Instigator / Pro
14
1536
rating
19
debates
55.26%
won
Topic
#297

Flat Tax

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

nmvarco
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1499
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

Pro (nmvarco) will be arguing for the Flat Tax.
Con (Declan25) will be arguing against the Flat Tax.

-->
@Alec

Vote report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Forfeit by Con.
Reason: Forfeiting only one round is not enough to award the person a win without going through and analyzing the debate arguments, which he fails to do.

I understand.

-->
@Block19

I wish the site was better mantained, my time is too limited to pull up the relevant information you seek anyway.

-->
@Wylted

That link did have more information that you posted but it didnt have actual data that i could look at, just the claims that you made. I am not saying that you are lying or that you are in anyway wrong, just that you still have not given me a reliable source for where you get your information on the fairtax model. This is through no fault of your own as i am sure that you are not in anyway responsible for the issues that FAIRTAX.org is experiencing.

-->
@Wylted
@Ramshutu
@Alec
@Block19

Declan25 has informed me that he has not been able to log on to the site. I ask future voters to ignore the forfeit and only vote on the arguments presented during Round 1 and 2.

-->
@Block19

https://www.debate.org/debates/Classic-Robert-Gauntlet-Tournament-The-current-tax-system-should-be-replaced-by-the-fair-tax./1/

Here is more information.

Not with the stipend, hold on though. I did a debate on it, I will link you to it

-->
@Wylted

I went to Fairtax.org, it seems their website needs some work. When click on the link provided for me to learn more about how their taxing system would work, i get taken to a page that says "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.". Could you perhaps help me figure out how the systems works since it seems you were able to attain the information for yourself. From what i can see i would be paying 23% of my total household income, that is more than i ever have.

-->
@Block19

The fair tax which you can find more info on at fairtax.org involves a stipend that would refund the money you would normally spend on all basic necessities. Most poor people would still pay zero percent, and rich people would not be able to dodge taxes as well. Plus it adds revenue from things you can't normally tax such as under the table money or drug money as well as people vacationing in America.

-->
@Wylted

Could you tell me how a consumption tax is fair?

-->
@nmvarco
@Declan25

I’ll be quite happy to clarify anything about my vote: or offer any thoughts or advice about how style or content could be improved.

So, pro offered the main big points here,
And while I feel the big pros and cons were not well argued by either side in my view - they were roughly even with con having the edge. However, con threw out a number of small claims that were all batted away easily by pro that really eroded cons position.

If either side presented more in the way of concrete sources to support claims, or causal analysis: this analysis would be different, as I would have weighted the first big set of arguments more strongly. As that wasn’t really the case, the points above reflect which party “sounded” more reasonable and more logical on balance - which means that while I am completely against flat tax - I have to award this to pro.

There is room for improvement for both sides though.

Conduct to pro due to forfeit.

9.) May not apply to other forms of income.

This seems like an issue with one way a flat tax could be implemented. Pro points this out that there are different implementations - ones that include dividends and flat tax. I felt this refuted con well.

Pro 3.5:3

10.) lowering of charitable donations.

Con claims that reduction in income would lower charitable donations. Pro explains that they would be incentivized in other plans. I felt this rebutted cons argument here: con (or pro) could have done better by argument based on reduction of income, and citing the amount of money given to charity. As he did not, I have to give this I pro.

Pro 4:3

11.) Reduction in government jobs

Con argues that flat tax would reduce government jobs. It wasn’t clear how he felt this was the case - pro successfully (in my view), bats this claim away. Con has to do better here to support his points. Pros pro business argument acts as an additional counter

Pro 4.5:3

12.) overall affect - poverty and homelessness.

While I feel Con presents an argument in general about increased tax burden on the middle class and poor people (which has already been assessed), the argument about extreme poverty is in my view not well supported by con - as he doesn’t quantify it. Pro also manages to bay this away by talking about negative income tax and exemptions for low incomes that could alleviate this. I would award this to pro.

Pro 5:3.

5.) rich getting richer - I believe this is a good point from con - and it serves both as a rebuttal and as individual supporting point. As mentioned - pros counter here didn’t really hold much water in my view, he talks more about existing brackets than really quantifying the impact. As I said - as no sources were provided, I am basing this off which argument “sounds”, more correct, with this, and with what I mentioned about pros argument 2, I have to go with Con on this one:

Con 3:2

6.) countries with a flat tax have tanked.

Little data is provided on either side. Con makes a reasonable sounding point, but pro casts doubt on the point by highlighting that con can’t link the economic issues to the flat tax as is being implied. I have to give this one to pro.

Saying that: as this was a smaller point, with little attention paid to each, I won’t score these the same as pros large points:

Con 3:2.5

7.) retirement is made harder

Con did better here, but I feel this argument already accounted for in the scoring first argument.

8.) Housing market.

I wasn’t certain from cons argument what impact a flat tax would have, he has said there would be a problem, but didn’t explain how the calculation would change, and how. Pro points this out in his rebuttal and it is not clarified by con.

3:3

3.) decreasing tax on companies would help investment and the economy.

Pro gave a logical explanation of how this works - but doesn’t quantify the effect, so as a judge, I can’t tell how much of a benefit this is. Con crafts a rebuttal concerning trickle down economics not working, but... I know the data shows it doesn’t work, I’ve seen studies and data - but con doesn’t show any of it: as a result, I’m faced with pro explaining how flat tax could boost the economy, and con saying “no”, with no justification as to why it wouldn’t: and just what amounts to an assertion that it doesn’t. As a result I just can’t give this one to con. This is why sources are so important, this point was there for the taking!

2:1 to pro.

4.) more efficient government spending.

Pro doesn’t give me any specific reason to believe that the government would be more responsible with money in flat tax - no argument is provided. While pro also explains how it can be “funded” by cutting other programs - pro doesn’t explain why this is okay - to me pro must justify the cuts as either unnecessary programs, or an easy place to get funding. Tax relief could be funded by eliminating the military, for example - but that doesn’t make it a good idea!

Pros main issue here, is as mentioned in point 2. That he shots himself in the foot by arguing it’s unfair to have the rich pay more than their fair share and the poorer should foot more of the bill - and then argue that programs that benefit the poor such as welfare and Obamacare should be cut at the same time: it seems wrong prima facia. Cons rebuttals vis a vis taxation on the poor were good enough to throw doubt on this argument - so I have to give this one to con too.

2:2

Arguments:

1.) The rich pay most of the tax.

I would like to have seen source for pro on this, but the point is well argued. The tax do pay a large percentage of the tax burden. Pro does not quantify the impact on the average family for raising taxes - which is important for him to establish. It felt like con didn’t tackle this head on - but did point out the large increase the middle class would have to bear. What was missing for me, is con coming up with a justification of why it is okay for the top tier to pay an undue burden. Con argues it will be hard for the poor and middle class - and doesn’t explain why it’s fair for the rich to pay. As a result, I would score this for pro.

1:0 for pro

2.) it wont destroy the middle class.

I felt pro absolutely shot himself in the foot here. You can’t go from arguing that 90% of the poorest people pay 33% of the tax, then argue that a flat tax - which balances that out - won’t affect the middle class. It really draws attention to the problem of his first argument.

Con: to his credit tackled this argument - talking about retirement issues (unsourced) and his analysis of tax increases on the poor. I felt pros rebuttal to these points were very weak, claiming “the tax could be lower” than 14.5% is not compelling as it is not backed up by any data

Nothing is sourced here on either side though. Guys - you have to back these claims up with data!!!

While con didn’t tackle this head on, I felt that he did address the main issues with the middle class, and as pro eroded his own position: and with no sources on either side, cons argument “felt” more true this one goes to con.

1:1 tied.

-->
@Block19

A consumption tax is fair and technically a flat tax. If you don't think it would generate enough revenue than we can just cut expenses. Unless you think the government has zero percent wasteful spending and spends perfect

As someone who used to prepare taxes for a living i can assure you that a flat tax would not better. The wage difference between the highest, middle, and lowest earners in this country are too large for there to ever be a single tax rate that works well for all taxpayers. This is the reason why we do not use it, and if you believe that the issue with our tax system is that people aren't paying their fair share, then you should argue to eliminate peoples ability to classify themselves as a corporation in order to pay a lower tax then they otherwise would.

Luigi

-->
@Alec

That’s an interesting topic. If you do a debate on it, I’ll be sure to pay attention

-->
@Alec

Hmm, we could debate that after I am finished with some of the debates I am in.

I think people should be taxed solely off of sin taxes because I think it makes more sense to tax people for doing something bad like doing bad things then it is to tax people for doing good things, like making money. A tax is like a punishment, lets not punish good things. I support the abolition of the income, property, and corporate tax.

-->
@Ben11

A flat Tax is where people of all incomes are taxed at a similar rate. People support it because it gives people of all incomes equal representation under the law, as outlined by the Constitution and 14th Amendment.

Why do people support flat tax?