Priest of Swag (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-19 17:53:01
| Speak Round
admin (CON)Basically, this tax proposal is regressive. It taxes the poor more than the rich. That's harmful because poor are more in need of money. The tax does this because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income and save a smaller proportion. Since savings are not taxes but only transactions, the economy suffers.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-19 18:49:09
| Speak Roundadmin: Please don't forfeitReturn To Top | Speak Round
Priest of Swag (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-29 18:50:01
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-07-04 18:50:03
| Speak Round
Judge: Tophatdoc
Judge: nzlockie
Judge: Blackflag
Judge: Pinkie
Woohoo!
(also make sure you sign up using the form at http://www.edeb8.com/tournament - it's connected to an automatic tab system that's apart from the edeb8 system)Posted 2014-07-03 14:30:55
Lol, because I'm lazy. I'll do your tournament though representing Edeb8Posted 2014-07-03 14:20:40
Not with me you haven't done this topic. Every debate is different. Also, why can't you give an argument justifying something that already exists? I'll gladly affirm something like "that governments should exist" to you if you like to prove the point.Posted 2014-06-30 17:41:20
What I'm saying, is that you cannot give an argument to something that already exists. I already did this debate before anyways.Posted 2014-06-30 17:39:48
Csareo, you obviously have some arguments to make on the resolution, why not just post them in the actual debate, rather than the comments section?
Posted 2014-06-22 07:56:37
I gave a rough definition in the debate, "taxes the poor more than the rich". Again, you can feel free to contest that.Posted 2014-06-21 19:20:55
Also, the VAT targets the seller, not the consumer. The consumer pays the tax, but it's factored into the cost of the item. It's really the manufacturers who are paying the tax.Posted 2014-06-21 18:59:05
Can you define regressive? Your probably right, but I thought it implied things that negated with income. Not things that help the poor more than the rich. Posted 2014-06-21 18:53:12
I choose to read csareo's comment as insinuating that debating kiwis is hard because we're really skilled at debating.
Thanks bro. Posted 2014-06-21 00:11:23
Depends on 1) what country you're in (bearing in mind most of the audience will probably be from the USA), and 2) what model you're running. You can argue introducing a second tax on financial transactions, extending the existing tax in some countries to cover exclusions, extending that tax to more/all countries etc. Actually I'll let you define financial transactions as introducing a commodity tax if you like.
I'm telling you it is regressive, but I'll leave the actual arguing to the debate.Posted 2014-06-20 20:01:21
Which I must also say, we have that as well. Debating with the people on this site is hard, as 2 of the 6 active users are from New Zealand.Posted 2014-06-20 20:00:09
Isn't their already a tax on financial transactions? I am pretty sure it's called the VAT. BTW, I forfeit this debate. All I;m saying is that this is already in effect. Also, it's not regressive. That's where taxation goes down as income goes up. I assumed this debate was about introducing a commodity tax.Posted 2014-06-20 19:57:01
Why not? You totally should post, and be active.Posted 2014-06-18 15:29:51
Sorry, I haven't been active on this site. Don't expect me to post, although I mightPosted 2014-06-18 15:26:35
I don't have a good feeling about the future of this debate...Posted 2014-06-18 00:16:09
Good luck!Posted 2014-06-13 22:42:34