The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 58421
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

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.


Thanks to my opponent and good luck during this debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


yes i acknowledge all that state and local notes, and the levy point. some jurisdictions have exemptions, not all. but they should. it shouldn't be a percent for the lowest, it should be nothing.

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.


So you're saying we should get rid of the income taxes and focus all our taxes on just the property tax? Why should we focus on property tax? Should we raise the property tax? Your argument doesn't quite make any sense because you haven't given any explanation on why we should be doing this.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


i did explain why we should do it. it would better help distribute property to everyone, and it would stop penalizing labor.

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.


Your argument that it would better help distribute property to everyone is more of a socialistic theory and would require more than a hike in property tax. Let the people work and earn their property. Most people don't want/need the property. People will pay to get what they want/need. If you wanted to really increase the progressive type tax on property taxes everybody would be selling and not buying. That can create a huge problem and we have already seen that.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mray56 7 years ago
I really didn't even notice. I didn't register just for your debate. How exactly would these icons influence this debate?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 7 years ago
i object to con joining the site, taking the debate, and taking the opposite icon as me. so as to subconsciously influence the debate?
it doesn't help that his icon is up, and 'happy', while mine is down, negative.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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.

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