CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
42
Yes No
Debate Score:88
Arguments:94
Total Votes:93
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (40)
 
 No (33)

Debate Creator

HoldTheMayo(5907) pic



Do you support a flat tax?

I'm interested in hearing why people support a flat tax, as the people who would have the most to gain (those in the highest tax bracket) are probably not on this site in huge numbers.

Yes

Side Score: 46
VS.

No

Side Score: 42
4 points

Yes. I support eliminating all tax loopholes and charging a 10% flat tax.

Side: Yes
2 points

Would you charge people on minimum wage the same as a billionaire?

Side: No
AREKKUSU(275) Clarified
1 point

Most people in the top % pay about 5% of their income to taxes, while many people on minimum wage pay way more % wise. A flat tax would make things a lot easier.

Side: Yes

I definitely support eliminating loopholes as well. But you can have a flat tax with loopholes, or a progressive tax without loopholes. Please explain why you support a flat tax of 10%.

Side: Yes
1 point

It makes sense to me. .

Side: Yes

I am personally against all FORCED taxation however, if there is going to be a system of forced taxation I think it should a flat rate FOR EVERYONE!

Side: Yes

But why? Why don't you want the rich to pay proportionally more?

Side: Yes
AREKKUSU(275) Clarified
2 points

A flat tax refer's to %, therefor, if the flat tax was at 15%, the rich WOULD be paying proportionally more.

Side: Yes

I typically dont favor any form of taxation since it is such a coerced levy, but if I had to choose a side I would probably favor an incredibly low flat tax.

Side: Yes
AREKKUSU(275) Clarified
2 points

Most of the national debt was caused by tax cuts, we as a nation can't afford a "incredibly low flat tax".

Side: Yes
AbbyNestor(1028) Clarified
1 point

I see your point. I am an extreme libertarian and I believe taxation is simply robbery.

Side: Yes

Incredibly low taxation? Like what? 4%-6% or something?

Side: Yes
1 point

A flat tax would be really nice, and I would support it. However, politicians then would usually increase sales tax to make up for the difference, so it is a conflict that isn't quite made up yet.

Side: Yes

Actually, this already happened in the 80's when tax rates were reformed into three levels of flat income tax, but it has been distorted many times over.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah. This time it needs to be set more rigorously and efficiently. Cut out the middle-man and too many expenses.

Side: Yes

There might not be any difference to make up, if they set the rate so that tax revenue remains the same as it is now.

Side: Yes

There's no reason to go through the tax form filling bull shit. ;)

Side: Yes

Wouldn't you still have to file the exact same forms under a flat tax?

Side: Yes

God, I hope not ;)

Side: Yes

When I first learned about taxes it was so confusing. A flat tax system would just be so much more simpler.

Side: Yes

A flat tax system would be just as complicated. Flat only refers to the rate you pay. Making it simple is a separate issue.

Side: Yes
1 point

Flat taxes have been proven to work in the Baltic States and Russia. They care equality and simplify the tax system. It support Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

Side: Yes

Yes, I am a capitalist. I am not an Obama lover! Here are some geetho names,

Foodstampteona

Tayyloquila

Jacoqunisha

Boochoteiona

Side: Yes
1 point

We need a flat tax so we can get rid of tax loopholes and to people who say that a flat tax helps the rich most rich people would pay more for a 25 percent flat tax.

Washington for example the poorest 20% pay 17.3% of taxes as a percent of income while the top 1% pay only 2.6%. This is why a flat tax is needed and all tax loopholes should be removed if they can.

Side: Yes

One way people pay such a low rate is by taking a lot of deductions to slash their taxable income. For example, if your income is $1,000,000, and you have $740,260 in write-offs, your taxable income is $259,740. If that put you in the lowest bracket of 10% (it wouldn't of course, but this is just a quick example), your tax would be $25,974, or 2.6% of your income.

However, a flat tax wouldn't change this all that much. Under a 25% flat tax, your taxes would be 0.25 * $259,740, which is $64,935, or 6.5% of your income. So yes, you'd pay a little more, but paying only 2.6% of your income in taxes is an extreme case. Someone in the higher tax brackets would pay less under a 25% flat tax. A flat rate does not automatically eliminate loopholes.

Side: Yes
Jc41218(1560) Disputed
1 point

I am saying it would be better than the system we have now.

Side: No

Flat tax is no different than an oppressive income tax because both ineffectively and evenly distribute the tax burden based on the ability to pay, and market prices aren't based on the ability to pay, so if the market was completely based on the ability to pay, the market system would completely collapse, and supply and demand would be meaningless, and this is why taxation fails because of its inability to effectively allocate resources to the most efficient means.

Therefore, all taxation should be abolished.

Side: No
Scout143(651) Disputed
1 point

Then how else would the government be able to function? It relies on taxes to provide public services to the people.

Side: Yes
2 points

I realize the function of taxes in relation to services, but there would be no government, it is a unnecessary parasite of society.

Side: No
Jace(4666) Disputed
1 point

How is an exchange oppressive? Taxes are levied to provide services and promote national stability. It is highly unrealistic to expect individuals to provide basic services - waste disposal, energy systems, etc. - on their own, and organizing into small collectives to that end where members pay into the group is no different than individuals paying into a larger governmental system. The key differences between the no-tax state and the tax state are that the former has less well coordinated services and that the latter redistributes wealth.

As I understand the anti-tax platform, that redistribution is what is viewed as problematic since the money from the wealthier is reallocated to those experiencing financial hardship. This strikes me as an invalid critique, however, as such distribution functions to stabilize the overall economy which ultimately benefits all members (including the wealthier from whom the original money came from).

Redistribution also allows the construction of a financial safety-net for all members of society, which is something even the wealthy benefit from since financial hardship can occur even despite personal responsibility.

Furthermore, the financial security enjoyed by the wealthier, while partially attributable to personal responsibility and effort, is also a consequence of inequitably distributed resources and opportunities - the wealthy typically have had more opportunities. Redistribution can function to extend those opportunities to a greater portion of the population which, again, ultimately benefits everyone. A flat tax rate directly counteracts this benefit by exacerbating the very conditions of financial instability which redistribution programs attempt to address.

Certainly, current programs of redistribution could use improvement so that they function more to these ends, however mismanagement is hardly a basis for total revocation and adoption of an ultimately even less effective system.

Side: Yes
AbbyNestor(1028) Disputed
1 point

Did you copy this from your other argument but replaced robbery with oppresion?

Side: No
1 point

How is taxation not oppressive? Taxation coercive nature of payment in services or face imprisonment is the defintion of oppressive. Exchanges are completely voluntary where both parties both believe that he will benefit more by making the exchange.

Taxes do provide services yet not necessarily in total consent. No government service is provided by any of its own equity, so it has to take more to provide less, and it by no means brings national stability, it is more like poverty, and this is self evident. Individuals wouldn't have to provide services on their own, this is where markets come up about. Do you know why markets work? Even if it were to be paid in groups, it would be voluntary and cooperative

The rest is redistribution rhetoric that is hardly worth addressing.

Side: No

Tax the rich higher, but not too much higher to mean they don't get to feel happy about being rich.

Side: No
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

so making 180 millions instead of making 200 millions is a reason to be unhappy? :D

Side: Yes
Rogue Rascal(9486) Clarified
1 point

If you were rich it would be.....................................

Side: Yes
1 point

Nice of you to be making decisions on my happiness for me.

Side: No
1 point

I do not support a flat tax. Unless of course it could be Utopian and thus 100%. The government desperately needs revenue and I believe the current system of measuring the amount of tax one pays is archaic. Tax payment should be based on the effect of the loss of the money you are paying. For instance, someone who is only making 10 dollars will really feel a 5 dollar tax, but someone making 1 000 000 dollars would only consider 500 dollars a rounding error. This is charging the same percentage.

Side: No
1 point

LOL, that is not the same percentage unless you add 3 zeros to the second guy's tax.

Side: Yes
Jace(4666) Clarified
1 point

Math aside, the point still sands. Having 500,000 versus 1,000,000 is not going to significantly lower your quality of life. Maybe you need to live in a smaller house... but you still have a house. Maybe you can't get gourmet food all the time... but you can still get food.

Side: Yes
kozlov(1752) Clarified
1 point

Make that 50 000 dollars please. (Apparently I do not have tourrets syndrome)

Side: Yes

Actually, it would be 500,000. (5 is half of 10; 500,000 is half a million.)

Side: No
1 point

Right off the bat you say that the tax system is archaic, even though its very progressive. Might like to also add that the government wouldn't need to tax income and large amounts of revenue if the government stopped wasting money on inefficient and wasteful programs.

If someone makes $100 they pay $10, if someone makes $1,000 they pay $100 and if someone makes $10,000 they pay $1,000. Whats so wrong about taxing everyone the same percentage? A tax is essentially a penalty/fine, penalizing and fining people more for being more successful isn't the brightest of ideas.

PS: When someone makes $10 and pays $5 and some other guy makes $1,000,000 and pays $500 its not the same percentage.

Side: Yes

If it was able to help everybody out then yes but it still leaves problems for others.

Side: No
1 point

Adopting a progressive tax code is not only ideologically in the right it's also far better for the economy. Percentage wise rich people spend less of their income than middle incomers do which makes sense, but this means they are not contributing as much to the demand-side of the economy. I'm not necessarily in favor of any monetary policy or government stimulation of the economy but it's plain to see that taxed income when reintroduced into the economy through government fiscal policy is better economically than stagnant income amassing wealth that is occasionally spent on luxuries. Also keep in mind that the US' income tax is still far lower than in most other developed nations.

A flat tax is also bad economically because it lowers productivity. If someone amasses $10 million and stops working thats a loss of productivity because why would anyone who has more money they would ever need work? So not only does the higher income bracket hoard wealth they also contribute very little to the economy. If you think about it logically, given a companies' fixed payroll budget, for someone to be making more in wages someone needs to be making less in wages. Apply this to a larger unilateral scale and you see the problem with amassing more wealth than you could ever need; very little of it goes back into the economy and for it to exist there must be an absence of it elsewhere (the toll of which is usually spread among a large workforce).

Economically this is not the case for every income bracket. The lower and middle class spend a larger percentage of their wealth and spend it in places that are more likely to stimulate the economy and economic growth overall. We should be enriching the middle class because doing do will invariable enrich the economy. Why would we then impose the same economic sanctions on them that we impose on large sums of stagnant wealth? Overall it's counterproductive and simply unjust.

Side: No
1 point

You wrote far too much and a lot of what you said was incorrect. Stop ranting, start using paragraphs please.

EDIT: Thank you for using paragraphs, much appreciated for the eye.

Side: Yes
YouDontKnow(79) Disputed
2 points

Can you clarify what exactly I said that was incorrect versus what I said that you don't agree with please?

Side: No

i do and dont it just seems more reasonable not to .. people with the money can pay the extra ten thousand dollar tax

Side: No

i support nooooooooooooooo taxes

Side: No
1 point

I would not support a flat tax.

If a flat tax were to come into effect, then the money needed for current infrastructure would have to come from somewhere, and proponents(Some) would try to extract the money with a sales tax, which hurts the poor who are dependent on commodities more so then the rich.

Therefore, I would not support a flat tax.

Side: No