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.
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.
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.
My family for example. We earn about 300,000 per year, yet we pay about 5% or less in taxes. A flat tax of say, 15% Would even things up a lot more, especially since a lot of the poorer people currently pay more than 15%.
Hello? Most 'poor' people get taxed in the 20% range and up, how is LOWERING their taxes gunna worsen it for them? And if 20% is two much for them, than they obviously would be able to have food stamps and other ways to 'use' the government.
Yes, but 15 % of Bill gates' income is quite a lot in comparison. If 'Mr. minimum-wage' is having financial problems, I think he needs to work real hard and find a way to get a better job. Do you think bill gates got so rich by doing work equivalent to something like working at a fast food place? Many, if not most, of the rich people in this country got rich by working real hard and striving to you their talents to get to where they want to be. He shouldn't be punished for getting a harder, more educational, higher paying job.
I believe the rich pay relatively low income taxes due to having relatively low taxable income. For example, if they have most of their money in municipal bonds, that income isn't taxable. A flat tax wouldn't change that.
No, that's not quite true. My family for example. We earn about 300,000 yearly, which is much higher than the average family, yet we usually pay less than 5% on taxes. (Although I should add, we're not really all that wealthy because my family spends money almost as much as we get it. It's kinda stupid, lol.) On a side note: We don't really do anything to get 'around' taxes, this is just from the governments failure to make a 'working' program. Right now, it's like it always have been. Rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.
Also, getting municipal bonds isn't exactly easy to get. Even is your assumption was true for some, most people, even in the upper %s wouldn't be able to get them.
We have multiple things going for us, such as my mother's disabilities, mine too... There are a lot of things that make our rate go low really. I don't want to go into all of them though.
Technically you can get a municipal bond pretty easily. But it's practically a 'loan'. You give the government a bunch of money, you get a slip back. Pretty much, they use your money for a set amount of time, so you can't get it back at all, until the time period is up (Minimum is usually 1 year), and in exchange for using your money the government doesn't 'tax' the money. (How could they when it's not 'your' possession at the time.) Even among the right not a 'lot' of people can safely do it for multiple reasons. Hey look! School time! Bye bye! xD
The problem with your argument is that you are justifying a bad system because it would replace a worse system, not because it is actually a good system.
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%.
Nothing can solve 'all problems', we should just look for what's more effective, efficient, and progressive. We unfortunetly don't live in a perfect world. D: Practically the opposite really...
Hmm, I have no idea, and to be truthful, I'm too lazy to look into it. Politics aren't all that interesting to me. BUT I do know that the current system isn't working. Most of the national debt is from tax cuts, so obviously enough we really need to look into balancing it or just plainly changing it...
They would be paying proportionally the same - 15%. Proportionally more would mean a higher rate. While the rich can pay a higher rate, it's an interesting question to consider whether they should pay a higher rate.
How would a flat rate be fair? If you take 15% off of a minimum wage job salary there is no way a person can support themselves, and this has very real effects on physical and mental health. Take 15% off of the income of a millionaire and they are in no danger of losing access to the basic necessities for a good quality of life.
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.
Mhmm, I agree, but it would take a long time, and a whole lot of effort to reform the government in a way that we wouldn't need taxes, plus paying off the national debt would come first. And note: if we got rid of taxes we'd need to fix road, salt roads, run school, and MANY other things that are currently 'government run', and we'd have to pay for all that ourselves. And making that work would also be complex, since we don't want people to 'reap the binifits' of something, when they don't pitch in to help. So yes, really complex.
How is an exchange a robbery? 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 in to the group is no different than individuals paying in to the 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.
"1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully" - The free dictionary.
Voluntary contribution would be better instead of legalizing theft only for the state. I never gave permission or see the state with the right to my property.
You gave the state permission when you continued to receive the services those taxes provided. Moreover, saying you did not directly consent to the initial imposition so taxation is inherently wrong makes as much sense as saying you did not directly consult to the imposition of laws regulating murder and rape so those are wrong. Some governmental action and policy is necessarily going to involve implicit rather than explicit consent, and that alone does not make it wrong.
I already addressed the problems of voluntary contribution, but to reiterate the main point this approach is entirely unfeasible because it lacks the coordinating structure required to implement large social service systems and ultimately would exacerbate wealth inequality to the detriment of the whole economy and country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, you believe in Anarchy? Government is necessary in society. Too much government can curtail rights, and to little government can curtail rights. People need a government that is "just right". But people have different opinions on the "just right", like you. I believe the government made originally by the founding fathers is the "just right". A little government actually protects more freedom. While the people have the power to control the government through a republican system, the government protects the people's rights by law, military, and police. To do that the government needs money. However, the government now has gone too far with it and needs to be brought back down.
No, I believe in Anarcho-Capitalism, there is a difference. Government is not necessary in society.
Respectfully, the founding fathers were brilliant, but they were vague in some controversial clauses.
Even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that government's natural tendency is to increase while liberty wane because politicians will always make promises filled with free goodies and force upon their morality onto others without consent, and the only way to get rid out of it elimination.
Law, military and police could be provided by the market at a lower and higher cost and quality than government.
Never claimed that it would be provided by a centralizing force, it would be provided by numerous private companies competing to the most efficient and fair service at the highest quality and lowest cost.
Yes, but then you have the problem of private corporations with their own respective armies, competing with each other. If one becomes powerful enough, they could become a monopoly, therefore creating a corporate oligarchy, and have a glorified mercenary army. A government takes the responsibility of this, and stays in control of the people. So instead of private corporations taking advantage of their power, the people control the government and monitor their services.
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.
Yes, I did. My argument is also a refutation. I wrote it well the first time and saw no reason to change it when advancing it as an independent point to your argument. It functions both ways so I let it. Big deal. Get over it. Make an another argument here or there, or move on.
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.
Taxation is no more oppressive than laws against murder or rape which predate your legal adult status. The consent is implicit in both cases, and in the instance of taxation it is especially implied when you continue to use the services supported by that tax infrastructure.
What evidence or reasoning do you actually have that taxation provides less than it takes? You criticize me for my "redistribution rhetoric" but I actually provided a rational as to why one thing might follow from another while all you have done is say "this is self evident" which it clearly is not or we would not be disagreeing.
I never said individuals would have to provide the services, but rather that they would have to pay for the services to be rendered. This is something the wealthy can afford to do, either as individuals or as groups, but it is not an option for impoverished communities or individuals and denying equitable access to basic services that are necessary for a baseline quality of life is not only unethical and counter to American values of equality and justice, but actively destabilizing because it keeps people in poverty which weakens the overall economy. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but the lack of those basic services causes full scale riots for the simple reason that they are so basic - but I suppose that that is not a direct economic loss so you don't care (the blind spots of the indirect, non-monetary costs and benefits of economic choices has prompted serious and growing discourse amongst economists about a new measurement to replace GDP).
To clarify though, perhaps you mean our other services could function like the internet does. Except, wait, internet service in the United States is some of the worst available service in the developed world. Consider my faith in the free market quite uninspired. Or perhaps you would like to examine a city where "public" parking is managed by a private market rather than the government - I'm thinking Chicago where the prices went through the roof after the system was contracted out to a private party. That clearly worked well.
Comparing taxation to murder or rape in terms of oppression is despicable and unjustifiable considering that since I was forced to pay for low quality services, I should be grateful to my masters. I better get something out of the money that was forcibly taken upon the use or threat of violence. It is like pointing a gun at your parents to give you money, then buy a lawn mover and cut the grass, so that they can be thankful for the kind service since you cut the grass.
The poor are poor because they don't produce anything, how does one become wealthy without producing anything. Economic growth isn't a fix pie.
Taxation hardly reduces inequality in wealth, rather it is tax on the production of goods. Therefore, taxation makes the production of goods more expensive, which means fewer goods and services will be produced as a consequence. Income taxation benefits the rich, who have accumulated goods at the expense of the poor, who have least accumulated goods, by increasing the price of those goods. Furthermore, income taxes protect the value of large fortunes and prevent smaller fortunes from becoming larger. Taxation takes away money from the production population and transfers it to the unproductive.
If income taxes are the solution to getting the poor out of poverty, why hasn't it happened already?
As you claim, internet in America is the worst available service in the developed world, but it isn't the fault of the free market, it is over regulation. As for parking in the Chicago, prices only went through the roof because parking was finally based on markets by supply and demand, and the government parking was merely a result of bad policy in price controls that being a price ceiling probably due to the fact that it was picking and choosing who got the space since there was no other way to determine who got the spaces because it was all at one price.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry if I put a bit of a spin on it, I feel pretty strongly about people's welfare and the 'other sides' ideology isn't doing us any courtesy in that respect
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.