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're assuming they're not the same party. And since everyone likes the right side of the argument when this should be a Perspectives debate, I'll defy the norm and post here for the shits and giggles.
I believe that the Republican party has seen much better days, but with potential candidates like Ted Cruz coming up in 2016, I have genuine hope for this country.
Libertarians are here right? I never get this .. I'm from Denmark, and we just call it red or blue. If you are red, you choose the .. Social Community, if you will, which basically mean the richer you are, the more you pay in taxes, percentage wise.
Those with a low income might pay 30-40% in taxes, while millionaires and stuff like that can go and hit the 60, 70 and 80%.
I am blue, and the blue say that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. Like, the same percentage, everything else is unfair.
What is 10% of $10,000 ? Would you want to live off the rest? This is why a progressive tax system is better. 10% of $10,000 is a lot worse that 20% of $500,000.
10% of $10,000 = net income of $9,000
20% of $500,000 = net income of $400,000
Which one can a person live off of ? Which one is living in poverty?
Making someone pay more simply for being good isn't very good for society. It slowly drives the greats out of a nation, you can't punish greatness and wealth, not only is it stupid but its not morale in the slightest. These people revolutionize the world, they improve technology, medicine, art, industry and commerce for the nation and then (ungrateful and childish) people like you turn around and go "fuck you guys, you owe us more!" How long do you that will work well for, really? Rewarding those who flip burgers and stack boxes and punishing those who generate wealth and prosperity, that's your big plan?
First off, there is a huge difference between one being good and one being rich. Who has greatness? So you think greatness is being rich? What makes one great is not how much money they have, but what they do with how little they have.
It was those that flipped burgers and stacked boxes that once made America great and it will be those same people that will make America great once again.
No, the people who flipped burgers and stacked boxes didn't make America great. ANYONE can do that, its not that hard. But starting a very large and successful company, inventing great things, advancing our scientific knowledge, developing cures and new treatments and creating great art, not everyone can do that.
America didn't become a superpower because it had the best burger flippers and box stackers, it became a superpower because for most of the 20th century it had the best minds.
My point is that these people were nothing more than average labors and yet they were the ones that made America great. These people are no different than todays burger flippers.
People like Ford and Carnegie who revolutionized the steel and auto industry were successful and great. They weren't great because they were famous. These people did great things, helped raise the standard of living and provided products to people who wanted them through voluntary trade. Punishing people like them with taxes and regulation is not exactly a brilliant idea.
When one abuses their power and governments are forced to regulate them, money has to be raised in order to do the regulating. Who would you prefer to pay for this? Those being robbed or those doing the robbing?
Do you any knowledge of what these people did to get rich? Carnegie hired Pinkerton men and ordered them to shoot anybody that was striking.
Yeah, because the strikers didn't just refuse to work and walk around with picket signs, they took up arms and seized his steel mills. They refused to give it back until they got what they wanted... Can't really blame Carnegie for asking the Pinkertons to remove them.
J.D. Rockefeller would lower the price of his fuel below that of his competition until they either went out of business or sold out to him.
How dare he lower his prices to provide a better service to customers to provide a better product than his competitors! That's just vile...
When one abuses their power and governments are forced to regulate them, money has to be raised in order to do the regulating. Who would you prefer to pay for this? Those being robbed or those doing the robbing?
Men like Rockefeller and Carnegie were robbed. Carnegies employees stole his property and the government destroyed Rockefeller's company. They didn't abuse their power, they provided products and services that people wanted, the abuse of power was in the government and strikers.
According to you, there is nothing wrong with killing people in the name of making money.
What Rockefeller did was sell his product below his cost until his competition was no more. He had enough money to wait them out. He didn't even care about losing money, because he would eventually make it back by having a monopoly. If he was being competitive that would be a different story.
These guys robbed? You should look up the meaning of robbed in the dictionary and get back to me. They did abuse their power. Was O.J. Simpson guilty or did he simple buy his way out. Think about the abuse of power. Did Hitler abuse his power by slaughtering Jews? This was done in the promotion of Germany.
According to you, there is nothing wrong with killing people in the name of making money.
They weren't killed in the name of profit, they were killed because they took their guns and seized someone's property, when asked to give what they stole back they refused and threatened to shoot at people who came near until their demands were met.
What Rockefeller did was sell his product below his cost until his competition was no more. He had enough money to wait them out. He didn't even care about losing money, because he would eventually make it back by having a monopoly.
He never had a monopoly. The only people who called him a monopolist were his competitors and the idiots that supported their lobbyists.
These guys robbed? You should look up the meaning of robbed in the dictionary and get back to me. They did abuse their power. Was O.J. Simpson guilty or did he simple buy his way out. Think about the abuse of power. Did Hitler abuse his power by slaughtering Jews? This was done in the promotion of Germany.
They didn't rob anyone, they didn't put jews in concentration camps. OJ was let go because during the trial DNA evidence did not have the same weight as it does today, not because of his money. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie greatly helped move the world forward, they greatly helped revolutionize our industry and helped build the industry needed to bring forth the modern era and all of its benefits, how is that evil?
I have a question for you, why did you just ignore everything I wrote? Why is it okay for the burger flippers, box stackers and paper shufflers in politics to take other's money, ideas, property and assets by force but its not okay for those who are great to make money?
It is not by force when such means to collect money are sanctioned by a government of a democracy. Senators and Congress are a representation of the masses and are supposed to do the will of the people. Your claim is that when the short straw is drawn, that it is unfair. Would you rather have a society that does nothing to help anybody? This would include no army, no police, no fire dept., no parks, etc.
It is not by force when such means to collect money are sanctioned by a government of a democracy.
How is it not force? The government takes what it wants and taxes what it leaves behind, you don't do what they say and they'll come to you with guns, take your property and throw you in prison.
Senators and Congress are a representation of the masses and are supposed to do the will of the people.
Just because a mass collection of uninformed voters say "we really like this guy" does not make their actions any less forceful or immoral.
Your claim is that when the short straw is drawn, that it is unfair. Would you rather have a society that does nothing to help anybody?
Oh boy, here we go, the most used argument by uninformed socialists and statists.
No one ever said helping people is bad or immoral. What is bad and immoral is using force and threats of violence and imprisonment to take from some people and give to others.
It is an example to show why flat tax rates are not fair. One needs to exclude those that make below a certain level or use a progressive tax rate. This way a low income earner can manage to exist. By the way I'm a Democrat.
Still the point is the same. One cannot live very well by being taxed so heavily on poor side. On the richer side one can live very well with what is left over after taxes.
It may not appear very fair on the surface, but take 70% out 10,000 and see if you can live on that.
10,000 - 70% taxes $3000 left
It is fair that one group lives in comfort and the other is homeless?
I agree that 70% maybe to high of a rate, but still any flat rate is unfair. What all do get for paying 70% where you live? If you get free health care, free college, etc., you maybe getting a bargain for 70% taxes.
It doesn't make them homeless, but it does make it almost impossible for them to better themselves. If rich people cared enough about the poor, the government wouldn't have to take care of them. There is nobody to blame for higher taxes on the rich, but the rich.
I suppose you think rich people got rich without robbing somebody, that is generally not the case. Rich people didn't mind charging 300% to 400% over the cost of production for the goods they manufacture and your concerned about people being robbed, they weren't.
I didn't say all and I doubt if they paid for their education. I am sure that their parents paid for it. It doesn't take much to make it when you have no student loans to repay and a silver spoon.
Studies show that people with parents that didn't have any further education than high school usually go to college. And one would assume that if you don't have any education other than high school, your income is not very high.
That statement is not true. Many, many people pay for their own education. Just because some don't shouldn't mean everybody should pay 70% in taxes.
I have very wealthy parents, I pay for my own schooling with the money I have earned myself. I know several of my friends who do the same. Don't be so closed minded.
I'm not calling you lier, but if you had wealthy parents wouldn't you be spending it drinking and doing drugs with Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes instead of spending your Friday night on CreateDebate?
What about all the charitable donations that the very wealthy make for the betterment of society. You think those on welfare are donating to medical research or to women's shelters, or food banks?
America was founded on the idea that if you work hard, you will do better in life. Why should someone be punished because he, or his family, bought into the American dream and made something of himself.
I suppose you think they do this out of the goodness of their heart. Tax write offs, public relations, are at the top of list. If they didn't spend it on charities, what else are they going to do with all that money? They is only so many times one can roll around nude in it.
I have no illusions that they do this "out of the goodness of their hearts"'; that is irrelevant.
Those with money already fund a lot of things for those who don't have money.
Please tell me you aren't one of those who think that everything would be good if all the world's wealth was evenly distributed to the world's population
I do believe that both individuals and the world would be better if the wealth wasn't so heavily one sided. I don't believe in taking away one's wealth already acquired, but I do believe in persuading wealth to not be hoarded.
Do you think that Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, etc. would be the nut cases that they are, if they weren't as rich as they are? The sad part is that they are still famous.
“A poor man wise is like a sacred book that’s never read. To himself he lives, to all others seems died. This age thinks more of a gilded fool, than a thread bare saint in wisdom’s school.” Thomas Dekker
You would have to define 'wealth' and 'hoarded'. But I'd say a man has an obligation to make sure his children and on down are taken care-of as best he can. So saving his money is the responsible thing to do.
All the people you mentioned aren't buy cases because they are rich; it is because they are famous. Consider Warren Buffet, he is richer than six feet up a bull's ass; but he is super sensible.
"Making money is not gonna change anything about what I am, except I won't answer the door." Abel Ferrara
Denmark has the correct political color code. Somehow, in the U.S. they got the colors exactly reversed from where they should be. On fiscal issues you sound like a Republican. I don't know your stance on other issues.
In the U.S. Libertarian is its own party. Libertarians are like Republicans on a lot of money issues, but they are like Democrats on a lot of social issues.
