CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:16
Arguments:12
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 The progressive tax - the best way to solve the inequality gap among the rich and the poor (12)

Debate Creator

Mestoyev(21) pic



The progressive tax - the best way to solve the inequality gap among the rich and the poor

The progressive tax - a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals

Add New Argument

This took me 30 seconds to think of: Why don't we just have a flat rate tax, for everyone?

Say...20% tax regardless of how much you make per year.

I'm expecting people to tear this idea apart, as idiotic and stupid, the next time I sign on. Don't let me down guys.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
2 points

Well, that's essentially what you currently have.

When people talk about a 'flat tax', they typically are only referring to income tax. Surely a flat 20% tax on all is 'fairer' than a varying rate for different levels of income?

But actually, the tax system is very complicated. While there may currently be a progressive income tax, the vast majority of other taxes are regressive (sales tax, payroll tax, excise taxes). A progressive income tax simply has a 'balancing' effect, leaving the effective tax rate more flat across all incomes.

Then, you have tax exemptions, which very often can be used by those earning at high income levels than those below.

And finally, you have capital gains tax. The majority of all capital gains transactions (in terms of dollars) happen between those in the upper class, and it is taxed at a very low rate. The possibility of effectively having your entire income taxed at these low rates is something that may be a dream for those on lower incomes, but a very real possibility for those on higher incomes.

Overall, taxes are more balanced than many people think, but still far from flat.

1 point

I definitely agree with you, as the income tax, when progressive, does kind of balance or redistribute the income among all layers of the population. When looking at the issue more thoroughly, indeed it is easily seen that there are just numerous types of taxes, which can be regressive, balanced etc. Therefore by implementing this strategy, it does in some way help the situation, without really discriminating the overall population, as can be thought initially.

This took me 30 seconds to think of: Why don't we just have a flat rate tax, for everyone?

Say...20% tax regardless of how much you make per year.

I'm expecting people to tear this idea apart, as idiotic and stupid, the next time I sign on. Don't let me down guys.

Except for persons earning below a particular minimum. After the insertion of this clause, I wholly commend the policy which you have suggested; for it is one which I have long espoused.

I expect to sign on like tomorrow and have X number of responses saying "It's a bad idea because of ______". Which I don't mind at all, I want to have good ideas.

In regards to what Obama wants to do with charging more taxes to rich people, I feel like if I were a rich person I wouldn't mind paying slightly more taxes for a few years, since my quality of life would almost certainly be far better than those of lower income.

I just don't think they should be permanently kept high, since it would seem to give the impression that the more you make the more you are taxes, which some would perceive as a "wtf government, why are you taxing me more for being successful?"

Just my thoughts, I'm no tax expert, but I would love to hear from a tax expert, or someone more qualified than myself.

1 point

I agree with this with your modification 100%. But, it also means Zero Deductions, No Exceptions.

If the government wanted a flat tax..., we would have a flat tax. ;)

Why would the government want lower taxes for anyone? The word politics is made up of two words, Poli (the Greek prefix for many) and Tics (blood sucking creatures)

If I wasn't against income tax I would agree with this a lot more, a flat tax on how much you make is much more fair then the "progressive" tax rate.

Inequality will always exist even in heavily centrally planned economies. Equality is a pipe dream because rather than equal opportunity, it is equal results, and this means poverty.

Free market capitalism is the only system that bests narrows the gap between rich and poor because every man can pursue his own interests without economic interference.

The progressive tax only widens the gap between the rich and the poor because capital resources are redistributed from savings and investment to spending and consumption.

Ideally, I believe society would function much better if the Lower, Upper, and Middle class were extraordinarily tightly knit, to the point that being in the lower class does not equate to homelessness, starvation, and poverty.

Suffice it to say, a progressive tax would assist in bringing us towards this. Nobody deserves, needs, or can honestly earn billions and billions of dollars, and while it's quite graceful of philanthropists to be philanthropists, if they weren't so absurdly wealthy as to be philanthropists in the first place, we would have greatly decreased, or even no, poverty.

When you take for yourself that which would feed 2 men, you effectively make is impossible for another man to feed himself. If you take for yourself that which would feed 100 men... well, you see, that's evil, even if the intent was not to starve 99 men.