CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
"Fair Tax"
Replace the method of taxation for the U.S using the "Fair Tax" plan. Description of this may be found at: http://www.fairtax.org Eliminate the IRS. Tax income which is now going untaxed. Eliminate tax loop holes used by the wealthy to escape their fair share of taxes. Potiential to bring in much more in the way of taxes which helps keep taxes lower for all of us. Place a floor under the poor which prevents them from having to pay taxes. An understandable tax system.
well, taxes are one of the most unfair things ever to come to America. We've butchered it.
My main problem with it is with the income redistribution. That we're using taxes for
a. Corporate bailouts
b. welfare and medicaid
at least with the Fair tax system, everyone will be paying for stupid shit like that.
but, I don't mind progressive taxing. in fact, i do believe in taxing the rich at a much higher rate, but as long as we don't redistribute it among the less fortunate or the just plain irresponsible. it should go to three main purposes:
Security (military, police, etc.)
Education (resources and programs)
Science (space, ocean, medicine, etc.)
but as long as we continue this welfare bullshit, i would much rather have the Fair Tax system.
immoral by your standards, maybe, but not by mine.
the idea of just giving away money to the poor (and i include any assisted living programs as welfare in terminology wise, so include government housing and medicaid) hasn't been around for that long, and we did fine without it.
please, don't bring morality into a logical discussion. it upsets me.
as for bailouts... maybe certain bailouts MIGHT have been necessary, but most were not. obviously you support corporatist legislation, but i'm against rewarding bad behavior.
No genius, nobody supports corporatism. I'm insulted by the accusation. I view it as a necessary evil given the current state of things. I'm being pragmatic rather than idealistic.
And as I've explained to you before, there is a basic level of morality that is rooted in logic: people have evolved the capacity to enjoy life, this enjoyment is good and should thus be maximized.
so, the rich should pay for the poor as long as it makes the poor happy? cause that's what i got from your morality argument.
corporatist people support corporatism...
i view the necessary evil as letting the failed corporations fail. either that, or saving them but changing management. Obama, so far, has only "strongly encouraged" for the AIG boss to resign. i say, if you're gonna be corporatist, do it right.
corporatism is helping corporations in order to ensure what is best for the market. this should include finding the right CEO for the company that is being bailed out. when you half-ass things, you just fuck shit up.
No. I was just making the point that logic and morality are not completely separate. The morality behind welfare is a complicated question, but I think any reasonable person can conclude that people should not be left to die in street.
You're wrong about AIG. The CEO has changed. Edward Liddy replaced Robert Willumstad in September of 2008.
Letting the banks fail would have been, in the words of Warren Buffet, "cataclysmic".
"Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential if the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown. Had that occurred, the consequences for every area of our economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various Side Streets of America were all in the same boat."
why do reasonable people have to conclude that people should not be left to die in the street? logic would insight that the person who is dying on the street is a parasite who's source has been cut off. like a heroin addict with no more access to heroin.
And the CEO changed, but not based on what government did. probably not even based on what government suggested. The problem is that government isn't making sure that this new CEO is actually qualified.
We have plenty of other banks, and the failing banks were bought out by banks that were not failing. That is what capitalism does, we don't need to impose corporatist legislation when the market is already handling itself.
Suffering is bad. Logically, we should help people avoid it. We can prevent a great deal of suffering at a relatively small expense. Therefore we should do it.
Welfare does not go to "parasites." It is mainly meant to help people get back on their feet so that they can become productive members of society. There are exceptions for the elderly and the disabled. Are these the parasites you are referring to?
You are wrong again when you say the new CEO isn't qualified. He came out of retirement after a long and successful career in order to get the company back on it's feet. Would you please do a little research before you start spewing bullshit?
There are only four kinds of people who oppose the bailouts: 1) libertarian ideologues 2) socialists 3) people who don't know wtf they're talking about, and 4) people seeking to score political points by exploiting group #3. I'm guessing you're a #3 who has been informed by #4.
1. say that logic has to do with being socialist (why can't it be logical to encourage an individualist society instead of a pussified society? hmm, it seems you treat an opinion as fact).
2. once again put words in my mouth and say i was spewing bullshit. i never said he wasn't qualified, i said that we can't be too sure that he will do things right. what, everything is 100% now? WHAT OPTIMISM!!!
3. and, say i don't know what i'm talking about and claim that i listen to the very people i dislike very, very much (politicians).
i don't oppose ALL bailouts, just most of them and how they were handled. i do believe that desperate times call for desperate measures, i'm not an ideologue. but why do we have to make bailouts a permanent thing now? that just cause we needed to do it during a time of crisis, that makes it alright to do it all the time. I guess we should just drop the atom bomb whenever we're just about to wrap up a war, as well.
Correct, logic tells us we should have at least a minimal amount of socialism. And I do want to encourage an individualist society. I just don't take it to such an extreme that people who can't keep up should be left to die.
What do you mean "make bailouts a permanent thing"? Of course we're not going to do that. We will learn from these mistakes and through regulation or whatever prevent them from happening again.
we had regulation and oversight. The problem was that we thought that big government would save us, would keep our money safe. so we got dependent on them, taking their advice.
then look what happened. government failed and the people were put into an economic recession. this is because regulations aren't the answer. Teaching the people to be INDEPENDENT and not count on government is what we must do in order to create a great society.
people who have TRUE excuses (disabilities and elderly) should be assisted by the government... of course. but welfare is currently being given to crack heads because those who are drug abusers are considered unable to work. This is true (someone actually said that crack heads would get arrested, but being a junky isn't illegal. the only way a crack head can get arrested is if he has crack on him).
we want the government to bail everyone out whenever they're in a jam. I don't mind support for the truly doomed (and those who can't help it either). but what we currently have and have had for quite some time is far from individualism. When we do this, and the government fails, people have no idea what to do. they're fucked, and everyone who lives under them is fucked.
You're wrong about what caused the financial crisis. It was a lack of regulation. In the early 90s it was thought that bank regulations put in place after the Great Depression were holding back the economy and were no longer necessary, so we got rid of them. This allowed the banks to become gigantic, "too big to fail."
Yes, the event that sparked the meltdown was the mortgage crisis -- dumb people bought houses they couldn't afford. And yes these dumb people were encouraged by liberal politicians and greedy investment bankers. What should have happened was that the banks who financed the sub-prime mortgages should've gone bankrupt. They should have been small enough that they could have gone bankrupt without nuking the economy. But sadly, that was not the case.
"The passage of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 further narrowed the number of people allowed to receive SSI disability benefits by requiring that drug addiction or alcoholism not be a material factor in their disability."
"Jessald says: It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year."
The "Fair Tax" plan does not have a sliding scale for the amount of taxes imposed (or any scale). There is one percentage, the same percentage, and it is applied to all income levels. This is one aspect of the "Fair Tax" that makes the tax "fair".
I agree. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the more money you make the dollar amount of taxes will go up. Therein lies the word "fair" and higher income brackets will be paying more which is, in itself, "fair."
As long as there are politicians, there will not be a fair tax. One party promises to tax the rich for the benefit of the poor and the other party makes sure there are plenty of loop holes for the rich. The fair tax benefits only the middle class.
Politicians who do not represent their constituents are and always will be a problem for all of us.
Under the "Fair Tax" plan, there will not be tax code which can be manipulated, either for the rich or the middle class. The IRS will no longer exist. The tax code of today, which is in millions of words, will no longer exist.
However, the politicians will be able to lower or raise the percentage of the "fair tax" as they see fit (if they can get enough votes). I would like to suggest that this process would have the attention of the whole country and therefore incumbents who vote against the will of the people open themselves to a loss of their job.
I understand what you are saying. What I'm saying is that politicians see value in telling people, vote for me and I will:
1. Lower your taxes
2. Raise their taxes
If the fair tax goes through and is passed, then politicians will no longer be able to use the words yours and theirs It will be everybody's taxes across the board. This benefits the people but not the politicians who are out to get votes. Therefore, I doubt that the politicians will pass the fair tax plan.
Well, I am in favor of a fair tax (sales tax or VAT) more than a income tax. Fair tax is unavoidable by all taxpayers because if you buy goods and services, the tax is direct whereas the current income tax, there are many loopholes in avoiding taxes particularly for the people who write the laws and those privileged. The income tax is indirect because everybody pays different tax rates whereas in a fair tax, everybody knows what everybody is paying; hence, the term, fair tax.
"We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair."
There would be a big sales tax to compensate for the removal of income taxes. My understanding is that this is just a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption.
Sales taxes hurt the middle and lower class more because a greater percentage of their income goes toward consumption rather than investment.
"Jessald says: It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year."
The "Fair Tax" plan does not have a sliding scale for the amount of taxes imposed (or any scale). There is one percentage, the same percentage, and it is applied to all income levels. This is one aspect of the "Fair Tax" that makes the tax "fair".
It's fair to tax the rich more because they can afford it. When you tax the poor you're taking money that they would use to pay for food, shelter, education, etc.
As I said earlier, a sales tax puts an increased burden on the poor.
Income (wage) tax is slavery. my labor is mine, and taxing it is saying you own my labor. we had no income tax until the 1920's. when the amendment was passed income meant corporate profit. the feds decided to change the meaning of income to mean wage. The supreme court ruled twice that they could not tax wages under the amendment. They were ignored and the government has uses threat of force and jail to steal our wages ever since.
Fair tax is another idea to make rich people richer, and it amazes me that so many everyday Americans (for whom it would be economically bad) are tricked into supporting it.
The term "fair" tax is misleading. Fair tax is a tax on consumption, which does not make it fair, as consumption is necessary to living. Though it is true that everyone would pay the same rate, poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on food, clothing, etc. leaving them with less in the end. I invite you to do some comparison shopping by visiting the link below. The graph will show that the tax burden will shift if a fair tax is enacted, to lower tax rates of those earning over $200,000/yr. and increase pretty much everyone else's burden (with the exception of those below the poverty line).
