CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
39
YES NO
Debate Score:75
Arguments:54
Total Votes:84
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (29)
 
 NO (25)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Is the tax the rich a fallacy?

YES

Side Score: 36
VS.

NO

Side Score: 39

Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is the biggest fallacy of them all?

Well, that is taxing the rich brings wealth.

Why do the liberal wealthy support higher taxation?

Consider that existing wealth is not taxed

...........but getting there is taxed.

The fundamental difference between "reporting" and actually "making" a half-million is significant.

THEREFORE,

When governments increase taxes on the rich making money, eventually, they understand the welfare state, and they leave.

Even with the biggest imginations of the liberals, taxation no way increases the wealth of the poor. Again, it is a transfer.

It is unfortunate that the poor have been led to believe this fallacy.

Side: yes
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
1 point

I'll have to disagree. The rich are taxed more than the poor because they represent a much larger percetile of the nations income per person. Were there equal quantities of upper, middle, and lower class populations, then I would be more in favor of a fair tax than a progressive tax.

Side: No

If anything taxing the rich actually brings poverty because taxation is consumption.

Side: YES

If you are going to have taxes, don't target one economic group. Everybody should pull their own weight.

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/why-we-should-not-tax-the-rich/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dK9XBYRdSU

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

If you are going to have taxes, don't target one economic group. Everybody should pull their own weight.

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/why-we-should-not-tax-the-rich/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dK9XBYRdSU

The wealthy can afford high taxes. People with an average annual income of more than one million dollars can live completely comfortably if they were taxed as high as 95% of their income.

On the other hand, the middle and lower classes would starve if taxed this much, and if we tax them with a flat tax it means the poor and middle class must dole out more of their income (which affects them more strongly since they typically make less than fifty thousand dollars annually) because the wealthy (who can afford the inconvenience) are now pulling up less economic slack.

It also makes little sense to defend the wealthy as you do, because they own the majority of the wealth in the country. This means you support taxing the population with the smallest ownership of state wealth more heavily.

Side: No
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
3 points

The wealthy can afford high taxes.

So? It doesn't seem right to force them to pay high taxes while others get a free ride.

This means you support taxing the population with the smallest ownership of state wealth more heavily.

What I support is tax cuts for all Americans and cuts to government spending. If people were taxed less, then the government would be forced to not spend as much. The money the government would save, could be used reasonably. Plus money the citizens would save would then be spent, stimulating the economy.

Side: yes
1 point

1. Taxing the wealthiest in an economy doesn't stimulate growth. It's an idea that tells people "You don't have to work for what you want. I DESERVE for it to be given to you." So they won't. That is human nature.

2. Taxing the top teirs doesn't put money back into the economy. Giving it to others doesn't tell the others that they are able to spend money. It only makes them dependent on a system.

Side: yes
1 point

Lowering taxes for all income earners who actually have to pay federal income taxes (the upper 52%) will allow them to invest and create more jobs (also, more taxpayers), increasing federal tax revenues. The top ten percent of income earners pay 45% of total federal income tax revenues. Penalizing the rich for success does not correspond with the American dream.

Side: yes
1 point

I think the rich should have to pay more but not nearly as much more as they are today... The more we tax the rich the more we hurt small business and in turn they can't hire as many workers and may need to raise prices to for for the heavy burden of taxes imposed on them.

Side: yes

Because most of the rich find loopholes to escape from paying their fair share in taxes.

Side: YES
3 points

Running a nation costs money. This means those roads, the schools, military, government, courts, the space program, sewers, etc. all cost a large sum of money.

The cost must be met with appropriate taxation. If one income bracket has lowered taxes, then it means the other income brackets must pull the slack up.

The poor make (by definition) the least amount of money. If they must pull the weight of others, then they are the ones least able to afford to do so. The poor very much risk starvation, death from overworking and lack of adequate healthcare. They need their income.

The middle class can afford taxes better, but they can still very easily be made poor.

The middle-high class is not truly wealthy, but at the same time it is very unlikely that they ever need fear starvation or bad healthcare coverage.

The wealthy are by definition at the top. They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc. This is why they carry the largest tax burden. Quite simply, they can afford the burden and then some. Suffering to them means not being able to afford luxury items.

I cannot understand why libertarians defend the wealthy so often. They are categorically in the best position of society and want for nothing. Libertarians never explain why the wealthy need to horde that extra wealth, or why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy.

Side: No
2 points

Running a nation costs money. This means those roads, the schools, military, government, courts, the space program, sewers, etc. all cost a large sum of money.

True, running a nation does cost money but not from government. The private sector is what distinguishes America from India.

America is great today not because of government, but the innovation and entrepreneur spirit of the private sector, yet when we look at India, which has the same type of government as America, we must ask, what is wrong? Well, the simple answer is there is no private sector jobs concerning economic freedom with a overbearing government with an voluminous regulations and laws.

With the endless pursuit of regulations, America is only destined to follow the path of bureaucratic nightmare.

The cost must be met with appropriate taxation.

Sure, this is true, but at the appropriate level of government spending.

Today, apparently 40% of the GDP is not high enough for some.

If one income bracket has lowered taxes, then it means the other income brackets must pull the slack up.

A fair tax would be fundamentally a much more fair and sound tax system than the progressive income tax. Just so you don't scream not fair , the fair tax would be fair due to the rebate system built into the system. Also, it is progressive because since the rich have the propensity to consume more, they would pay more.

The poor make (by definition) the least amount of money.

Wow, this is quite the intellectual prowess that liberals possess.

Who would have known that the poor make the least amount of money?

The poor very much risk starvation, death from overworking and lack of adequate healthcare.

Starvation in the United States is highly exaggerated due to economic spillover such as food, home shelters and even free health care clinics.

If starvation is vast, then go see India where government is doing a excellent job feeding their people. Oh, wait, that is not their job. Whose is it anyway? Wait a minute...

The middle class can afford taxes better, but they can still very easily be made poor.

The poor and middle class are only vanishing because of government. Government monetary and fiscal policy is causing great inflationary damage to these classes. Inflationary polices have been in full force since the 1970's.

The wealthy are by definition at the top.

Seriously, are you writing this for 1st graders or other liberal friends, who are a little slow?

They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc.

I wouldn't say never. German officials managed to starve millions when their inflationary polices caused even the richest to starve in 1946.

This is why they carry the largest tax burden.

Basically, socialism.

I cannot understand why libertarians defend the wealthy so often.

I cannot understand why liberals defend the poor so often.

Libertarians never explain why the wealthy need to horde that extra wealth, or why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy.

Actually, either your memory is nonexistence or just inept, I have told you many times. It is their money, they should keep it. Is that really hard to understand?

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
0 points

True, running a nation does cost money but not from government. The private sector is what distinguishes America from India.

Not the present topic. We are discussing taxes for government services.

America is great today not because of government, but the innovation and entrepreneur spirit of the private sector, yet when we look at India, which has the same type of government as America, we must ask, what is wrong? Well, the simple answer is there is no private sector jobs concerning economic freedom with a overbearing government with an voluminous regulations and laws.

Simple answers often reveal simple or undereducated minds.

A fair tax would be fundamentally a much more fair and sound tax system than the progressive income tax. Just so you don't scream not fair , the fair tax would be fair due to the rebate system built into the system. Also, it is progressive because since the rich have the propensity to consume more, they would pay more.

FairTax is a system that favours the wealthy because it sets only one tax point for new goods and services. This means that the wealthy will spend less than they currently are, as fewer tax points would exist for them.

Starvation in the United States is highly exaggerated due to economic spillover such as food, home shelters and even free health care clinics.

If starvation is vast, then go see India where government is doing a excellent job feeding their people. Oh, wait, that is not their job. Whose is it anyway? Wait a minute...

A poor man compared side-by-side with a wealthy man risks starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of healthcare. These are simple facts readily apparent from panhandlers on the streets, who live under bridges or in alleyways, and the fact that healthcare is too expensive for these people to have in regular supply (even with walk-in clinics).

Seriously, are you writing this for 1st graders or other liberal friends, who are a little slow?

If you need to ask, then apparently my English isn't simple enough.

I wouldn't say never. German officials managed to starve millions when their inflationary polices caused even the richest to starve in 1946.

Which has no threat of happening here.

I cannot understand why liberals defend the poor so often.

The wealthy are by definition in the best place of society. They need no advocacy. They are capable of handling themselves. The poor can ill-afford to be their own advocates.

Actually, either your memory is nonexistence or just inept, I have told you many times. It is their money, they should keep it. Is that really hard to understand?

That is not a reason why. It is a reason how.

Side: No
nabber(1) Disputed
1 point

The wealthy are by definition at the top. They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc. This is why they carry the largest tax burden. Quite simply, they can afford the burden and then some. Suffering to them means not being able to afford luxury items.

Interesting argument why the rich should be taxed more. It completely ignores the fact that many "rich" Americans actually work/worked very hard to get where they are possibly sacrificing along the way. The reward for hard work is the ability to afford "luxury" items. How is it at all fair that I am forced to give up things you (the non-wealthy?) feel are luxuries in order to redistribute that wealth elsewhere? Is it not better to allow me to decide if I want to donate or help out my fellow man? By "taxing the rich" you in effect are taking from me and giving to someone else who may not be (in my mind) deserving. Further you are removing a huge incentive to work hard and achieve a goal. Why did I work 2 jobs, attend school full time, eat Ramen noodles for years, graduate, work my way up through several entry level jobs, long hours, etc.., eventually getting to my current salary just so someone can take away MY earnings they perceive are excessive?!?

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Sources at bottom

Interesting argument why the rich should be taxed more. It completely ignores the fact that many "rich" Americans actually work/worked very hard to get where they are possibly sacrificing along the way.

It actually doesn't. For two reasons.

The first is that if you are a self-made man, the wealth you accumulated is still so much greater than normal that if you lost over half of it, you would still be living in a high standard of life.

The second is that wealth passes from one generation to the next, meaning that the next generation born from their parents' wealth never has to know the suffering and work that went into amassing it. They wouldn't suffer for losing a great chunk of that wealth, except to feel their sense of entitlement impugned.

How is it at all fair that I am forced to give up things you (the non-wealthy?) feel are luxuries in order to redistribute that wealth elsewhere?

A normal family cannot afford expensive wines, delicacies, luxury cars, designer clothes. Neither can they afford to live without debt, which means that whatever they earn, much of it goes away just to pay off the small things they have. This often means that the better schools, better healthcare, are abstained from because the debt would be too high. Yet, according to some studies this group of working class families occupies about 80% of the population and at the same time owns combined a mere 7% of the nation's private wealth. At the same time, the wealthiest 1% owns 40% of the nation's private wealth.

Do me a favour and reflect upon that for a moment. The struggling families of America, land of prosperity, work ten to twelve hours a day, five or more days a week, and live in severe debt because they must obtain mortgages, and cannot buy their cars outright, and their insurance is either very expensive or it is cheap and poorly covers the costs of their care so they are paying huge medical bills. This is not a comfortable way to live, but it is accepted because there isn't much the working class can do to change it. This is all because the working class owns about 7% of private wealth in the nation.

Meanwhile the wealthy, which you are defending as deserving of luxury goods, own about 40% of our nation's private wealth, which means that they own about as much as 450 working class households. If they gave up a mere half of that wealth (to the working class), so that they individually own the wealth of about 225 working class households, then the working class would be about 385% wealthier.

In other words, you are defending (rationalising) greed.

Is it not better to allow me to decide if I want to donate or help out my fellow man?

It doesn't work. The divide between the wealthy and the poor has always been very high, but with policies that attempt to redistribute that surplus wealth we come closer to bridging the gap. Finland is a good example, by transferring (relative to other countries) about 30% of the wealthiest 10%'s wealth, the country can more or less afford very high-quality social welfare for its citizens. I think that is laudable.

Put another way, I think that those born into wealth especially would have utterly no comprehension of the desperate nature of being working class, and that those who made it big on their own hard work know it all too well. Neither would give out enough of their wealth to make the necessary changes, with few exceptions.

By "taxing the rich" you in effect are taking from me and giving to someone else who may not be (in my mind) deserving.

It's irrelevant who you think is deserving. The fact is that there is a high disparity and it is due to rationalised greed and selfishness.

Further you are removing a huge incentive to work hard and achieve a goal.

Another rationalisation. Because the carrot at the end of your nose is half its size, you won't work harder? When that carrot is still over two-hundred times the size of what everyone else has.

Why did I work 2 jobs, attend school full time, eat Ramen noodles for years, graduate, work my way up through several entry level jobs, long hours, etc.., eventually getting to my current salary just so someone can take away MY earnings they perceive are excessive?!?

Because they were never your earnings. In truth whatever you earn comes from someone else. You make a fat paycheck? That means that some families are eating beans and rice for a week. It means that some thousands of families were denied unemployment and so must depend on others or starve as they find work. It means that thousands of young adults were unable to qualify for university funds due to more stringent criteria. It means that millions of workers are payed several dollars less per hour than they deserve.

The point is, we are all interconnected in dependencies, because there is no free money out there. Whatever good living you make comes at the cost of some other group of people you will never even know. The point of taxing the wealthy is to attempt to alleviate this divide somewhat so that one group doesn't own so much of everyone else's livelihoods.

Source

Side: No
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
0 points

" death from overworking "............. Show us one deat certificate that states "over-working" as the cause of death.

Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.

The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.

The poor are taxed less for one simple reason, there are more of them. If you taxed the class with the highest numbers more,one would lose those votes.

This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.

Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.

" why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy"- because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns. They use the roads,schools,courts,sewers, etc.

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
5 points

Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.

Wealth is created by people producing things of value, with their resources. If someone gives me one block of wood and I make two chairs out of it, not only has wealth (the resource) been given to me, but I have created something novel with it that has value on the market. It is wealth. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is no such thing as wealth and you end up contradicting yourself.

The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.

Replace "wealthy" with "Native American" and you'll quickly see how numerical disadvantage has little to do with who is taxed more or less. You could also provide a contrapositive: Kings and Queens vs commoners. The principle just doesn't stand. And as Warren Buffet pointed out in 2007, with the current taxcode, he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Someone who made ~$60,000 was paying 30% in income taxes.

He and the top 1% were being taxed, without using any loophole, 17.7%. We have some of the most complacent rich people now, being taxed at the lowest rates in the country's history; just 60 years ago, they were being taxed upwards of 91% and the country didn't implode, they didn't leave, and America had one of its strongest economic decades (in fact, America's economy tends to do better when the rich are taxed more).

This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.

The rich aren't as demonized as they make you claim they are. But, they don't do anything of meaningful value either. It's the people who actually produce things that are valuable to a society. I'd take a farmer, electrician, plumber, chemist, physicist, miner, horticulturist, biologist, or teacher in my society over any one person who can "provide a space for labor" any day of the week. The non-rich aren't so incompetent that we'd all starve to death without someone to facilitate an environment in which we can work for them. Humans did it for the vast majority of our history.

Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.

I am fairly certain that many Kings and Queens in history have gotten quite wealthy by taxing others.

because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns.

In 2009, including the not "less fortunate", and for several reasons, many of which are perfectly acceptable.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

" death from overworking "............. Show us one deat certificate that states "over-working" as the cause of death.

Severe fatigue causes accidents, and makes one prone to illness.

The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.

The poor are taxed less for one simple reason, there are more of them. If you taxed the class with the highest numbers more,one would lose those votes.

Have you ever heard of the Pareto principle? It is by no means an absolute law, but a general observation that the minority of a population, in economics, will own the majority of wealth.

The wealthy can afford to be taxed heavily. They will not have to sacrifice university to make ends meet, they will never starve, or live on the street, because we overtax them. Why are you defending them so ardently? Is it because you hope to be wealthy one day, or are presently wealthy?

This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.

Actually, the rich are demonised because they are the ones who are better off than you, they have political connections and power, and act similar to dynasties. They can afford to mould society to their whims while you cannot. That is why they are demonised.

Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.

I guess capitalism cannot create wealth then.

Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.

Strictly speaking, people in government jobs obtain wealth through tax dollars.

" why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy"- because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns. They use the roads,schools,courts,sewers, etc.

Maybe they are of an income bracket that needs those tax returns.

Side: No
2 points

no, "a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation..." Wikipedia. the "tax the rich" isn't in reference to an argument, at least not an explicit one. A lack of a argument means a lack of fallacies.

alright, now to give out charity and get to the intended point.

Mathematically its possible to have a greater over all level of discretionary income in society by progressive taxation.

discretionary income progressive = (#rich[richincome-richbills-richincomerichtax]+#middle[middleincome-middlebills-middletaxmiddleincome]+#low[Lowincome-lowbills-lowincomelowtax]) can be greater than flat tax = (#rich[richincome-richbills-richincometax]+#middle[middleincome-middlebills-taxmiddleincome]+#low[Lowincome-lowbills-lowincometax])

The greater the discretionary spending the greater the demand that can be actualized and hence more growth of the economy.

Side: No

it turned my asterisk into italics :(

an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we ca

Side: NO
1 point

Well if you are trying to attack my legitmacy of my debate, then you are sadly mistaken because shocking fallacy has more than one meanging.

According dictionary.com, a fallacy is "a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief. Fallacy

The greater the discretionary spending the greater the demand that can be actualized and hence more growth of the economy.

Keynesian economics has never work.

Side: yes
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Do you disagree with the idea that the more consumer spending there is the healthier the economy?

Side: No
1 point

If you're going to tax, then absolutely tax the rich! Only taxing the "not rich" would be a terrible idea.

Side: No