.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by raquelhs 2 years ago
Do you (@dairygirl4u2c) know why the debate continues to say "check back in a few minutes for updates," and not to vote, like it's supposed to?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
too many pointless rules for me. either debate again, or no thanks
Posted by raquelhs 2 years ago
I have one condition to a new debate:
There will only be one more round and you may only conclude any previous points, since you will have an extra round, and I will have the amount which was originally stated.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
i am open to it if you start the debate and invite me to it
Posted by raquelhs 2 years ago
I had a holiday and was unable to debate over the weekend. Would my opponent like to start a new debate with one additional round?
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.