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 can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should the Fair Tax be instituted as the tax system?
The Fair Tax would abolish all income taxes including federal, state, and payroll, so instead of income, there would be zero taxes on businesses anda consumption tax.
The Progressive Tax in America is wildly becoming immensely complex coupled with ridiculous deductions and loopholes.
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the Income Tax."---Albert Einstein
An entire agency was created to further complicate taxes, they are known as the IRS aka, THE TAX POLICE.
Moreover, the tax system in America is so complex that it created an entire industry of pseudo experts, tax accountants. Tax accountants are parasites feeding off the chagrin of government incompetence.
The government goes an step further as to even protect this industry by adding more complicated text and deductions to an already 10,000 pages of tax code with fine print.
The solution is to institute a fair tax. An fair tax is an consumption tax, so products and services would only be taxed at the retail level.
Although the fair tax sounds scary, it is not as scary as the progressive income tax or payroll tax.
This tax would actually empower the poor because under the current system, the lowest tax bracket still has to pay 10% income tax, but under this system, that same bracket would not only be able to keep all of they earn as everyone else, but an prebate would be instituted into the system where they would be free of tax on necessity items such as food, shelter, and water.
Also, this would force those who don't pay income taxes such as drug dealers and other underground markets.
Therefore, an fair tax would essentially strip the power of lobbyists and politicians.
The progressive tax had its place, but as times change, so does the need for a new tax system. Majority of Americans are tired of the current tax system. This new system would mean more wealth for everybody, including small businesses and working class Americans.
A progressive tax system was adopted directly to compensate for the rising inequality between the top 1-2% and the rest of the nation.
The idea is that, after a certain point one's accumulated wealth no longer contributes either to society or to the general well-being of the individual, and as such should be taxed to a great degree.
And now as was the case directly after the great depression, while the 98% who see little difference ultimately between the progressive tax system and a "fair tax" system, that top 2% has seen massive gains in income. In fact, this is the best economy for the incredibly rich since the mid 90's.
Now is the absolute worst time to switch to a "fair tax."
The end result would be those who use their little income to buy stuff (which engines the economy) would have even less. While those whose tax rate has 0 real-life effect on their spending power, have even more.
It simply is not doable in the real world.
And I pay a fair tax. I'm an independent contractor. And I can tell you beyond all uncertainty even with my loopholes, that everyone under this system making less than 6 figures pays more than they would with a progressive tax system.
It sounds good, but does not work.
I agree though, it needs to be made simpler, and loopholes need to be closed.
The only world where a fair tax would work, is one in which everyone makes within a measurable percentage of everyone else, because numbers are not static, they are cumulative. If everyone who worked made withing say 50% of whatever anyone else made, then fair tax would work. So long as the janitor of a corporation makes literally .00001% of the CEOs, fair tax will not work.
- I would propose any publically traded company have rules of payment percentage wise from the bottom up. And that if your company effects (as public companies do) the economy of an entire people, the top of the company can only make X percent more than the bottom.
And if those terms do not work, simply do not take your company public.
However, that idea is entirely too free market for non-progressives :/
A progressive tax system was adopted directly to compensate for the rising inequality between the top 1-2% and the rest of the nation.
A progressive tax system isn't built on equality, it is a system that punishes productive human beings while rewarding laziness.
That is exactly what Karl Marx remarked in the Communist Manifesto.
The Progressive tax system only leads to class warfare, and this is what is happening in America.
Now is the absolute worst time to switch to a "fair tax."
Actually, it is the best time. Since the rich is your worst enemy, they would actually pay more in taxes because there are no loopholes, the fact remains that the rich consume more not only on the more items, but more expensive items. There is no way to avoid the consumption tax.
It simply is not doable in the real world.
Well, since it has never been tried, that is impossible to suggest.
I agree though, it needs to be made simpler, and loopholes need to be closed.
Well, the mere suggestion that you agree that loopholes need to be eliminated, yet support the progressive tax shows the misinformation.
Loopholes are built into the progressive tax system because of the perceived inequality of income as you described with the janitor, but the fair tax has no bias towards income besides the prebate would impose no tax on the first $1000 of monthly expensive on the lowest income bracket, so that is 100% of their income in their pockets whereas the progressive tax, they pay 14% on income and an additional 5% on consumption. Plus, groceries would remain untaxed.
Lastly, the prices would remain the about the same, so if you spend $50 on a toaster under the progressive system, you still pay $50 for the toaster even with 23% consumption tax. How? Because there is an additional cost built into all the products that we buy, and that is the cost to pay tax accountants.
In general, numbers may not be static, but they are in taxes, and you proofed it yourself, yet you don't even see with your example.
With both individuals being taxed at 10%, the numbers with taxes appear to be static.
WHY?
Even only being taxed 10% of 1 million dollars, which is $100,000, he will pay be paying more in taxes than the other individual will earn, and not only 100% of his income but 150% more than his income.
Even only being taxed 10% of 1 million dollars, which is $100,000, he will pay be paying more in taxes than the other individual will earn, and not only 100% of his income but 150% more than his income.
Which is the point. 10% of the wealth of an individual in the 10% tax bracket means more to that individual than than 10% of the millionaire's wealth. If you live on less than 8375$ a year, 837$ is the difference between a car payment, or getting 6 month's groceries, or making rent. It means the person has less than 7548$ to make 12 months of rent with, 52 weeks of groceries, 12 months of car payments, electric bills, and any other expenses. Imagine living on about 100$ a month for groceries, and everything else barely fitting the bill.
Now let's imagine a person with an annual income of 1 million dollars. Right off the bat, after 10% taxes (it's actually 35% with progressive tax, but we're pretending a flat tax exists), 900 thousand remains. To put that into perspective, if the poor person worked for 100 years straight, with no taxes and no living expenses, he would still not have as much money saved up as the wealthy man's yearly income.
The wealthy man can afford to buy his car outright, buy his home outright with a couple years' paychecks stored away. The wealthy man will never have to worry about starving on 25$ per week (have you ever tried living on this kind of diet? It's dry bulk foods, for everything, no meat ever). The purchases a wealthy man makes at this point are expensive items meant to convey the impression of status, so-called conspicuous consumption.
This is why we tend to favour a progressive tax. The wealthy are not punished for it, except in the minds of the greedy and the entitled.
A progressive tax system isn't built on equality, it is a system that punishes productive human beings while rewarding laziness.
Punishes productive human beings how exactly? Do you have the slightest clue of what wealth means when you deal with the actual numbers?
A wealthy person has tens of millions of dollars, at minimum, in addition to investments and land. If you taxed away 99% of that person's wealth, he would have over 100 THOUSAND dollars in assets remaining. How is this punishment when most of us live well on 50 thousand dollars annually? It gets even worse when we talk about billionaires. At this level, giving away 99% of your wealth would mean that you still have at least 10 MILLION dollars in assets.
If you actually work with the numbers instead of spouting pro-rich inanities like "You're punishing success!!!" then you'd realise that you're being screwed front and back by the wealthy.
Actually, it is the best time. Since the rich is your worst enemy, they would actually pay more in taxes because there are no loopholes, the fact remains that the rich consume more not only on the more items, but more expensive items. There is no way to avoid the consumption tax.
The wealthy have most of their assets in the form of investments and property. They don't carry a giant piggy-bank in their living room and spend all their wealth annually like it is a paycheck. In order for FairTax to tax the wealthy more, the wealthy would have to literally pay about 120% of their annual income in consumption to equal the current progressive income tax rates.
Well, the mere suggestion that you agree that loopholes need to be eliminated, yet support the progressive tax shows the misinformation.
Or perhaps you're misinformed, but let's listen.
Loopholes are built into the progressive tax system because of the perceived inequality of income as you described with the janitor, but the fair tax has no bias towards income besides the prebate would impose no tax on the first $1000 of monthly expensive on the lowest income bracket, so that is 100% of their income in their pockets whereas the progressive tax, they pay 14% on income and an additional 5% on consumption. Plus, groceries would remain untaxed.
Loopholes exist because wealthy interest groups don't like paying for taxes, so they enter the political discussions and strike deals that benefit themselves. Some loopholes exist to help the poor.
Punishes productive human beings how exactly? Do you have the slightest clue of what wealth means when you deal with the actual numbers?
I do, apparently, you don't.
A wealthy person has tens of millions of dollars, at minimum, in addition to investments and land. If you taxed away 99% of that person's wealth, he would have over 100 THOUSAND dollars in assets remaining. How is this punishment when most of us live well on 50 thousand dollars annually? It gets even worse when we talk about billionaires. At this level, giving away 99% of your wealth would mean that you still have at least 10 MILLION dollars in assets.
First, it is irrevlenat to what someone earns.
Second, everyone must live within thier own means.
If you only make $50,000 per year, then you should have to live within that number.
If you taxed 99% of a person's wealth as a millionaire or billionaire, they have no reason to remain productive nor consume.
Sure, he may have 100 thousands of dollars in assets or whatever but many jobs where people only live on 50 thousand dollars annually rely heavily on the extravagant lifestyle of the rich and famous.
For example, Gulfstream and NetJets are privately owned commercialized aircraft. Now, if the rich didn't produce or have large sums of money, where would these people.
The same goes for automobile companies such as Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce and etc.
Unfortunately, you are unable to recognize the importance of the rich because if it wasn't for the rich, millions of jobs that particularly cater to the rich would vanish.
If you actually work with the numbers instead of spouting pro-rich inanities like "You're punishing success!!!" then you'd realise that you're being screwed front and back by the wealthy.
I am really tired of this senseless rants and accusations.
The wealthy have most of their assets in the form of investments and property.
Reportable assets are not taxed, only earned money is taxed such as capital gains tax or income taxes. Property taxes are a different form of taxes, and they are not at the federal level, so that is irrelevant as well.
They don't carry a giant piggy-bank in their living room and spend all their wealth annually like it is a paycheck.
Really, they don't. Wow, what a shocker? Did you think of this all by yourself?
In order for FairTax to tax the wealthy more, the wealthy would have to literally pay about 120% of their annual income in consumption to equal the current progressive income tax rates.
Where did 120% come from? From the sky?
Please point it in your apparent sources because I am not looking for it.
Loopholes exist because wealthy interest groups don't like paying for taxes, so they enter the political discussions and strike deals that benefit themselves. Some loopholes exist to help the poor.
If you taxed 99% of a person's wealth as a millionaire or billionaire, they have no reason to remain productive nor consume.
If you don't understand that 1% of a figure as large as millions or even billions of dollars is enough money to make a person upper-middle class or even rich, then you have no concept of large numbers.
First, it is irrevlenat to what someone earns.
Second, everyone must live within thier own means.
If you only make $50,000 per year, then you should have to live within that number.
The top 1% make above 250 thousand dollars annually. This is why a progressive tax exists, they can afford 33% tax better than a person who makes 20 thousand dollars annually can.
Sure, he may have 100 thousands of dollars in assets or whatever but many jobs where people only live on 50 thousand dollars annually rely heavily on the extravagant lifestyle of the rich and famous.
It doesn't work that way. Excess wealth isn't put back into the economy as consumed goods, but as investments in stock, ownership of property, etc. which serves to increase wealth. This is why the top 10% own the majority of the nation's wealth. They are essentially hoarding assets. Did you ever read that paper I gave you which evidenced that the wealthy minority owns the majority of the country's wealth?
For example, Gulfstream and NetJets are privately owned commercialized aircraft. Now, if the rich didn't produce or have large sums of money, where would these people.
The same goes for automobile companies such as Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce and etc.
Unfortunately, you are unable to recognize the importance of the rich because if it wasn't for the rich, millions of jobs that particularly cater to the rich would vanish.
A minority of people means that jobs which cater to them will be a minority. You're also defending a dynamic industry that will find a niche if the wealthy vanish.
I am really tired of this senseless rants and accusations.
Then please do your homework.
Reportable assets are not taxed, only earned money is taxed such as capital gains tax or income taxes. Property taxes are a different form of taxes, and they are not at the federal level, so that is irrelevant as well.
Which is why their income needs to either be taxed heavily, or their assets must be taxed to compensate.
Hoarding wealth should be frowned upon by our legal system.
Where did 120% come from? From the sky?
Please point it in your apparent sources because I am not looking for it.
Look back at my previous post. I linked my sources.
Precisely, the fair tax would eliminate this.
It would eliminate the codes which benefit the poor.
If you taxed 99% of a person's wealth as a millionaire or billionaire, they have no reason to remain productive nor consume.
You really can't this stupid because wealth is not taxed except property and again, that is irrelevant because that is local taxes. Only earned wealth is taxed.
Income coupled with payroll taxes and capital gains taxes are the only way taxes that are collected by the federal government. So, just in case you didn't get this, the money in banks are not taxed, AKA savings. Most investments are taxed.
This is about taxing money that is new. Therefore, if you continue to tax large percentage of one's income, he has less incentive to hard work, and be less productive.
If you don't understand that 1% of a figure as large as millions or even billions of dollars is enough money to make a person upper-middle class or even rich, then you have no concept of large numbers.
I do. If you were to count to a million, billion and trillion, it would take 12 days, 31 years and ~31,000 years.
The top 1% make above 250 thousand dollars annually. This is why a progressive tax exists, they can afford 33% tax better than a person who makes 20 thousand dollars annually can.
No, the progressive tax exists to create class warfare between those on the top and those on the bottom where it eventually leads to an revolution.
Excess wealth isn't put back into the economy as consumed goods, but as investments in stock, ownership of property, etc. which serves to increase wealth.
If wealth isn't put back into the economy, where does it come from?
Other than borrowing money, most businesses use money that they earned as a means to expand their business as a way to pay for the expansion for the new initial costs.
Did you ever read that paper I gave you which evidenced that the wealthy minority owns the majority of the country's wealth?
How does that prove anyway? Just shows where wealth is.
I would much rather have wealth in private hands than public hands because when the rich get richer, so does the poorer, and when the rich get poorer, so does the poor. This is simple fact.
Which is why their income needs to either be taxed heavily, or their assets must be taxed to compensate.
This would come at the thinking of a communist.
Now your turn. Respond by denying it.
Hoarding wealth should be frowned upon by our legal system.
Whatever!!! Why are you hoarding your wealth in the bank? Start paying.
Look back at my previous post. I linked my sources.
How is that my responsibility? That is your. But I did anyway, and guess what, that stat doesn't exist.
When most people make bold statements, usually they use sources that are backed by the actual stat or sentence in quotes to prove it.
See, I provide the actual sentence or fact instead of please do your homework.
I did, you didn't.
This is the work of someone who is lazy or more likely the stat doesn't exist. You made it up!!!
You really can't this stupid because wealth is not taxed except property and again, that is irrelevant because that is local taxes. Only earned wealth is taxed.
Income coupled with payroll taxes and capital gains taxes are the only way taxes that are collected by the federal government. So, just in case you didn't get this, the money in banks are not taxed, AKA savings. Most investments are taxed.
It doesn't matter how you quibble to divide up wealth for taxes, the bottom line is the same.
This is about taxing money that is new. Therefore, if you continue to tax large percentage of one's income, he has less incentive to hard work, and be less productive.
A person earning between 100000 dollars and 1000000 dollars annually has no incentive to work hard?
You have no concept of numbers.
No, the progressive tax exists to create class warfare between those on the top and those on the bottom where it eventually leads to an revolution.
Blah blah blah. When you're done quoting Libertarian Thinktank #405, please rejoin the debate and give a rational rebuttal.
If wealth isn't put back into the economy, where does it come from?
Other than borrowing money, most businesses use money that they earned as a means to expand their business as a way to pay for the expansion for the new initial costs.
Did you read:
Excess wealth isn't put back into the economy as consumed goods.
How does that prove anyway? Just shows where wealth is.
It demonstrates that capitalism redistributes wealth very unevenly, and that the wealthy can more than afford high taxes.
I would much rather have wealth in private hands than public hands because when the rich get richer, so does the poorer, and when the rich get poorer, so does the poor. This is simple fact.
When you're done fellating wealthy businessmen for your paycheck, please address the fact that over the last two decades the richest 1% proceeded to increase their ownership of our country's private wealth from 34% to 43%, and the bottom 80% proceeded to lose wealth from 19% to 7%.
The current tax system is used as a weapon against some and an unfair advantage to others. Keep the system fair for everyone with all classes contributing through voluntary taxes. You consume something over a certain limit you pay taxes on it.
so is this fair tax taking money from the rich just taxing them more on the products they buy for them selfs and people with a high income as well would be taxed more. im poor ass hell and i don t think thats fair at all. fair tax would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power. are you sure fair tax is the way to go
If you are poor as hell, the burden of tax falls onto all consumers equally, but disproportionately based on consumption.
First, you will have more money in your pocket from the money that you earn, plus, a prebate would be implemented, which would mean that for instance, low income earners would have an allowance of $1000 per month of goods and services without tax, plus, groceries would be free of tax.
The rich not only consume more, but they consume for expensive items.
The rich pay for expensive goods and services, so they will have to pay more.
When was the last time, you bought a yacht, Mercedes Benz or 3 million dollar home. Apparently, never, so the burden would fall onto them.
It is a well known fact that a severe minority own a majority of this nation's wealth. Policies like FairTax are designed to favour the wealthy, because they will not consume enough new goods to match or exceed the present income tax. At the same time this tax system gives an illusion of benefiting the lower and middle classes, when it is they who consume the most new goods (the wealthy are the producers), thus their consumption tax will equal or exceed the present income tax.
Instead we should audit the present income tax code to make its policy content lean once again, and move towards a 95% income tax for those earning more than a million dollars annually, and a 99% income tax on those who make more than 10 million annually. Land taxes should affect the wealthy most heavily, since they can afford it, and this would help pay for our social programs.
Who would want to make millions and give 99% to the goverment??
"Land taxes should affect the wealthy most heavily, since they can afford it, and this would help pay for our social programs."
You state "the wealthy are the producers" so you as an individual take from them by being employed then you want to take 99% of their income so they can pay for your social programs.
Why don't you go produce some wealth and be a productive member of society rather than constant taking through whining?
Who would want to make millions and give 99% to the goverment??
If you make more than 100 million annually, then your annual income after taxes is more than one million dollars. I should think that this removes the laurels which millionaires rest upon, and pushes them to either pursue greater wealth, or it allows them to live upper-middle class lifestyles as long as they please.
The tax brackets need some adjustment, but these kinds of taxes benefit society.
You state "the wealthy are the producers" so you as an individual take from them by being employed then you want to take 99% of their income so they can pay for your social programs.
Correct.
Why don't you go produce some wealth and be a productive member of society rather than constant taking through whining?
Why don't you try examining the distribution of wealth in the country? The wealthiest 1% owns almost half of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own less than 10% of the nation's wealth. Wealth has little to do with being hard-working in this country.
Being productive means being exploitative of the market. The bottom 80% deserves a better lifestyle than drudgery for a pittance.
