Flat Tax
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Pro (nmvarco) will be arguing for the Flat Tax.
Con (Declan25) will be arguing against the Flat Tax.
First off, I would like to thank my opponent, nmvarco, for giving us such an interesting debate topic. I would like to congratulate my opponent on laying out conservative trickle down economics, which has been proven ineffective for the past hundred years, very well. I would also like to add that the only other major country who has a flat tax is Russia. One look at their economy and we can see how that’s gone. On the other end of the spectrum, every other major country with a successful economy, including America, the United Kingdom, France, and China, have a progressive tax. Explain to me why a progressive tax is so bad if the strongest countries in the world and their successful economies have a progressive tax and not a flat one. As much as I will be arguing against a flat tax, I am also arguing for a progressive tax.
With this imposed tax, half of the people in our country would get richer. These are the high middle class and the wealthy. Anyone with an income below that will not benefit at all. For example, in a Congressional Budget Office study taken in 2011 told us that the bottom fifth of taxpayers pay two percent of their income to federal taxes. On the other end of the spectrum, the top one percent pay 29% of their income. If a 14.5 percent flat tax was imposed, the bottom fifth percent would see their taxes increased sevenfold while the top 1 percent would see their taxes cut in half.
The flat tax has been known to decrease the GDP in countries that have accepted it. For example in Hungary, the GDP decreased by 1.6% in the first year of the flat tax. Our economy is the best it has been in a long time, would we really want to take away from its growth?
If a flat tax was imposed, it would take lower income families a lot more time to save up in retirement. These families would pay a lot more for taxes so it would be a greater struggle to save up for retirement. This would be adding fuel to the fire because as of now over 40% of American households say that retirement is a problem. We do not need to make this nationwide struggle more profound.
The housing market would suffer if a flat tax was imposed. Most houses are calculated on the thirty year mortgage plan. It would change the way the mortgage was calculated, which would have a long term negative effect on this market. We do not want to jeopardize the houses of American people.
These taxes only talk about income, it says nothing about dividends or interest. If the rich people in our country make a lot of their money because of interest or dividends. Some make all of it through that. In this plan only a income is charged so these people would not even have to pay anything. This takes away a lot of money from our government and makes the middle class pay more.
This proposition does not have any incentives. These are the places in the tax law where it will give you tax returns for being charitable. It is like how you get tax returns for donating to Goodwill. Do we want to stop lots of public funding to these noble causes?
If you introduce a flat tax, it would eliminate different levels of government bureaucracy. This would result in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and that would be very contradictory to nmvarco’s claim that we would be creating jobs.
If you take money away from the poor then the homeless rate would skyrocket. After that, they have no options for healthcare. If that happens, they would have go to the emergency room for health problems. That would increase healthcare costs for everybody. Flat tax is not good for our country.
Nmvarco claims that the 1.8 trillion dollar deficit could be countered by removing Obamacare. This is completely false. He goes on to state that Obamacare costs 42.6 billion dollars per year. So, after ten years without Obamacare and a flat tax, you still have a 1.374 billion dollar deficit.
Nmvarco quotes Rand Paul. If you didn’t know, Rand Paul is a far right wing libertarian. If nobody else in the political spectrum but libertarians support this, then it is obviously not a accepted idea. Libertarians are far right wing people who do not share most people’s common beliefs.
Nmvarco puts the Tax Foundation as one of his sources. This is not an unbiased source. It is conservative and has been known to skew numbers. I do not count this as a credible source
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/11/Heres-Problem-GOPs-Flat-Tax-Proposals
https://vittana.org/18-flat-tax-pros-and-cons
Con = Declan25 = A Flat Tax should not be adopted
Re# = Rebuttal #
Again, Con defaults to the Rand Paul plan. I would actually say that more money would go to charitable causes. With more money, rich people would be incentivized to use more of their money for donations. Rich people are not all evil people who hate the middle and lower class. And, again, we could also add an amendment to the Rand Paul plan having incentives for donating money to charitable causes.
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/251380/number-of-employed-persons-in-china/
[3] http://www.csun.edu/~hbsoc126/soc1/Chapter%2010%20Social%20Class%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf
[4] https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/2018-07-17/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system
[5] https://goo.gl/images/tDFJb1
[6] https://thehill.com/policy/finance/245378-rand-paul-calls-for-145-percent-flat-tax
[7] https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/21955000-12329000-government-employees-outnumber-manufacturing
[8] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax?scrlybrkr=0692e020
[9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism?scrlybrkr=0692e020
[10] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/gop-simple-flat-tax-proposals-simply-do-not-add-up.html
First I would like to apologize about my definition of libertarian, I meant to be referring to a right wing libertarian. I can see how that could be misinterpreted.
Re1. Trickle down economics
Again, I would like to point out that the definition of trickle down economics is…
This proposed tax would do all of those things, so I do not see how this is not trickle down economics.
First off, I would like to point out that I could only compare to the proposed Rand Paul plan as this is the only one nmvarco talks about. I would also like to add that this plan was so far out of the mainstream of tax policy that it didn’t even get a vote in the conservative House of Representatives.
Nmvarco states that it would make the calculations easier. That is not even close to what I was talking about. I was talking about that it would change the way the calculations are made. This would make the housing market have a loss and it would create a lot of stress for the American people to do their mortgage again.
First I would like to strongly deny the outrageous accusation that I am attacking countries with unstable economies. I have just been doing my research. Again, the only large country to have a flat tax is Russia. If you can name any others, name them.
Pro says
Re6. The Government Jobs
Pro says
I would like to ask nmvarco to stop talking about other welfare programs and new ideas. We are debating about a flat tax and not these other ideas. Now let’s focus on a flat tax.
Thank you for a very interesting debate and hopefully now one about just flat tax
[1] https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1040
Con = Declan25 = A flat Tax should not be adopted
Again, I would like to point out that the definition of trickle down economics is…Trickle-down economics is a theory that claims benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains, and dividends.This proposed tax would do all of those things, so I do not see how this is not trickle down economics.
I would like to congratulate my opponent on laying out conservative trickle down economics
First off, I would like to point out that I could only compare to the proposed Rand Paul plan as this is the only one nmvarco talks about.
I would also like to add that this plan was so far out of the mainstream of tax policy that it didn’t even get a vote in the conservative House of Representatives.
Con says
Nmvarco states that it would make the calculations easier. That is not even close to what I was talking about. I was talking about that it would change the way the calculations are made. This would make the housing market have a loss and it would create a lot of stress for the American people to do their mortgage again.
First I would like to strongly deny the outrageous accusation that I am attacking countries with unstable economies. I have just been doing my research.
The flat tax is far from radical. Our tax code is one of the most complicated in the world. Over two dozen countries have already adopted a single-rate flat tax system. Nearly all of these nations have tax rates below 20 percent. Nearly all of these nations have experienced economic growth and lower unemployment rates after implementing a flat tax. Those countries include many Eastern European countries including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. It has been reported that Hungary, Poland, Greece and even China may be considering a flat tax. It is past due that the United States joins the flat tax revolution.Russia is one of the prime examples of the success of the flat tax. In 2001, Russia replaced its progressive tax code with a single flat rate of 13 percent for all. The results have been outstanding. When people find their taxes to be low and sensible, they are willing to produce and invest more. In just the first year of implementation, Russia’s GDP grew a dramatic 5 percent. Between 2001 and 2004, The Hoover Institute found that tax revenue actually rose by 79.7 percent. Of course the flat tax is not a cure-all. Many of Russia’s problems can be blamed on other factors such as lack of property rights and excessive government intervention in the economy [2].
Again, the only large country to have a flat tax is Russia. If you can name any others, name them.
Pro says“With more money, rich people would be incentivized to use more of their money for donations. Rich people are not all evil people who hate the middle and lower class.”In this he basically admits that this would help the rich and hurt the poor and the middle class. He talks about how the rich will had more money and they will donate because the middle class and poor don’t have much money to spare.
Pro says“about 30 million people work for the government [7]. 10,000, or even 50,000, would not be a lot of people compared to the government workforce.”Here he basically says 10,000 people, 50,000 people who cares, it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. News flash, it matters to them.
I would like to ask nmvarco to stop talking about other welfare programs and new ideas. We are debating about a flat tax and not these other ideas. Now let’s focus on a flat tax.
This is a tough one to vote on.
Con forfeited the last round, which meant he didn't get a chance to make a final rebuttal or closing statement. Pro said that Con was unable to access the site and asked that voters not consider the last round... but that also causes us to lose 1/3rd of the debate. Being that this eliminates a big chunk of the arguments and rebuttals, that makes it difficult to evaluate the arguments.
I would have awarded conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit in the final round, but again, Pro politely asked us not to consider the final round. So thats out.
Spelling and grammar were roughly equal on both sides. Tie.
That just leaves Sources. Luckily, this is where we find a pretty respectable comparison that clearly leaves one side the victor.
Con only used four sources. One was a federal government website, so that was pretty authoritative. However, one of the others was a blog, which seems not very authoritative when discussing a very significant public policy issue . And the other two seemed to be news websites with a possible political bias.
Pro used significantly more sources, and those sources were from a much more diverse array of types of information. One of those sources was the exact same federal government website Con used, so Pro was able to use that same source for his own argument. Pro also cited several different wiki sites, several different news sites (from both sides of the political spectrum), a document hosed by a university and a helpful info-graphic, just to name a few. All of these sources were spread reasonably evenly throughout Pro's argument and verified many of the statistics he cited to support his argument. Overall, this diverse array of sources came across as being a lot more trustworthy and authoritative than the small sample of sources used by Con.
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.
I wish the site was better mantained, my time is too limited to pull up the relevant information you seek anyway.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Could you tell me how a consumption tax is fair?
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.
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
That’s an interesting topic. If you do a debate on it, I’ll be sure to pay attention
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.
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?