Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS JaxsonRaine

Reward Points:54
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
2 points

The CBO released a report saying that increasing taxes or cutting revenues right now would send us into another recession.

The budget needs to be balanced, but it needs to be a gradual process.

JaxsonRaine(54) Clarified
1 point

ThinkProgress got their data from the Congressional Budget Office, but they cherry picked one figure, when corporate taxes are calculated individually depending on industry. This is the latest study they have put out:

In the three major scenarios they put forth, they get the following tax rates.

Figure 2-14: 23.6%

Figure 2-17: 22.1%

Figure 2-20: 41%!

The Tax Foundation link I put up shows an average of 27%, which it lists in the top 5, but that was before Japan lowered its tax rate. Looking at averages though can be misleading. Some industries can enjoy a tax rate up to 30% less by moving out of the US.

Honestly, a little simplification of the code wouldn't hurt :)

-1 points

Yes. Mitt Romney understands what businesses need to succeed. He knows what is good for them and what obstacles they face.

He understands that the US Corporate tax rate is too high, so we can't compete with other developed countries. The effective tax rate on new investments in the US is 30%, while the average of OECD countries is 22.5%. People who are looking to invest in an economy or business on the international level are taking into consideration the extra 7.5% taxes in America(let alone the fact that some individual countries have a tax rate that is 17% lower than America's).

If we remove the obstacles to businesses, they will do the hiring. Unemployment will fall, and tax revenues will increase again.

1 point

I would like to point out that ThinkProgress is not a tax group, and does not specialize in taxes. Their sources are buried in linked stories.

The 13.4% figure cited is a combination of corporate income tax and corporate investment tax. A simple average of the two doesn't provide the correct picture, as corporate investment income is a small fraction of total corporate income. My sources linked at the tax foundation examine hypothetical corporations in different industries, as the tax rates change from industry to industry.

An interesting note for you Ben, Mitt Romney closed corporate tax loopholes as governor of Massachusetts.

0 points

The U.S. has the highest marginal corporate tax rate among all developed countries[1]. Not only that, but the U.S. has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates among all developed countries, ranking in the top 5[2]. Companies have to pay more of their profits here than in other countries, and this is a factor when people and corporations decide where to invest their money.

The average effective tax rate among other nations is 20%, where the US's is 27%. From another perspective, the tax on new investment is 30%, which is 7.5% higher than international averages[2].

In other words, if a wealthy person is considering investing in a company, they will have to pay 7.5% higher taxes if they invest in a U.S. based company than a foreign company, and in some countries they can pay a tax rate as much as 17.8% lower than the U.S. tax rate.[3]

If you were a business person, and your goal were to maximize return on your investment, would you rather be taxed on your profits at 30% or at 12.2%?

This is why the US is struggling with jobs. We aren't competitive on an international level. Investors can keep more of their profits by investing outside of the US.




2 points

Let me describe a hypothetical situation: Person A uses borrowed money to take over Company B. Company B is heading towards bankruptcy, and all of Company B's workers are in risk of losing their jobs. Person A works to turn Company B around. Person A consolidates operations, closes down some of Company B's locations, lays off some workers, and cuts wages to remaining workers. Now, Company B is turning a profit, providing job security to the remaining workers.

This situation describes Romney's work at Bain Capital. Sometimes jobs were cut, sometimes pay was cut, but the vast majority of the time, revenues and profits increased. Companies that were heading for or starting bankruptcy were saved. I assert that Romney's actions helped the workforce tremendously, as it is better to save 80% of jobs in a company than to lose them all.

Before any Anti-Romney people start rebutting, consider this. This situation also describes the auto bailout. GM was saved with government money(taxpayer funds). Operations were consolidated, plants were closed, jobs lost, and wages cut. Yet now, GM is profitable. Ironically, I hear people demonizing Mitt Romney for turning around companies while praising Obama(or Bush, or both) for saving the US auto industry.

It is fairly clear that if a company is failing, it's a good thing for someone to step in and turn things around. Sometimes it's like surgery. It hurts, and it takes time to recover, but it's better than dying.

1 point

The same way people get anything else that is illegal. From illegal sources. Off the street, from dealers, black market, etc...

The only real difference, is we won't have honest citizens who can stop them anymore. The Department of Justice did a study and found out that guns(citizens) are used between 1.5 and 4.5 million times a year to stop a crime.

1 point

I don't see anything wrong with it. People eat in restaurants before paying, and skipping the bill isn't a huge problem.

I have a young child who can get fussy in a crowded store, he doesn't like having that many people around. If he behaves, we reward him with eating a snack while we shop, we'll often let him pick his snack off the shelf. I can guarantee the managers prefer that over him screaming at the top of his lungs for 30 minutes.

1 point

Guns should not be prohibited. They are used far more often to stop a crime than to perpetrate a crime.

Prohibition doesn't prevent those who want to get their hands on something from getting it. Alcohol was prohibited, and the mob made crazy amounts of money smuggling it. Drugs are illegal, and 20 million pounds cross the US-Mexico border every year.

If we ban guns, only criminals will end up having them.

1 point

Average Median Compensation has increased 26% from 1980 - 2003.

Your figure of 5% comes from one study that only considers hourly wages, and doesn't take into consideration the value of benefits.

Table 3 in my link.

Displaying 4 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Con
Winning Position: Pro

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here