High Taxes VS Low Taxes? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

High Taxes VS Low Taxes?
in Politics

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 846 Pts edited April 27
Are you for high taxes or low taxes and why? What exactly are the pros and cons? I can only see at the moment the benefit of low taxes being that people save money. However, I am susceptible to changing my mind on this issue if anyone can provide good enough grounds as to how more tax is more beneficial.

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science







Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    I used to favor very low taxes. Nowadays, I favor no taxes at all.

    1. Ideologically, I find the act of taking away people's property against their will abominable, regardless of who is doing the taking and to what end.

    2. Personally, I prefer to spend my money the way I see fit, rather than handing it over to someone who allegedly knows better than me how I should spend it. 

    3. Economically, the government is known to be much less efficient in its spending than the private market, hence it should get as few resources as possible.
    Even the most heavily nationalised industries in successful economies still rely heavily on private contractors. This just shows that the government is incapable of getting anything done on its own, and if that is the case, then what is the point of having it participate in the economy in the first place?

    What are the advantages of high taxes? I see none. "Safety net" is a false notion based on lack of understanding of how economies work, and there is nothing safe to come from handing your money over to someone. You become reliant on them, and being reliant on someone is not safety, it is security.
    People must understand that safety and security are two very different terms, and in many ways they contradict each other. There is no safety in having a centralised resource distributor. There is security, but that security only lasts for as long as the distributor wills it. And the distributor is in it for their own goals, having little to do with your well-being.
    When you rely on private insurance security, then you know that if your provider mistreats their customers, they will go bankrupt, hence they will try their best to not do so. When you rely on public security, then you know that the more your provider mistreats you, the better off they are, because the provider is the absolute monopolist.
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987ZeusAres42
  • I don't really mind high taxes in themselves, maybe it's habit considering where I lived most of my life (I must be somewhere around 40-45% rate here in Quebec). I think public education, infrastructures, healthcare and providing a certain minimum standard of living to its members are good investments for a society...  I don't see governments as fundamentally bad although some certainly can be... I like the Norwegian state capitalist model, they've been good at maintaining a fiscally conservative approach with a social-democratic mindset...  
    ZeusAres42AlofRIbillbatard
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 329 Pts
    In 1776 a "founder" of this country wrote a book on that days "capitalism". It was called "the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he said:

    "The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food and the greater part of their little revenue is spent getting it.

    The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principle expense of the rich and a magnificent home embellishes and sets off, to the best advantage, all the other luxuries and vanities they possess.

    It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than that proportion."

    That was then, this is now. In 2019, the wealthy, who COULD pay more, for the good of the country, for education, for health care, for infrastructure, EVEN for more customers to afford their wares, often pay little or nothing for the good of the country. In 1776 nearly everything was for the good of the country. Today, with at least 60 $B corporations paying NO TAXES, and many others leaving it up to the working  folks to get the infrastructure in condition FOR the corporations to use to move their wares, in usable condition FOR THEM...…! We, the People, have to pay higher taxes than we should. 

    We had it right in 1776, we, at least, have to make it FAIRER in 2020.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartabillbatard
  • TKDBTKDB 336 Pts
    edited April 25
    Get rid of the Tax laws, in which some of those states that don't pay taxes.

    It's not hard, to figure that out.

    Every state, should pay their fair share in taxes.

    Why shouldn't everyone get to contribute to a Nationwide flat tax?

    The rich, the middle class, and so on?

    Again, its not hard to figure that out.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    edited April 25
    @AlofRI

    If anything, it is the exact opposite: the rich create an immense amount of goods, that the poor then purchase and waste away. The rich are the only reason we have any modern technology at all; without them we would still be plugging soil all day and tending to the cattle owned by our lords.

    The very reason we are even able to have this conversation is because a few dudes started ambitious IT-companies, that led to the revolution of our communications. Have you created anything comparable? Can you name any revolutionary technology you have invented without which we would not be where we are? No? Oh...

    If "fairness" is to determine the amount of taxes, then the rich should pay much lower tax amounts than the poor, since the poor do not create anything of substance and only consume.

    But it so happens that "fairness" has nothing to do with science. Good economical models are based on what works, not on what is "fair". Unfortunately, "good" is not what can be said about any of the modern economies. And as such, here we are, me paying many orders of magnitude lower taxes than Bill Gates, while Bill Gates has benefited both the nation and humanity as a whole many orders of magnitude more than I have.
    All because people like you believe that taking money from the productive members of the society and giving it to the unproductive ones is somehow "fair". Adam Smith had many good ideas, but he followed the same twisted set of morals, hence he constantly came up with excuses on why pure capitalism would not be a good model to follow - excuses that directly contradicted what he himself demonstrated scientifically in his books.

    Friedman was much more consistent, and much less apologetic about his ideas. He still did not go all the way in on them (for example, he said many times that he could never find a proper model for a private market-funded national defence, while such a model is not very hard to envision with just a bit of critical thinking), but, at least, he had the courage to claim that rewarding the successful is morally right, while rewarding the unsuccessful is morally wrong.
    Of course, such views do not sit well with the people who lay down on the couch all day and want to be wealthy. To acknowledge that they are a failure because they do not do anything? No, it is much more pleasant to put the blame on that guy driving Ferrari down the street. If only he had shared his money with them....
    AlofRI
  • @MayCaesar
    If anything, it is the exact opposite: the rich create an immense amount of goods

    I think it would be more accurate to say that the rich possess an immense amount of Capital... Only a minority produce actual goods... Also, it's not really accurate to say the "rich" allowed modern technology to be, inventive minds did... Capital without an inventive mind to put it to use is just hoarding...

    As for the rest, they're valid points of view, I don't hold these point of view, but they're nonetheless valid... 

    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The only way to accumulate wealth in a free market economy, aside from inheriting it (and even if you inherit it and do not do the following, then you will likely lose it all pretty quickly), is to produce goods and/or services people are willing to trade their resources for. Innovation and progress follow naturally, as they help in that process immensely - which is why, for example, currently all major companies are exploring the top-edge data science ideas such as neural networks, investing heavily into their development, as they see a great potential in them.

    Without people accumulating wealth, innovation would only be a product of random geniuses tinkering with things on their kitchens. That obviously would not lead anywhere near the quality of life we are enjoying today.

    Big thanks to the billionaires, for without them we would still be picking berries and hunting animals with spears, figuratively speaking.
    AlofRICYDdharta
  • @MayCaesar
    The only way to accumulate wealth in a free market economy, aside from inheriting it (and even if you inherit it and do not do the following, then you will likely lose it all pretty quickly), is to produce goods and/or services people are willing to trade their resources for.
    This is factually inaccurate... The stock market is a good way to accumulate wealth without producing any goods or services... Note that it's not a critique of the stock market or wealth accumulation.
    Without people accumulating wealth, innovation would only be a product of random geniuses tinkering with things on their kitchens.
    Also inaccurate, necessity is the mother of innovation... Wealth accumulation is a by-product of problem solving, not a cause... 
    AlofRICYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 329 Pts
    @TKDB ; Every state should pay taxes … You DO know that is saying the state must tax the people enough to pay said tax?? I agree, they should, but, some states without a lot of commercial taxes would have to get most of it from families.

    Why shouldn't everyone pay a flat tax? Well, if the government takes 15% of YOUR income, with no deductions, it's a big chunk.

    If they take 15% from a person that makes $2M, it's a chunk that's MUCH easier to swallow. There's a LOT left! The 1-2% would just LOVE that! (Like the guy named Forbes that popularized it!) It would really open the earnings gap and put a huge burden on the poor and middle class.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    When you trade on a stock market, you put your money into companies that need it for their growth, and that growth then results in creation of more and better products and services for the end user.
    I want to emphasise the point: there is no way to earn money on a free market without creating products and services people need, one way or the other. If you do something that no one needs, then no one is going to pay money for it.

    Whether it is a product or a cause is "the chicken or the egg" question. Without wealth accumulation, innovation is strongly limited, and without innovation, wealth accumulation is strongly limited.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • @MayCaesar

    I completely disagree that without wealth accumulation, innovation is strongly limited... You touched this when you wrote that there has to be a need to what you sell, without necessity, without problems to solve, there is no innovation...

    It's the necessity that motivates innovation, you can have mountains of wealth, if there is no need to fill or no problems to solve, there is no innovation.... It's not analog to the chicken & egg question at all... 

    Some people are very good at manufacturing "needs" where none naturally exist though, that's actually a good trick to get wealthy...  What is limited without wealth accumulation is the ability reach into a market... With accumulated wealth you are better equipped to enter or even create a market, that is true... Capital makes it easier of course but it is not a prerequisite...

    When you say that :  "there is no way to earn money on a free market without creating products and services people need ", it is true as it is the nature of a market, to trade goods and services so there's no way around that... But when you phrase it as : "the rich create an immense amount of goods" is misleading and inaccurate even if in part indirectly true...  Those who create immense amount of goods are the entrepreneurs, not all entrepreneurs are "wealthy" (as in billionaire), far from it, but they are the ones creating goods...

    The wealthy hedge fund traders primary business is no longer creating capital for business. Creating capital for business has to be less than 1pct of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. Many very wealthy traders add no values to the economy as they play a zero sum game... These are examples of wealth not creating goods, of course they are not representative of the whole, I'm not saying you are fundamentally wrong, just that what you say is not quite accurate...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    You cannot have mountains of wealth if you do not innovate, if you do not create something that makes you stand out from the competitors. Who is going to give you that wealth? If you do not offer anything your competitors do not offer, as well as something they do offer, then you will have little business with people.
    There is this strange notion that wealth is some abstract resource that can just be collected and hoarded. It is based on a deeply fallacious idea of how economy works. The truth is, the wealth always reflects certain real resources exchanged between people, and you cannot be wealthy if you have little to offer to others.

    It is impossible to manufacturing a need. It is possible to manufacture a demand, and that is a good thing: if your product is in demand, then you will benefit people by selling them that product. The product may not be objectively helpful, but that does not mean that subjectively it is not useful.

    Enterpreneurs that are not wealthy simply have not created the amount or the quality of products and services that appeals to large numbers of people. Those who are wealthy, have done so. It is not about enterpreneurs, it is about the source of wealth, it is about what wealth in itself is.

    There is no zero sum game in economics. Every economical exchange subjectively benefits both sides at the time, otherwise one or both of the sides would not partake in the exchange.

    The problem occurs when the government forces the exchange. That is the only case where the zero sum game can be a reality, and that is contradictory to the free market.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • @MayCaesar
    You cannot have mountains of wealth if you do not innovate...
    Of course you can, you can find it (in the form of natural resources), you can steal it (Historically, this is how it was usually "accumulated" when you think about it, until the 17th-ish century anyway, but it is still stolen today...) and you can just conjure it up from thin air with a fractional reserve lending system. 
    it is impossible to manufacturing a need. It is possible to manufacture a demand
    That's why I used quotes... The idea was the same...
    the wealth always reflects certain real resources exchanged between people
    That was certainly true before the advent of banking, but the definition of "real resources" has changed since...
    CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Finding and developing new resources requires innovation. Stealing it is illegal. Conjuring up is impossible in a developed free market, unless, again, you are the government.

    No, it is not the same; it is principally different. Every need leads to a demand, but not every demand constitutes a need. A need is something without which we have a hard time living; a demand is something that results from us wanting to purchase a certain product, regardless of how essential it is for our living.

    It may have changed quantitatively, but not qualitatively.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 940 Pts
    edited April 27
    @MayCaesar

    We could argue philosophically about your argument that "we cannot create wealth without innovation". If we're talking "on paper" I'd probably argue differently. But the facts remains that there is (and most probably always will be) a government and that wealth is actually created out of thin air, whether we want it or not... Now, should the government do so? That's another, yet interesting, question...  

    The fact remains that stealing occurs, everywhere and all the time, even when there is a government to declare it illegal and a justice system to enforce it... And wars are often attempts to steal resources, nations stealing other nations... Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant to it being or not, a way to accumulate wealth... (I'm not arguing about the morality of stealing here!! ;) )

    The "finding" part, I actually meant "stumble upon" as in you're not looking for it, you dig a well and strike a gold vein or something... It's obviously true that it's much less probable these days than it was a few centuries ago, but it could still theoretically happen... Someone somewhere may find a revolutionary use for a particular resources that happen to be scarce worldwide but also happen to be plentiful on your land, giving it a lot value... Or you got lucky at a Casino, won the Powerball lottery or something... Again, largely improbable but still possible, it happens every week throughout the world... 

    Innovation is not required to accumulate wealth in a free market, it absolutely helps, a lot there's no arguing that, but is not required...

    And we started with "high or low" taxes... Did we digress? ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I have never said that wealth cannot be created without innovation. Moreover, I was not talking about creation of wealth, I was talking about accumulation of wealth. And it so happens that on a free market one cannot accumulate wealth without providing people with goods and services they are willing to pay for, aside from inheritance - which in itself does not lead to a sustainable capital.
    But as far as creation of wealth goes, it certainly cannot be created out of thin air. It can be mind from the natural resources, it can be distributed in various ways (one of which is printing more money), but it cannot be created out of nothing, without any investment. If it could, then we would all be infinitely rich, which is not the case.

    Stealing, warring and other such activities come from the same source as the desire to tax rich heavily: it is easier to take something someone else created, than to create something comparable on your own. What is easier: to create a new Microsoft, or to take money from already existing Microsoft by force? The answer is obvious.
    There is a reason stealing is outlawed, and warring internationally is heavily regulated. But, for some reason, when the same act is done not by an individual, but by a government, then suddenly in the eyes of many people it becomes justified.

    I deviated from the main discussion in order to respond to the poster who suggested that the wealthy "who could pay more... often pay little or nothing for the good of the country", and that this is somehow unfair. The reality is quite the opposite: it is the wealthy who made and are continuously making this country what it is, while everyone else merely dives in the results of their success.

    High taxes vs low taxes is one discussion. Tax distribution among the population according to income is a completely different discussion. Progressive tax is, in my view, a moral aberration (not to mention it being economically harmful), but there are people who are not satisfied even with that and want to go further.
    I suppose in their view it would be okay for the Mexican army to invade the US and start pillaging the cities. After all, Mexicans are worse off than Americans, and that is unfair, and Americans definitely could pay more to make the life of the Mexican people better, right?

    But they never make this argument. Why? Because, in the end, Mexicans are not them. While pretending that they are for some sort of equality or fairness, they really are in it for themselves. Their position is intellectually dishonest, and morally abominable - but, as any populist idea, it is easy to sell to people by claiming that it would benefit them.
  • @MayCaesar it isnt yours all wealth is created collectively if you have yo owe those that have not its in the bible dude  Study Bible
    Submission to Authorities
    …5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. 7Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.…
    Plaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • Romans 13:6 
    New International Version
    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ok?
    Plaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • Romans 13:6 

    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ok?
    Plaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • Romans 13:6 

    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ok?
    Plaffelvohfen
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @ZeusAres42 you dont deserve what you have your taxes should be higher
    ZeusAres42
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2233 Pts
    edited April 27
    @billbatard

    The wealth may be created collectively. So what? Your precious Bible mentions that wanting to take someone else's wealth is a sin called "greed", and you will be sent to a dark afterlife place for indulging it.

    I paid for the wealth I own with my money, my time investment, my effort. What have you paid for my wealth? Nothing. So either pay up, and then we can talk about the details of the transaction - or get up and do something to accumulate your own wealth.
  • I love this question better even though I am answering a question with another question.

    A tax is neither high nor low in basic principle as it is held by united state in a Bill of Right. So, at what point does the bill not describe or reflect the cost of separation between right and wrong?

    Rights Reserved.

  • @TKDB ironically its the republican states getting the free ride off the high tax democratic states we pay for it all i say we secede and  let them sink THE FACTS:

    Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820.

    California residents paid an average of $10,510.

    At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665.

    Low-tax red states also fare better when you take into account federal spending.

    Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

    Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.
    https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c if it takes tanks in the streets we will make them pay

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • John_C_87John_C_87 232 Pts

     

    The constitutional argument of taxation as common defense to the general welfare. If we are to expect a higher cost in the form of taxation to cover national debt, and debt is paid for by Federal Reserve Note a payment to all debt both foreign and domestic.

    The understanding should be made clear by affirmation all debt for which taxation is to be increased is by truth all legal debt. The basic principle of taxation as common defense should ensure the judicial separation can explain with little complexity how it takes payment from all people outside of the ruling of Courts. This is a state of the union on Imperiality for justice by basic principle of separation.

  • Neither too much, nor too little, but just enough. -Joseph H. Pilates
    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch