CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:17
Arguments:11
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Is it patriotic to pay higher taxes? (11)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37797) pic



Is it patriotic to pay higher taxes?

be patriotic, pay higher taxes

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.


Add New Argument
4 points

It was patriotic at one time to ban together and buy war bonds and other things to help the government and our troops during WWII. There could be something patriotic about everyone doing their part. There should be something patriotic about it. However, I find that there is no patriotism left in this country. It's more "what can you do for me", not "what can we do for each other." Over taxing the rich is ridiculous. It's not patriotic to work your butt off and then give it all to the government who then decides how it should be spent. If you are a shareholder in a company, you get a financial report. The companies (most times) are held accountable for their actions, what their credits and debits are. However, there is nothing like that in the Federal Government. We have to pay, but we have no choice in what that money goes to and there is no way for us to regulate the responsible spending of that money. Yes, I know, we VOTE for those who are supposed to have our best interests in mind, but they care about their own bottom line, not ours.

Another up vote for you. I think the reason we are no longer patriotic is because we realize (at some level) that there's no difference between the parties really. If 30% of the people vote, and it is a close race, then that means that 16% of the people chose the president and the other 60% didn't vote because they don't see the point in it. If only we had another party that was really different than both the Democrats and the Republicans, then maybe the percentage of voters would increase and maybe we would end up with a president that was chosen by a real majority.

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

There's a lot of patriots left. We're called Obama supporters.

Is it patriotic for welfare recipients to get off their ass and find work? ;)

I'm just playing devil's advocate folks. I'm just showing how someone can spin this. Please don't flame the messenger ;)

jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"Is it patriotic for welfare recipients to get off their ass and find work?"

Actually, they're legally required to, thanks to the welfare reform enacted by Bill Clinton.

Supporting Evidence: Welfare (www.washingtonpost.com)

Well then, I'm glad that's been taken care of.

0 points

I think it's patriotic to do what we can to make sure that we are each safe from a tyrannical government. That's what we fought for, isn't it? I think it's only common sense though to support a strong military because a strong military keeps us safe.

Patriotism is about supporting individualism because individualism protects are individual rights. It's not about having the government taking half of someone's money just so they can give it to someone who doesn't even have a job.

In a way, fighting for individualism is fighting for each other. Because we are all benefiting from it (unless you're completely incompetent). Although, this doesn't mean we should abandon all other aspects of the government either, but it's a goal we should keep in #1 priority.

Side: Individualism
0 points

Using Fox News as a source is like using the Daily Show as a source. Their title implies that Biden is saying that if a wealthy person doesn't pay higher taxes they are unpatriotic. Much like Republicans for the longest time were trying to say that if one were against the Iraq War they must be unpatriotic. What Biden clearly said was that paying higher taxes would be patriotic. Implying not that they were unpatriotic at all, but that it would help the U.S. if taxes were raised on the richest 1% of the population, who currently horde 90% of the United State's wealth. Keep in mind the reason these few have become so rich is a direct result of the freedoms they enjoy because they live in the greatest country on Earth.

Again I would like to remind everyone, it's only the wealthiest whom the Obama/Biden ticket are proposing a tax raise for. These extremely wealthy people will still be able to afford yahts and Bentleys though, even after the tax raise. Further, they want to lower taxes for everyone else to further help the economy.

Right now the extremely wealthy pay a lower percent in taxes with all the loopholes and after all the accountants are done. Rupert Murdock reported that last year, without even trying to evade taxes, he only paid 17%, while his personal secretary who he pays 60 grand a year had to pay 30%.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor millionaires who would have to contribute a little more to the greater good.

Side: Fox News is a joke
brallsplp(4) Disputed
2 points

"who currently horde 90% of the United State's wealth"?

Since when was someones income the property of the Government? You speak as if the is some fixed pool of money and the rich have 90% of it, therefore keeping you from getting your fair share of the pie. With that mentality and way of looking at things it would be no surprise to me that you would not be earning enough to satisfy yourself and your needs

"Rupert Murdock reported that last year, without even trying to evade taxes, he only paid 17%, while his personal secretary who he pays 60 grand a year had to pay 30%."

I do believe that it was Mr Buffet who told that story as proof that people like himself should pay more, and the funny thing is, there's nothing stopping him from paying more in taxes, he does not have to wait for Obama to raise his taxes, he can just simply check that box on his tax forms that allows you to pay more, so the question is, why is he only paying 17%? Why don't he put his money where his mouth is and lead by example?

Here's some facts for you:

Share of income earned by all tax payers compared to share of income taxes paid in the US:

Share of all income earned in the US:

Top 1 % of income earners: 1990 = 14%; 2000 = 21%; 2005 = 21%

Share of all income taxes paid in the US:

Top 1 % of income earners: 1990 = 25%; 2000 = 37%; 2005 = 39%

Source: Treasury Dept. 10/2007 -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Another interesting stat is that the top 5% of income earners paid 60% of all the taxes paid in the US in 2007.

So it looks like the rich's share of the pie grew at a greater clip under Clinton than it has so far under Bush.

The fact is that the super rich are not the ones who get hurt the most, they can hide their cash, get favors from their powerful friends on the hill (notice that you have never seen any real effort by the Dems to wipe out all of those loop holes that you are referring to, gee, I wonder why?) or can simply afford it.

It is those that are just getting there that get hurt, often they are small businesses who need every penny they can get to compete against the well funded big guys, increasing taxes will make it harder for them to compete, to hire, to invest even more. So, in the end, it will hurt the small business owner and people that he would have hired without the increase. Ironically, that helps the big guy, the harder it is for the small guy to compete the easier it is for big guy to remain at the top.

Let me explain it this way, in 2000 I earn 1 million and my rate is 10% I will pay $100K in taxes, then in 2005 I earn $10 Million and my rate is still 10% I will pay $1 Million in taxes. Imagine that, it doesn't even take a tax increase for Uncle Sam to get $900K more in taxes from citizens succeeding and growing.

That is what we should all want to see more of, that would benefit all of society, the plane and simple point is this, the higher the tax rate the less likely that the scenario above will occur and and the lower the tax rate the more likely it is that will occur.

But, one point I think we might agree on, lets get rid of all of the tax loop holes, you will get no fight from me there!

Side: Individualism

OK. But is Murdoch the rule or the exception?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/302366.stm

For example, Disney pays 31%.

Side: Individualism
0 points

That's a very good article. It highlights just how broken the system is in many cases. But it's talking about Corporate taxes, I was talking about individual taxes.

I have not heard that Obama is planning on raising taxes on corporations based in the U.S. I do know that part of his plan is to make it more attractive for companies to keep their plants here in the U.S. (as opposed to going overseas) with higher tariffs and tax incentives for companies that employ Americans.

Side: Individualism