CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
6
NO YES
Debate Score:13
Arguments:10
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 NO (7)
 
 YES (3)

Debate Creator

munster(49) pic



Is spending more money going to help debt?

NO

Side Score: 7
VS.

YES

Side Score: 6
1 point

Unless that money is being spent specifically on what we owe already, I really don't see more government spending being able to pull us out of debt.

It got us there in the first place. I believe in raising taxes on the rich and massive, and I mean MASSIVE, government cut backs, in order to get us out of this debt that we put ourselves into.

If only we could go back in time and stop government from expanding. It's like this big ass hole that we dug ourselves into and the solution that the diggers come up with is "well, if we keep on digging we'll eventually reach China". Oh shit, the solution is China. See what I did there?

Side: No
MrObvious(45) Disputed
2 points

I agree with you on everything except the raising taxes on the rich. This is why:

I support a flat tax, and by that I mean an even tax across the board percentage wise. If I make 100K per anum and you make 1M per anum, I pay 10K in taxes you pay 100K in taxes. That's fair. We are both able to enjoy the fruits of our labor all while paying our fair share.

Many claim that the "rich" don't pay their fair share when in all actuality they pay more than their fair share while others don't pay at all. If there were a flat or fair tax system everyone pays proportionate to what they make. Right now those who make millions pay some insane percentage of their earnings in taxes. No matter how you slice it, the rich will always pay more in taxes when it comes down to actual numbers, but to penalize the very people who create jobs and wealth in this country only stifles growth and progress.

Why would I be inclined to expand my business when I know that in essence I am going to be penalized when it comes tax time? If I make 1.5M and want to expand my business to the next town over and potentially make 2M, which would create jobs too. Why would I want to do that under a progressive tax plan that would result me paying 35% in taxes as opposed to 25%?

Do you see how a flat or fair tax plan would allow for job creation and also keep the rich paying more?

Side: No
2 points

I have to dispute you on a number of points.

First, that increasing the income tax on the top income bracket (or possibly making a new higher income bracket and raising the tax rate on that) would be unfair to the rich, and that a flat tax would be preferable.

First, the reason why generally people don't want to be taxed is because taxing someone hurts their standard of living. Therefore the more a tax hurts a persons standard of living the more "harmful" that tax is. Furthermore, there is a basic a minimum income on which a person can live. This can be calculated by adding up the minimum cost of necessities (food, rent, basic utilities etc.). This is known as the poverty line and it varies from country to country (and even region to region) as the cost of living varies. The poverty line in the New York City for example is much higher than in a rural village in India. If someone's income is at or below the poverty line, any tax can be seen as extremely harmful. Therefore a 25% tax on a person who makes $20,000 a year (an income right about at the U.S. poverty line) would make it extremely difficult for that person to maintain an adequate standard of living, while a 25% tax on someone who make $100,000 a year would be noticeable, but not significantly effect their standard of living. Therefore as income increases, a higher percentage of income can be taxed without causing a significant increase on standard of living. To put it another way. Increasing the taxes on the top 5% of Americans may mean they might need to take a slightly less luxurious vacation or buy a cheaper 2nd car. To someone near the poverty line however, it could mean choosing between rent, healthcare and food.

While we're on the topic of the poor paying the bills, lets talk about crime. Statistically people growing up in poor households are much more likely to commit crimes than their better off counter parts. The reason for this is simple: if you don't have much already, you don't have much to lose and if you can make more money through illegal activities than from legal ones then it is in your rational self interest to act illegally. This is not to say that all poor people are criminals, it is just saying that environmental factors make crime a more desirable decision than for them if they had more money. Therefore any increase in tax for low incomes would tip the scales towards crime for many people since illegally gained income isn't taxed. More crime means more stolen property and more money spent of security both private (home alarm systems) and public (police) in addition to all of the other ills that are associated with crime.

Thirdly, when talking about security we can easily see that it is the rich who benefit more from money spent on defense and police spending (a significant portion of our budget). Because the rich have more, they have more of a stake in maintaining order in society. If everything were to go to shit (pardon the expression) then those who have a lot to lose would lose the most. Therefore it only makes sense for them to pay a little extra for their added security.

Fourth, progressive income taxes in the U.S. can be seen as offsetting the various regressive taxes that exist. In the U.S. every state except for Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana and Oregon have general sales taxes and there are many other federal and state taxes on more specific items (cigarettes, soda etc.). All of these taxes can be said to be regressive because they put a heavier burden on the poor than the wealthy because low income households spend a higher percentage of their income on consumption goods while high income households can save and invest a higher percentage of your income. If you can barely afford necessities then obviously you're not going to save. Because of the existence of these regressive taxes we need some type of progressive tax even just to accomplish your goal to tax everyone evenly.

Okay, I have gone on for long eough on this part of my argument. I'll wrap up with a quote from Adam Smith, the father of economics from his famous work The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

Moving onto this paragraph of your argument: Why would I be inclined to expand my business... I believe your logic is flawed don't understand how marginal tax rates work. You say that someone may be penalized for expanding their business by progressive income taxes. I assume by penalized, you mean that someone making less money would actually have more money because they are in a lower tax bracket. If I have misinterpreted what you meant than the next paragraph will not apply to what you said, and we can continue the discussion after you correct me.

If I am right (as I suspect I am) then you are misinterpreting how tax brackets work. An income tax rate of 35% on incomes greater than $373,651 (as is the case in the U.S.) only is applied to the income made after your $373,651st dollar. Before that dollar, the income is calculated at the lower rate. Therefore someone who makes $373,651 actually is paying less than 35% of their income to taxes. Income taxes are designed exactly in a way to ensure that what you described doesn't happen. So for someone making $373,651 a year, this is how the actual income tax works out:

The first $8,375 is taxed at 10% which equals = $837.50 in taxes

The income from $8,376 - $34,000 is taxed at 15% which equals = $3843.75 in taxes.

The income from $34,001 - $82,400 is taxed at 25% which equals = $12,100 in taxes.

The income from $82,401 - $171,850 is taxed at 28% which equals = $25,046 in taxes.

The income from $171,851 - $373,651 is taxed at 33% which equals = $66,594 in taxes.

The final dollar is taxed at 35% which equals = $.35

This means that the total tax paid is $108421.60. This means that the effective tax rate on our hypothetical individual making $373,651 is about 29.02%.

I hope this explanation has cleared up any confusion you might have had.

The final point that I will make is that you appear to have confused corporate income tax with personal income tax. Many people make this mistake, but the two are separate. There are different tax brackets and corresponding tax rates for corporations than there are for individuals. The top tax bracket for both, however, is taxed at 35% so in that sense they are similar.

Side: YES
1 point

I'm referring to what we must do now, as opposed to later. Right now, the money has to come from somewhere and the rich (and I mean mega-rich, not millionaire rich) have a very large amount of money that we can tap into and solve many of our current problems. Is it fair? No, but at the same time, they're really not going to miss it.

The problem now isn't a lack of business expansion, it's a lack of revenue. If we cut spending, I would support raised taxes on the rich. Eventually, we can switch to a flat tax.

Side: No
1 point

No, it's completely illogical to think that if you are in debt that you can spend more to get out of debt. The only way that works is if you're paying off debt.

We need to cut government spending, cut programs, cut tax breaks and add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. It will be painful for a while but in the end it will pay dividends.

Side: No
1 point

HAHA this is a rhetorical question right?

How can you spend money and help solve the debt problem.

We are so f* these days you cant have taxing and saving at the same time, its either tax and spend, or remove taxes and cutback the spending. Politics are so polarizing, there is no compromise.

We need a leader that will tax the richest and cut the welfare for the poorest. Hit us both where it hurts, cause we are all hurting. This is the only way to avert a world crisis.

Basically in 12 years we have went from no debt (a balanced budget) to 15 trillion in debt. thats over a trillion a year. We made bad investments (bailouts, corporate welfare, etc...), we get no return on the tax dollars spent. The tax brakes we gave to the richest (bush tax cuts) let the rich get richer and save their money and make great fortunes and spend nothing domestically. Think about it the rich have tons of money but cant spend it because there is no good bet these days. Like if you have 500 million $ where are you going to invest it? wall street is bairly treading water. The rich with all that money have no way to spend it, they lose money trying to create jobs.

The middle class first bought gas guzzling SUV's and sub prime mortgages for years. The SUV's gave billions to gas rich countries OPEC nations. The sub prime mortgages gave trillions of profits to the banks, who acted recklessly. And the government bailed out all those banks (2 trillion dollars) to buy the bad assets. We used to live as a nation off the backs of the middle class, we won or lost with the middle class, but now the middle class is deteriorating. most families lost money on their house, like they are owe more than their house is worth.

Not to mention that we are buying foreign cars where all the profits are made overseas, taking money out of our nation (money that could be used to give to people and be taxed, or be used to buy things that are taxed. So that money goes back to the people and the government - but this is not happening). We do this because our domestic cars are not competitive price or gas mileage. yet we bailed out the auto makers?

And republicans blame the poor? they say the poor get money from the government and waste other tax payers money. That may be, but they pretty much spend their money on living, like on food bus passes, school supplies. They spend their money on mostly domestic products (besides cheap Chinese goods, but we all buy that crap), so the money they get goes to the local farmer that supplied their meals, or at least the money goes to McDonalds, another domestic company.

And i guess i should have pointed this out earlier, but for those that are wondering what does it matter, spending on american goods or foreign goods. Well when you buy american, not only are you supporting american jobs, but you keep those dollars in america. when you buy foreign, you ship your dollars off to that country, and they will not come back, because we import more than we export, so you take those dollars out of the economy. When they stay in the national economy, as long as they are spent, they are taxed, and that is a good thing.

Side: NO
1 point

Spending your money gets you out of debt cause that makes sense ;)

My Thoughts to the Title of this
Side: NO
No arguments found. Add one!