CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
23
for Against
Debate Score:41
Arguments:38
Total Votes:41
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 for (17)
 
 Against (21)

Debate Creator

hockeyz(18) pic



Lower Taxes

Are you for lowering taxes for all citizens of your country both rich and poor?

for

Side Score: 18
VS.

Against

Side Score: 23
1 point

give more tax burden to the rich. it doesnt hurt the rich and it helps everyone else. the worst that would happen is some billionaires have a little less money in the bank (but probably will make more money anyway from a more stimulated economy), and many people in need can afford to feed their children. if it is really so bad to be taxed highly as a rich person, then we should do you a favor and seize (tax) ALL your money so you can be poor if you think the poor are so much better off.

EDIT: i think the question details may have been changed. when i answered it i thought it said "are you for raising taxes on the rich and lowering on poor?"

Side: for

Since the poor are into "sharing" money with poor people, why don't they pool their money together and share it among them,selves? ;)

Side: for
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

Since the poor are into "sharing" money with poor people, why don't they pool their money together and share it among them,selves? ;) They do, for the most part. Those who are considered poor are those making $11,170 or less. The average fast-food employee nets around $14,000 annually, and although they are technically above the poverty line, many of these citizens still live in marginal poverty.

By lowering taxes on those making less than $25,000, raising or maintaining the current tax rates on those between $25,000 and $400,000, raising taxes on those making more than $400,000, cutting defense, discretionary, and mandatory spending, as well as doing away with outdated and often harmful subsides, we could reduce the deficit and pay for progressive social programs to support our poorest citizens.

Side: Against
1 point

Since there are so many news reports about poor people having to give up their dignity, time, money and life to pay their taxes, i am rooting for lower taxes

Side: for

Taxes are misused since the government uses it usually through their own interest. The lower the taxes, the less money the government will use to be corrupt. They don`t even maximize the potential of the money given to them.

Side: for
1 point

I think everybody has to pay their fair share. For me that means that everybody should pay taxes! It is not fair for some to pay and others don't. Sure the wealthy should also be able to pay a little more. But i think the big drag on our economy is the whole bunch of free loaders sucking up on the resources worked by others. Again don't get me wrong there are people who really need the help or aid from the goverment. But the least those people should do is get a job or should be required to perform community service. There you occupy them with something constructive and help many of them not fall into gangs, violence, drugs..etc A combination of both these things will put us on the right track. However is unlikely to happen because you have the GOP protecting the interest and the greed of the rich, and the dems protecting the people who want to get benefit from the goverment without working for it.

Side: for

Lowering taxes for both classes would be fair. I think this is a good idea.

Side: for
2 points

Lower taxes for whom? The lower class? The top 1%? I am against lower taxes for the top 1%, but for lower taxes when it comes to people with less income.

Side: Against
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

Taxes are set in % of income, so rich pay less .

Side: Against
kozlov(1755) Disputed
1 point

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-rich-guys-case-for-much-higher-taxes/2012/04/17/gIQA384rNT_blog.html

This source lists the facts, not just Conservative redirect.

The more money you make, the more you should have to pay.

Side: Against
2 points

Higher taxes for everybody. Allowing people to keep their money to spend may help the economy, but it doesn't directly, indirectly or necessarily invest in education or forms infrastructure, which prove more vital to the overall success of a country than how much money businesses are making or people are saving.

Side: Against

Lower taxes for poor and increase taxes for rich

Side: Against

Yes. That would be the best option. The rich are the ones who usually evade taxes.

Side: Against

No, at least not at the moment. We need to first cut spending, because we are stretching are budget beyond what is possible, and it is hurting us.

Side: Against
1 point

NO!!! If taxes are lowered the rich will start laughing their balls of as they don't pay much of it and the poor will still lose money in a bad way. Anyways if taxes are lowered, the government will still take it out from us someway or somehow.

Side: Against
1 point

"Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our country is blessed with a general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear; yet it is true that many of the taxes collected from our citizens through the medium of imposts have for a considerable period been onerous. In many particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous classes of the community, being imposed on the necessaries of life, and this, too, in cases where the burden was not relieved by the consciousness that it would ultimately contribute to make us independent of foreign nation articles of prime necessity by the encouragement of growth and manufacture at home."

Anyone care to venture a guess at who said this little tidbit?

Side: Against
1 point

"They [taxes] have been cheerfully borne because they were thought to be necessary to the support of government and the payments of debts unavoidably incurred in the acquisition and maintenance of our national rights and liberties. But have we a right to calculate on the same cheerful acquiescence when it is known that the necessity for their continuance would cease were it not for irregular, improvident, and unequal appropriations of public funds?"

Side: Against