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.
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?"
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on those making more than $400,000, cutting defense, discretionary, and mandatory spending, as well as doing away with outdated and often harmful subsides, we could reduce the deficit and pay for progressive social programs to support our poorest citizens.
Maybe they should have done better in High School ;) Maybe if their HS had better funding to attract better teachers to endow their students with a more effective education, they would have. Or, they could have gone to a private school, spent their parents money on drugs and booze, been expelled, and still make a better living than those who are below the poverty line.
Maybe poor people should NOT have kids they can't afford ;) Maybe religious fundamentalists should stop teaching "abstinence only" and catch up with medical science.
What abstinence? Who said anything about abstinence? Do you see the word, "abstinence" anywhere in my argument? I am preaching common sense. If you can't afford, you must abort ;)
What abstinence? Who said anything about abstinence? Do you see the word, "abstinence" anywhere in my argument? I am preaching common sense. If you can't afford, you must abort ;)
Because abortions are so cheap and easy to come by? You may not have said abstinence, but that is what's being taught at most of our schools. We need to institute comprehensive sex education, as well as raising awareness on the detrimental effects of child-bearing too early in life.
BTW, the "better funding" a bunch of crap. California spends more on education than any other state and they are at the very bottom. What we need is more of those students you describe. The ones that can do drugs and booze and still do well. Now that's a student ;)
Texas relieves almost as much federal money as California. The funding is much larger in these states because there are many more people. But this funding should be allocated to improve the system, not to maintain it.
The ones that can do drugs and booze and still do well. Now that's a student ;) No; that's a moocher.
you were on drugs and booze when you went to school..., that explains a lot ;)
Like my proper sentence structure? The glaring absence of ;) after every single one of my comments? Perhaps it's my attempt to understand your drivel that has you confused.
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
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.
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.
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.
The poor man made $100,000 that year and they tax him 100%, he pays $100,000. The rich man makes $1,000,000 that year and is taxed 20%, significantly less than the poor man, he pays $200,000.
Although the rich man was taxed a much lower percentage he payed double what the poor man payed. The rich still pay more.
The poor man made $100,000 that year and they tax him 100%, he pays $100,000.
This explains a lot. Work on your math. The man that makes $100K a year, shouldn't consider himself poor. And he doesn't pay 100%.
.
Rich people make money in different ways then poor people. For example: A man might own a company, and his net worth might goes from $100K to $500 in one year. He didn't "get" $400K. That money is "paper money" probably couldn't be liquefied easier. People like Trump might make $500M. Most of the money is used to hire people to build new projects which creating jobs giving the "people" a larger slice of the pie. If the government take more, the people get a smaller slice. Again, most of his money is "increased value" that allows him to borrow money from the banks. But that money has to be paid back. So most of the money isn't spent on things that doesn't generate more money. Trump owns buildings, but he cannot "spend" those buildings. No one could afford to buy them. He owns money on them, just like we own money on our own homes.
.
Many rich people live a life where they are actually broke, but live richly by the means of "other people's money." They borrow money and figure out how to pay it back just fast enough they get to use most of it, while using other people's money to pay it back. It's sort of like floating credit cards. They live like kings, but technically don't make a dime. You cannot tax money that is borrowed, so they don't have to pay taxes on it. They might borrow $1M to buy a $800K house. They use the extra $200K to make the payments for a while, maybe 4 years. Then they run out of money. Because they were smart, they get to sell the house for $1.1M. He turns around and does it again. He in a grand home for free and still made a $100 grade. But that money is rolled into his next home, so it cannot be taxed. But again, he borrows money on the house and doesn't have to pay taxes.
.
Smart as hell, if you ask me. Also rich people benefit from companies. The "company" gives them a nice place to live, and a nice car as well a personal assistant. All of the payments are written off as expenses. Of course, companies pay taxes on "profits" made, which oddly, none of the companies actually make a profit. Again, he doesn't pay taxes.
.
Rich people are rich, because they don't pay taxes. I am not "rich" however, the new "taxes" are taking $120 a month out of my pocket. I could have spent that money going out to dinner, going to a movie, and stuff. I would have given that money "to the people" but instead it goes directly to the government who going to spend on killing people I don't know in foreign country. Yeah, I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth now. (Insert sarcasm here.)
.
Taxing the rich is stupid. If anything, the poor should be taxed more. At least more money gets to them before the government takes it. Ever dime a rich person pays in taxes, a poor cannot earn it.
.
And finally. Poor people have poor habits. Giving them more money isn't going to change that.
This explains a lot. Work on your math. The man that makes $100K a year, shouldn't consider himself poor. And he doesn't pay 100%.
I know this, I am making an example of how a rich man can pay a significantly less percentage and still pay a lot more.
Rich people make money in different ways then poor people. For example: A man might own a company, and his net worth might goes from $100K to $500 in one year. He didn't "get" $400K. That money is "paper money" probably couldn't be liquefied easier. People like Trump might make $500M. Most of the money is used to hire people to build new projects which creating jobs giving the "people" a larger slice of the pie. If the government take more, the people get a smaller slice. Again, most of his money is "increased value" that allows him to borrow money from the banks. But that money has to be paid back. So most of the money isn't spent on things that doesn't generate more money. Trump owns buildings, but he cannot "spend" those buildings. No one could afford to buy them. He owns money on them, just like we own money on our own homes.
.
Many rich people live a life where they are actually broke, but live richly by the means of "other people's money." They borrow money and figure out how to pay it back just fast enough they get to use most of it, while using other people's money to pay it back. It's sort of like floating credit cards. They live like kings, but technically don't make a dime. You cannot tax money that is borrowed, so they don't have to pay taxes on it. They might borrow $1M to buy a $800K house. They use the extra $200K to make the payments for a while, maybe 4 years. Then they run out of money. Because they were smart, they get to sell the house for $1.1M. He turns around and does it again. He in a grand home for free and still made a $100 grade. But that money is rolled into his next home, so it cannot be taxed. But again, he borrows money on the house and doesn't have to pay taxes.
.
Smart as hell, if you ask me. Also rich people benefit from companies. The "company" gives them a nice place to live, and a nice car as well a personal assistant. All of the payments are written off as expenses. Of course, companies pay taxes on "profits" made, which oddly, none of the companies actually make a profit. Again, he doesn't pay taxes.
.
Rich people are rich, because they don't pay taxes. I am not "rich" however, the new "taxes" are taking $120 a month out of my pocket. I could have spent that money going out to dinner, going to a movie, and stuff. I would have given that money "to the people" but instead it goes directly to the government who going to spend on killing people I don't know in foreign country. Yeah, I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth now. (Insert sarcasm here.)
I know all this, I am against taxing the rich, if you had read my other arguments or known me you would have probably know this.
1. As for the 30's and 40's being great, this article fails to mention that in the 30's and 40's America was only doing well because most of the industrial world was in ruin, the main producers were no longer... well, producing as much and they need extra resources to rebuild. This basically gave America a situation where it really didn't have to compete against... well, anyone. When half of the world is entangled in two of the biggest wars in history (most of the nations that were damaged were large competitors) and America comes out of it with only Hawaii being bombed and the Lusitania being sunk, you can see how the United States go an advantage. Then these countries rebuilt and then in the 90's and 2000's China was a new economic super power, India (a sleeping economic giant that will end up like China) was developing quickly and Russia had become an economic superpower as well instead of just a 3rd world country with a 1st world army.
2. As for "The more money you make, the more you should have to pay" you may want to go look back at some of the sources I posted, regardless of the percentage rates on income tax the richest still pay more.
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.
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.
"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?
"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?"
