Instigator / Pro
2
1579
rating
34
debates
70.59%
won
Topic
#6067
Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
7
1617
rating
198
debates
55.3%
won
Description
Better - resulting in a more favorable quality of life for the most citizens of the country where the economic system is in place.
Georgism - A system of taxation where the only tax is a land value tax
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you Con for accepting, I hope this will be a fun and civil debate!
To lay a ground floor, america's current taxation system has money coming in from a wide variety of sources, but the biggest one is individual taxes such as the income tax. [1] Now I generally believe that the government does many good services for people of this country, and that most citizens benefit from it. However in order to do such amazing things like social security, the government needs money to run, and that must come from taxes.
Taxes are inherently bad on the individuals they are imposed upon, but they are a necessity for the government to run. That then begs the question, what is the least bad way to tax? I believe that the answer to that question is Georgeism.
While income and sales taxes are hurtful to the economy, there is a way to tax that stimulates growth, and that is a land value tax.
The Problem with our Current System
America's current taxation system has two major problems, 1. It is inherently unfair and wrong (though still a necessity), and 2. It actively hurts our economy.
For problem 1. Taxation is really just theft. It's theft for the greater good, but it's also taking money from someone against their will. That doesn't mean we should go without taxes, but it does mean we should find the least bad way to do it. If you had to steal from an honest worker or another robber, who would you pick? That's not to say that landowners are robbers, I'm just illustrating that it can be better to steal from one person than another. By using taxes as a punishment, we can stimulate the economy, or get other things done. Think about taxes on cigarettes, they get money for the government, and they make smoking harder so instead of a win-lose scenario where only the government wins, the people and the government win because both get something good.
I actually touched a little on Problem 2 in the Problem 1 section, but I'll expand upon it here. By taking money from consumers, they actively have less to spend in the economy which slows down consumption and growth. The same goes for sales taxes as they increase the price of goods. Corporate taxes slow innovation and production, and property taxes do the same to consumption of retail. However if we once again use taxes in a win-win way, we can actually stimulate the economy through taxes instead of slowing it.
Those are the two major problems, but the best thing about Georgism is that it fixes so many other little problems too. For example, the public school system in America is inherently unfair because schools in poorer districts are funded by local property and income taxes. Those schools have lower budgets, which drives down the property values and taxes too in a feedback loop. Without equal opportunity, we lose so much innovation and good people that the economy also slows down. With Georgism, we can fund public schools equally with the single land value tax and thus create equality of opportunity. Of course, that doesn't imply that everyone will make it to the same place, but it's a much fairer system because it's a true meritocracy.
How Georgism Fixes the Major Problems
I said it in the description, and I'm sure you know this because you accepted the debate, but Georgism is a system of taxation that relies entirely on a single land-value tax. It gets revenue for the government, so it does the biggest job of a tax, but it also does it in a fair win-win situation. Just like the tax on cigarettes mentioned before, it encourages people to do something, except this time it's participating in the economy, not quitting smoking.
Under our current system, people can make money by simply holding on to land by speculation. That land does nothing to help the economy, and the people who earned the money did nothing to earn it. However while Georgism doesn't forbid speculation, it incentivises people to stop doing it. If speculators must pay a tax on the land they hold, it encourages them to build on the land in order to pay that tax, or sell it to someone who will. Developing land in this way greatly stimulates the economy.
Conclusion
Georgism solves the two major problems. It's the least unfair way to tax as it punishes people for getting rich off nothing, and it actually helps the economy by doing so. It's a fallacy to say that the taxpayer and the government are constantly at odds because there is a way for them to both get what they want. Georgism is the ultimate win-win scenario in economics, and that's why I believe it to be superior to our current system for taxation.
Thanks again for accepting Con, I look forward to your response. I yield the floor.
Round 2
Con
#4
Still open to continuing if you’re okay losing the conduct point.
That is acceptable. I did forfeit the first round, so it is only fair.
The conduct point is yours.
Framework
Since the resolution is georgism is better than america's current system of taxation, and better remains undefined.
This means we are left without a clear standard or principle of how to compare or determine superiority. Therefore, I will establish it.
The ultimate goal of any economy is to better its people's lives.
There are three categories in which should be focused on to determine which one yields the superior quality of life.
- Livelihood
- Consumption & Welfare
- Sustainable Prosperity
The resolution is worded in a way, to make this debate on-balance. Meaning the BOP is shared.
Pro must prove that a pure georgist system/economy is better than America's current system of taxation, where I only need to demonstrate the reverse.
Feasibility
Since georgism is hypothetical, this means we are referring to a system that is supposedly ideal in theory. This is a romanticized version of your traditional Gary/Mary Sue meets government. From an economist perspective, georgism is impossible to establish systemically. And without a means to create a georgist system, there remains no concrete evidence that georgism is superior. Furthermore, we are comparing a fictitious system whose model is unreliable to something that despite its shortcomings, has demonstrated to yield positive results because it has already been tried and tested.
Economists' main objections to Georgism are merely that (a) it is difficult to implement in practice, and (b) politically impossible
There are several other objections to georgism which include its inability to properly fund government. The money generated from a land-value tax is insufficient to meet the needs of the country, and the total amount of money insignificant to be distributed adequately. A whole model based on georgism shows the system falling apart completely. The revenues generated would be far below the required amount to fund unemployment insurance and even income supports.
According to The Congressional Budget Office, federal revenues managed to reach 19.6 percent of GDP ($4.8 trillion) in 2022. This is a significant-point gap for the US system because this means the american system was able to generate enough revenue to fund unemployment insurance, SNAP, and a bunch of other programs.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Your argument consisted of two major paragraphs, so I'll answer each in turn with a paragraph of its own.
Skipping the front matter about BOP and conduct point, your first real argument is that georgism is a mostly theoretical system, so it can't be compared with systems that are proven to work, even if those systems are flawed. While lack testing does hurt my argument, it doesn't completely disqualify it. Let's pretend I was living in the worst possible economic system I can imagine, maybe where a dictator is entitled to anything from anyone anytime he feels like it, and exercises his power frequently. Frankly almost all theoretical economic systems would be better than this system, not by virtue of facts, but by virtue of probability. If my current system is at 0% efficiency and georgism could land anywhere between 0% and 100%, then it's a better system. But georgism is better than that, because it's probably not going to be between 0-100 percent because there is logic behind it. It works in theory. Of course that's no indication of how well a system actually work, as shown by communism, but if the system is likely to be better than the current system, then I would say that it makes sense to switch. If you know your toothpaste is 50% effective, then it's rational to switch to one that is between 75% and 100% effective. Now this doesn't completely prove my point, I still have to prove that georgism is more likely to be more effective, but I think i've shown that very well in my first argument, and I'll go on to do more of it in this next paragraph. To conclude this section, you also ended your paragraph saying that georgism is unfeasible because it's politically impossible and difficult to implement, but does that make it a worse system. Even if it's hard to do, if it's the better system it should be implemented, no?
The second paragraph you wrote was about how Georgism doesn't work as it doesn't generate enough money for the government to fund all its programs. However that holds the assumption that these programs are good. One of the best parts of Georgism is that it is a better way to implement a fair system without devolving completely to anarchy. It's the bare minimum for the government on purpose. The point isn't for land taxes to cover all current government expenses, it's to limit the government to spending only on what is essential. Your three markers for a good system were that the system improves livelihood, Consumption & Welfare, and Sustainable Prosperity. But the big thing missing from this system is fairness. When the government funds social security, it means that taxpayers who earned their money must give some of it to citizens who didn't earn it. Georgism makes it so the government can't spend money on programs like this. The main goal of government should be to protect our liberties, and simply that. Taxes are a necessity to protect some liberties, so to gain liberty you must give up some. To have police who protect you, you have to give a little money. But when it becomes so excessive that people must give up liberty to the government for nothing in return, the government has overreached its power. Georgism puts a check on this government overreach.
Con
#6
America is the foundation for which we are comparing which economy is better.
Pro concedes that the evidence is purely based on speculation and mathematical estimate.:
Skipping the front matter about BOP and conduct point, your first real argument is that georgism is a mostly theoretical system, so it can't be compared with systems that are proven to work, even if those systems are flawed. While lack testing does hurt my argument, it doesn't completely disqualify it.
I have one objection I must make to one of Pro's statements.
To conclude this section, you also ended your paragraph saying that georgism is unfeasible because it's politically impossible and difficult to implement, but does that make it a worse system. Even if it's hard to do, if it's the better system it should be implemented, no?
Pro has made a very intelligent, convincing argument that is hard to contend with. But it's addressing a subject that diverts from what we're actually debating.
As per Pro's resolution and my framework. We are discussing which system is better for America, not which system is better in general.
If a patient is in need of a blood donation, and they are Type A. It would be nonsensical to give them Type O, under the rationalization that Type O is healthier because it is less prone to common diseases like heart disease and blood clots. The type that is healthier for the patient is A. Using O would kill them.
Politics and economy are not a one size fits all.
As we can observe here, Pro concedes the argument that georgism is practically impossible to implement by design. So we are comparing a romanticized version of something to something that is concrete.
However that holds the assumption that these programs are good.
These programs are an essential living requirement. The elderly, the homeless, and the underprivileged need accommodations to be able to make it.
Extend all arguments.
The one important problem with Pro conceding to my argument about the lack of testing and lack of proof raises his BOP and makes it too high to meet.
Round 4
Pro
#7
As per Pro's resolution and my framework. We are discussing which system is better for America, not which system is better in general.If a patient is in need of a blood donation, and they are Type A. It would be nonsensical to give them Type O, under the rationalization that Type O is healthier because it is less prone to common diseases like heart disease and blood clots. The type that is healthier for the patient is A. Using O would kill them.
Actually🤓, if you read the resolution, it does mention America but it doesn't say that Georgism would work better in America. I only mention America in reference to its current taxation system, but the bulk of the resolution is on which is objectively better. The resolution is "Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation" not "Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation for America". Using your example, type O blood would win this debate as it is objectively better because the debate isn't about blood transfusions for a type A person. I believe my arguments have been sufficient to prove that Georgism is objectively better as it has a higher likelihood of resulting in a more fair system.
As we can observe here, Pro concedes the argument that georgism is practically impossible to implement by design. So we are comparing a romanticized version of something to something that is concrete.
Yeah, but the resolution isn't "We should implement Georgism" It's about which is objectively better. A system that's impossible to implement can still be the better system, it just means that that system shouldn't be attempted. That's not to say I believe Georgism is impossible to implement, but that's another debate.
These programs are an essential living requirement. The elderly, the homeless, and the underprivileged need accommodations to be able to make it.
Once again, this is assuming that standards of living are the only metric to judge a system on. I'd say fairness is just as important. With Georgism we can achieve an equality of opportunity, which means that not everyone will end up in the same place, but people will end up where they deserve. If a homeless drug addict starves, it's because they made poor decisions, and I should have to pay for their choices.
Con
#8
Special thanks to Pro for the creative resolution and thoughtful debate.
Before we part ways, I remind voters that my conduct point belongs to Pro, as per my forfeiture in the first round.
Now, let's wrap things up.:
Standards & Framework
Pro objects to my framework, arguing that we should compare which one is better in general. But he does not directly refute or address my arguments about politics, economy, and a system of taxation not being a one size fits all. In round 3, he skips my matter about the bop.
Skipping the front matter about BOP and conduct point
This means he concedes to my framework for which model to use when comparing the two. At default, we assume that its America because it's in the resolution. If Pro meant something differently, he should have clarified. Especially by defining what he means by America's current system of taxation. (For instance, how current? In the last decade, in the last five years, this year?) What name does he give to America's system of taxation, as it's a mixed economy.
He also concedes to my 3-point categorization.:
Your three markers for a good system were that the system improves livelihood, Consumption & Welfare, and Sustainable Prosperity. But the big thing missing from this system is fairness
I counter that whichever system meets these three requirements fits the standard for fairness.
Extend arguments about unemployment insurance, SNAP, and other programs.
Extend argument about georgism failing to yield the amount of revenue required to fund basic living requirements.
Extend arguments about georgism being practically impossible and difficult to implement.
Extend argument about georgism being a theoretical system, that relies on speculation and estimate. But with nothing concrete to back it.
The defining conceded argument.:
Actually🤓, if you read the resolution, it does mention America but it doesn't say that Georgism would work better in America.
Pro now concedes the argument that america's system of taxation is better for america than georgism, nullifying any justification he might make for his framework. As I have narrowed down the scope to just one country, and I have accurately demonstrated that georgism would not work for this country.
Even if we use Pro's framework, he doesn't leave any examples of georgism being a better fit than america's taxation system and even mentions there is no proof.
Thus fulfilling the ultimate conclusion that america's current system of taxation is better than georgism.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's R1 argument begins, "america's [sic] current taxation system has money coming in from a wide variety of sources..." which clarifies an argument of its own developing in later rounds of the debate in which Pro becomes lost in the weeds and loses focus on the detail of the Resolution. The thrust of Pro's R1 argument is that America's tax system is "inherently unfair and wrong." Pro claims a Georgian tax system would improve the "unfair and wrong" because it consists of a "land-value tax." [as a personal note, having naught to do with my vote, but what, then, is current property tax if it isn't a "land-value tax" that is reduced tax for undeveloped property, more tax for developed property?] Pro's Resolution is "Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation." Pro defines “better" as "more favorable quality of life for the most citizens..."
Con's rebuttal consisted of proposing what factors contribute to "better" as being: 1] livelihood, 2] consumption & welfare, 3] sustainable prosperity, and declares "Georgism" is not a current tax policy, and is therefore speculative as to accomplishing these three outcomes of Georgism's application.
Pro lost the argument by never being able to overcome his weed entanglement of referencing America as his country of primary interest by declaring it upfront in R1 as his country of interest, and then admitting in R4 that Georgism cannot be proven to be better for America. Con wins points
Sourcing: Pro completely lacked sourcing . Con sourced in all three arguments in which he participated, sustaining his arguments and rebuttals effectively, such as A Search-Theoretic Critique of Georgism - Econlib in R4.
Legibility: tie [under personal protest, but I’ll forego further personal argument]
Conduct: Point to Pro for Con R1 forfeiture - auto-loss of point per voting rules.
There was some discussion of how we could change the standards after the decision was made to shift from spelling and grammar to legibility, but to my knowledge at least, we did not make any substantial alterations to those standards. As for why not, the change-over happened when the site owner Mike decided to make a number of big changes to the site and I think this one just never got all that much attention. It’s past time we opened the issue up to public comment and at least determined whether enough people would like the standard to change, then we can workshop some ideas for how to do it.
I’ll go ahead and remove the vote. It looks like Sir.Lancelot has already posted the whole text of it below.
I meant to address my #22 to you, but erred in not addressing it to you. please read, and then cancel my vote; I'll re-do it, but, pls, answer the question in it. When the name changed from spelling & grammar to legibility, did the description also change with it? If not, why not? "...The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance." Pro's change of argument was "obvious..." and confusing for the reasons I've already discussed.
That did not answer my question, which was an honest question. I'm not trying to be difficult, just want to understand, because I am suspcious that when the name changed [before I was here five years ago, the name changed, but I have no idea if the body of the description of legibility changed with it. If it didn't, why not, because I have always voted with this interpretation, and this is the first time it has raised feathers. Just cancel my vote, I'll re-do.
It’s valid to argue that the way legibility is awarded should change, but at this moment, the view you’ve provided on legibility is not how it is applied. We would need to alter the voting standards to reflect that, which would require some public discussion. For the time being, even if I fully defer to your judgement on the term, it’s not how the voting standards apply in this case.
I have to wonder why, then, the name of the section changed from spelling & grammar if the intent was not to widen the scope from mere spelling and grammar, because that is what I'm doing, and y'all think I'm crazy. Isn't the whole idea of reading to be able to understand the writer? In written debate, I expect consistent argument from one side, not being all over the map. In linguistics, we reduce reading to a concept of the ability to decode symbols: the basic units of a language, and when a writer converts thought to written symbols [letters in our case] that collectively say the same thing when repeated, which debate argument is expected to do from round to round.. Pro did not repeat. Sorry, but that implies poor legibility to me, Legibility is not exclusively the job of the de-coder, but the coder, as well.
Can you and I debate capitalism and socialism?
Not to but in, but the way I always interpreted the legibility point wasn't about the writing itself, but about how that writing is formatted, (grammar, punctuation, indents, paragraphs). Your specific complaints with my argument would go in the argument section, not legibility.
Again, though, that reads to me as an issue of argument, not one of legibility. If he effectively conceded the debate, no matter how he did it, it would not be reflected in the Legibility scoring.
My complaint is the complete reversal of stand from absolute assurance that Georgism is the greatest thing since butter to not being certain there is butter. Sorry if that is not confusing to you; it is to me.i.e., it iscapitulation to Con's argument.
I don't recall that specific instance and I'm not challenging your credentials. I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what makes Pro's case hard to understand as a result of said word salad. I haven't read through the debate, but if we're talking legibility, there's a pretty clear voting standard for that:
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
Terrible punctuation throughout.
Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
So it has to meet some clear standard for awarding the point, and I'm asking you to explain how this instance meets that standard.
I bring to the table a PhD in English Lit, and am a published author as a retirement profession, so I am a critic for good grammar and consistency of plot. The "plot" of Pro's R1 vs. R4 tells an opposing story, thus the "word salad.". I do not check my experience at the door when voting. If I must, then I might as well not be a member anymore, because I do not lower my standards for a website's feelings. I recall losing a debate four years ago because a voter cited off=debate sources [i.e., the sources were not cited by my opponent in rebuttal, but by the voter] in order to vote against my argument. If that can fly unchallenged, then so should this word salad negative vote.
Yeah, it'll have to be re-posted.
As for Legibility, I'll need to see more on why it's difficult to decipher. I understand what you mean by "word salad," but I'll need some examples of what made it difficult to understand. We can work this out here and then I can delete it for your re-post.
Yeah, re: conduct, I forgot about the rules commentary "Any unexcused forfeited round…” was an automatic loss of conduct. Sorry. Can you change that item, or do I need to re-enter a vote?
However, re: the Legibility vote, I gave Con the point because of Pro's word salad between R1 and R4, as mentioned in my voting explanation. I call that sufficient illegibility: “…at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.” plus the [sic] item of omitting cap on America, rendered "america" to begin R1 Just sloppy. I stand by that vote.
Yeah, I'm afraid you're going to need a better reason for withholding the conduct point than "it didn't amount to enough of the debate for me to award this point." The 40% threshold is the threshold for an automatic loss on the debate i.e. a full forfeit. I'm likely going to need a better reason for legibility as well because the afforded reasoning doesn't appear to have anything to do with the legibility of his argument. It looks like you're stating that he got off topic, which can factor into your argument points, but not legibility.
I'll keep this loose. Are you good with re-posting the rest of your reasoning avoiding legibility while awarding conduct to Pro? Or do you have another reason why these should be awarded differently?
Argument:
Pro's R1 argument begins, "america's [sic] current taxation system has money coming in from a wide variety of sources..." which clarifies an argument of its own developing in later rounds of the debate in which Pro becomes lost in the weeds and loses focus on the detail of the Resolution. The thrust of pro's R1 argument is that America's tax system is "inherently unfair and wrong." Pro claims a Georgian tax system would improve the "unfair and wrong" because it consists of a "land-value tax." [as a personal note, having naught to do with my vote, but what, then, is current property tax if it isn't a "land-value tax" that is less tax for undeveloped property, more tax for developed property?] Pro's Resolution is "Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation." Pro defines "Better" as "more favorable quality of life for the most citizens..."
Con's rebuttal consisted of proposing what factors contribute to "better" as being: 1] livelihood, 2] consumption & welfare, 3] sustainable prosperity, and declares "Georgism" is not a current tax policy, and is therefore speculative as to accomplishing these three outcomes of Georgism's application.
Pro lost the argument by never being able to overcome his weed entanglement of referencing America as his country of primary interest by declaring it upfront in R1 as his country of interest, and then admitting in R4 that Georgism cannot be proven to be better for America.
Sourcing: Pro completely lacked sourcing . Con sourced in all three arguments in which he participated, sustaining his arguments and rebuttals effectively, such as A Search-Theoretic Critique of Georgism - Econlib in R4.
Legibility: Pro lost this by his opining weed entanglement mention in R1 when it served no purpose since he admitted, in R4, that Georgism cannot be proven to be better for America
Can I get this vote removed? My opponent forfeited the conduct point and I still didn't get that point, and I can't find anything about 40% in the voting guidelines whereas I found this in the voting policy: "The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. "
Now that I've voted, I'll vent:
1. It is fact that public schools do not entirely depend on the local, municipal economy for funding, as claimed by Pro. Local schools receive federal funding as well.
2. Social Security, maligned by many as funded by taxpayers, and, therefore, essentially a socialist system, is not funded by one dollar of public money. Its entire funding is by private money: contributed by FICA taxes withdrawn from the paychecks of workers, and an equal sum, each paycheck, by their employers, which is also private money. Those contributions go 100% into the Social Security Trust Fund. Some claim the trust fund is robbed by government to go to other programs the government funds, but this claim is theoretically false. The government does not rob from the S.S Trust Fund, but it does borrow from it. The idea, the LAW, is that the government reimburses the SS Trust Fund for all monies borrowed, but, to date, according to their own calculation, the US government owes the trust fund, as of close of fiscal year 2024 [9/30/24] $2.5 trillion. That's the problem with social security: the government fails to pay it back for borrowed money for other purposes. PRIVATE money, NOT public. Get it?
No pressure. I'll ping you with three days left or so.
Remind me, but sure.
As per my opponent's recommendation, care to vote?
Whiteflame, Rational, or Barney will vote on this
Votes
This is a very interesting subject.
Great topic choice for discussion.
There’s lots of room for conversation about economy statistics versus systems of policy that haven’t been tested yet
It is better if government just prints money. Its the most simple tax there is.