CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
4
good idea. bad idea.
Debate Score:9
Arguments:6
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 good idea. (3)
 
 bad idea. (3)

Debate Creator

saintlouis(161) pic



tax on savings/investment?

proportionate to their income, wealthy people save and invest most, while people with very little wealth spend more money immediately without saving. So taxation upon savings and investment (which are essentially the same thing because banks invest using savings, at least in theory) would put a heavier burden on those who could most afford it. On the other side, taxes on investment would misallocate capitol and resources.

good idea.

Side Score: 5
VS.

bad idea.

Side Score: 4
2 points

Money spent is what boosts the economy, not money sitting in a vault somewhere. Invested money may or may not help the economy, but it still does not help the economy as much as money spent because you know for 100% sure that money spent is driving a need for increased production ergo more jobs somewhere down the line.

There needs to be a progressive tax whereby those who have reaped the most benefit from society pay forward a larger share so that the next generation has more opportunity to succeed like they did,

instead of this loophole riddled system whereby the Romney's pay a lower percent than the middle class all while (until they are forced to release records) crying about "Wah, I pay 35%."

In truth, while that is the top tax bracket, only the poor who cannot afford accountants and attorneys need pay the full percent Uncle Sam asks of them. It is passingly funny though when the wealthy cry about taxes. The fact is the bottom 80% of the entire U.S. population controls 7% of the entire nations wealth. That's a fact. Middle class, 40-80k/ year or so is in the middle of that 80%. That 80% also pays the mass, mass majority of the money this country has at its disposal primarily because sales tax is not progressive and they do not have the means to these sweet loopholes the Romney's of the world have access to.

Giving people with money more money never in history has helped any economy anywhere in the world. This is pretty much an established fact. I'm sure trust fund babies are laughing their asses off at what a sucker you are as they drink martinis on their yacht though.

Side: Good Idea.
2 points

savings and investment stimulate the economy. Areas that receive the greatest investment are areas with the greatest potential returns which are the areas with the most potential for growth. profit driven banks and investors will put money on what they think will grow most, generating the best profit. Government taxes would discourage savings, encourage over consumption, and would misallocate resources on bad bets, such as the government projects on ethanol and failed renewable energy companies.

Side: bad idea.
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Savings and investments only stimulate the economy under the right conditions. Their current form actually results in more debt than equity to pay for it, without even considering interests. If you consider cashflow and debt growth it becomes obvious why some(but not all) recessions occur. "cheap credit" blows the economy up, mainly with hot air, and then the bubble pops.

The private sector will invest in what is most profitable with the best period of return. (If rationality and abundant information is assumed, which these don't hold in modern economies...)

It won't necessarily invest in what provides the greatest utility to a country. The ethanol and renewable energy subsidies,grants and investments done by the government should eventually lead towards needed, yet unprofitable, advancements being made. For example, current fuel efficiency in gas cars are due to the need to meet regulations and to be able to compete with subsidized advancements in renewable energy. While this effect may not be direct, it is indeed important.

The standard you use to determine a successful government policy should be wider, for example nasa and darpa are/were expensive but have proven themselves highly successful by most standards I would consider good ones.

Granted, the government won't necessarily invest in what provides the most utility either, but it has more incentives to do such than a private entity and usually more resources to do such as well.

"bad bets" are different for government than they are for businesses. Government isn't a business and should not be judged as one.

The right tax structure can encourage not only more savings, but more cashflow as well. It depends on spending habits and such, but generally speaking a progressive tax structure results in more savings and production than a flat tax would. I can go into it if you want.

Side: Good Idea.
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

... and like the freeway system, nasa, schools, our military...

Oh wait, what are we talking about again?

Right, government is always mean and evil and all that. Okay, carry on crazy person.

Side: Good Idea.

That is correct.--------------------------------------------------------

Side: bad idea.

A free market needs savings & investment. Without savings, bankers would not be able to invest, as they have no liquidity. Without investment, no small firms could start, and businesses as a whole would be destroyed.

What you're suggesting is basically a negative interest rate? Banks need liquidity, and no one would do that. Makes little sense.

Side: bad idea.