How to save the economy. - 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.


Communities

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!

How to save the economy.
in Politics

Everyone with an income from employment pays ONLY 10% income tax. Cut military spending. Reduce government. Make prisoners who are able WORK for their care. We would save money by having single payer healthcare, look it up, or go through my debates on it. Minimum wage laws mean less people on welfare. Fair trade laws. No free college for ANYONE. No drug wars. no sales, estate, or any  tax, save for a 10% income tax. Term limits. Create a pathway to citizenship and put immigrants to work. Keep the Hyde Amendment. Schools that perform better get more funding. No free internet, or cable. No free cellphones. We have got to let people keep more of their hard earned money.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Slavery is legal to use against those convicted of crimes. They do work with the bonus that some even make ten cents an hour!
    YeshuaBoughtAmericanFurryBoyZombieguy1987
  • @WordsMatter They should have thought about that before they committed the crime. My rapist doesn't even have the right to live off of my tax dollars, that is liberal rape culture.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 319 Pts
    edited November 2018
    @YeshuaBought my point is where you say "Make prisoners who are able WORK for their care." Shows you're uninformed on what you are talking about because they already do work and can be used as slave labor. That's an amendment, something I would hope you would be aware of if you want to have a discussion on policy. Makes me question how much you've actually looked into any of the points you posted.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought

    Since when the hell did you get raped?
    And I’m pretty damn sure that our* economy is doing just fine. 

    *I'm referring to the US economy
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @AmericanFurryBoy I was raped when I was 22. He was sentanced and all that. Anywhoo, we have room for improvement.
  • Nah, a progressive tax would be a lot better than the universal 10% you want. While everyone hates taxes, they are a good way to acquire funding for other things. Universal healthcare, free higher education, free internet and housing for immigrants. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • Russia, a country with GDP per capita an order of magnitude less than in the US, and with far bigger amount of corruption and crime, has a... 13% flat income tax. Yet people somehow survive, and even receive universal healthcare and some other things that many people in the US are crazy about.

    That the American government requires anywhere near 10% tax to be able to provide similar amenities is a ridiculous notion. Make it 0.1%, and ban the government from overspending even by 1 cent. Maybe then the government will reconsider its spending scheme, and find a way to acquire cups for army pilots that cost not $1,200 per cup, but $1 per cup.
  • @MayCaesar at the very least you need to tax enough for a public police force. If all police forces go private then it just takes a wealthy enough individual to dictate the government and can quickly change all the laws, including tax laws. If you don't have the force to enforce your laws they mean nothing and once someone comes along with a force they control capable of enforcement then they get to decide what the laws are
  • @WordsMatter ;

    My stance is that public services should be funded via voluntary donations aka Kickstarter campaigns. 

    Private organizations do not have any say in what the law is. If the law is defined by ultimate and complete protection of individual rights, then the only way a strong private organization can overwrite them is if it takes over the nation via an armed coup. And while a possibility of this exists, history suggests that the probability of it is much lower than the same happening of the government. Especially in the conditions of a genuine free market competition, where that organization will compete with thousands fully armed rival organizations.
  • @MayCaesar foreign entireen can also take over. If the nation consists of multiple private police forces that makes it much easier for another country to come in and take over. Or one of the private police forces can begin to take out other private forces one by one. It would be highly attractive for a country like china or Russia to use their large militaries to begin to roll over the private police forces one by one across the land.

    If I had hundreds of millions I would simply buy a police force and pay them well to to steal from my closest neighbors at first and slowly expand outward. It would be difficult for multiple private forces to work together to stop me, and if I encounter a large enough one I would negotiate to work together and split the rest of the weaker ones.

    If the private force, funded by donations is national, then who gets to be in charge of what they do with the money or what laws they enforce? What fail safe is there to make sure they defend the same things generation after generation? Who decides what the salary for them would be?

     If it's only one force then it's a Monopoly. If it's many smaller forces that's just asking to be invaded as this land has vast resources.
  • @WordsMatter

    "Slavery is legal to use against those convicted of crimes. They do work with the bonus that some even make ten cents an hour!"

    Are you a defense attorney as well as a psychologist? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • A way to save the economy?

    Create a policy that has all of the states in the United States, paying taxes across the board. 

    This way in a sense, all the states pay their fair in taxation.

    Instead of relying on this or that created taxation coffer to be filled by this or that notion,, like alcohol or recreational weed sales, or medical weed sales? 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 860 Pts
    edited November 2018
    @WordsMatter ;

    World Wars 1 and 2 were not won by large centralized nations; in fact, large centralized nations were beaten by voluntary coalitions of multiple nations united in the face of the threat to their existence. It is a myth that multiple small forces are less effective at peace keeping, than one large force. The entire initial idea behind constructs such as EU or the US was an alliance between small nation-states, as opposed to a singular structure with them as servants to it.

    All the private corporations still abide by the law and cannot change it. When one corporation gets out of hand and starts conquering the land, other corporations, in order to preserve their interests, group up and take it down. When one police force goes rogue, other police forces take care of it.

    Monopolies naturally are very unlikely to occur on a truly competitive market. Monopolies tend to occur on heavily regulated markets due to heavy "intellectual property" (which is an absurd term to begin with) guarantees and anti-trust laws that make it impossible for anyone to compete with established market players - they do not occur on a market where anyone can start producing a product and selling it at any price they like.

    Your fears, while well grounded, pale in comparison to the fear you should have before the single structure that is a modern government. Since that government IS not only a practically enforced, but a legally indestructible monopoly. The monopoly that now tries to go after our property rights, rights to bear arms, etc. And unlike a private corporation going rogue, there is nothing to put against these tendencies, because we only have one government and we are all sub-servant to it. We have Microsoft to keep Apple in check; we do not have government A to keep government B in check. We have party A to keep party B in check, but both parties still form a single solid government.

    The idea of localized private-organized militia was how the Founding Fathers saw law enforcement initially. It is the federalist lobby that led to the centralized police force which we have now. And if this police force goes rogue, there is no one left to stop it.
  • @TTKDB it's in the Constitution 13th amendment
     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
  • @MayCaesar that's a very strong argument. I must admit I believe the more localized the police force the better. It creates a better trust between the police and citizens and lowers the chances of police abusing their power. However surely you must believe in collecting taxes to pay for the judicial branch? I think privatized judges would be too significant of a conflict of interest. Plus if someone wanted to fight an arrest made against them by a private police force it would be best to do that in a public court.
  • @WordsMatter

    I expressed this;

    A way to save the economy?

    Create a policy that has all of the states in the United States, paying taxes across the board. 

    This way in a sense, all the states pay their fair in taxation.

    Instead of relying on this or that created taxation coffer to be filled by this or that notion, like alcohol or recreational weed sales, or medical weed sales? 

    What does this viewpoint from you have to do with my above viewpoints? 

    "it's in the Constitution 13th amendment
     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment forcrime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  • @TTKDB you asked if I was a defense attorney, implying that you didn't believe when I said we already use prisoners as slave labor. So I posted the source. I don't care at all about your other posts in here in only replying to the one you directed at me.
  • @WordsMatter

    You've been asked multiple times if you're a BLM supporter, and you've avoided the question.

    I've asked you multiple times if you're pro offender, depending on what laws a criminal breaks? 

    If you with maybe have a beef with the prison system Nationwide, and how you maybe view prisoner management via how the prison wardens manage the prison systems?

    Is this your probable issue? 

    I don't believe at all that you're a psychologist.

    Lost of individuals like to utilize the internet as their makeshift platforms, by saying creative things with their keypads or their keyboards.


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 319 Pts
    edited November 2018
    @TTKDB irrelevant to the thread. I answered the blm question before if you go back and look at the thread. It's not a great organization but it produced some positive results. I don't fully support or fully dislike it.

    I didn't state my opinion on the prison system. Op suggested making prisoners work, I was just informing her they already do.

    I really don't care if you believe me or not, I don't need you to get me a job in the field, my degree speaks for me.

    If you don't believe the things I say or want to believe I'm pushing some secret agenda rather than just presenting my argument to try and create deeper discussion then don't engage with me.

    You don't have to agree with anything I say but I'm here to flush out conversations and when someone disagrees with me I like to look into their position to understand why they hold it. I'm not responding to you anymore because you don't present coherent arguments with any concrete sources.

    Others on this sight are capable of clearly outlining their arguments with many supporting points rather than "go ask a professional." I can just engage with them until you put in more of an earnest effort to debate to learn and not win or lose.
  • @WordsMatter

    You're not the first individual to say such things as this;

    "I really don't care if you believe me or not, I don't need you to get me a job in the field, my degree speaks for me."

    Another Individual with a degree?

    And there are criminals who have and had degrees as well, playing games with law enforcement after committing a crime to antagonize the police.

    On another website, Idheinz was an ex politician with a degree.

    On another website, dee-em was another Individual with not one, but two degrees, he was infamous for asking outlandish anti religious questions, just as Wowsil has done. 

    "Flush out conversations?"

    "Others on this sight are capable of clearly outlining their arguments with many supporting points rather than "go ask a professional." I can just engage with them until you put in more of an earnest effort to debate to learn and not win or lose."

    Do you have the ability to engage an offender and make them more law abiding citizens? 








  • @WordsMatter ;

    I believe that in the modern world all governmental expenses (in the model I have in mind, where the government merely serves to protect individual rights and does not do anything else on its own) can be covered by better and more voluntary means than taxes - including the judiciary branch. Charity, Kickstarter-like campaigns, governmental participation on the free market (in essence, the government playing a role of an independent non-profit corporation) - the list can go on and on.

    Kickstarter-like campaigns are of especial interest, in my eyes. It is possible to create incentives for people to invest in such projects while not violating the principle of judicial neutrality. For example, people who have funded a campaign on providing salaries for judges may obtain the preference in the court process queues, or the right for a state-sponsored lawyer, or the right for state-sponsored transportation to the court room, or some kind of extra protection against false lawsuits...

    The homeless enjoy a much better life today in the US than, say, 20 years ago - mostly because of the abundance of private charity organizations providing them with free meals and housing. I believe the same success can be achieved across the whole spectrum of governmental activity, and the model does not have to be significantly different.

    Of course, I might be putting a bit too much faith in people's readiness to fund the government without being forced to do so. However, I am also of the opinion that if an individual does not want to do something important, then the society should respect that choice, and forcing the individual into doing it anyway is the wrong way to react to such a state of affairs.
  • A way to save the economy?

    Get the national debt under control, and stop adding to it.

    Make it mandatory that every state in the country maintains a balanced budget. 

    And that the President keeps the same type of budget.

    This way neither side of the aisles can point fingers or blame each other for their own budgets being balanced or not. 

    And that every state in the country payes their fair share of taxes.

    It doesn't make any sense that some of the states pay taxes, while the others don't. 




  • piloteerpiloteer 156 Pts
    edited January 4
    @YeshuaBought

    If you want to let people keep more of their money, perhaps it would be better to get rid of personal income taxes and only have a sales tax. Also, minimum wage laws and fair trade deals only raise the cost of goods and so that raises the cost of living. Immigrants do work. It's American born citizens who use welfare the most. I like the idea of curbing needless government spending though. 

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state
    CYDdharta
  • piloteer said:
    @YeshuaBought

    If you want to let people keep more of their money, perhaps it would be better to get rid of personal income taxes and only have a sales tax. Also, minimum wage laws and fair trade deals only raise the cost of goods and so that raises the cost of living. Immigrants do work. It's American born citizens who use welfare the most. I like the idea of curbing needless government spending thouch.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state
    LOL, yeah, if you ignore all of the flaws in the CATO study;

    Under the Nowrasteh-Orr model, an immigrant could be cashing a TANF check, shopping at the grocery store with food stamps, paying for doctors’ visits through Medicaid, living in a subsidized rental unit, heating it with energy assistance — and all the while be counted as receiving “less welfare” than a native retiree who contributed to Social Security and Medicare his whole career and never once used a means-tested program. This is sophistry.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/immigrant-welfare-study-cato-alex-nowrasteh-robert-orr/

    piloteer
  • @CYDdharta

    Your opinion piece you posted readily admits that it is not a factually based claim, or rooted in logic. It clearly states "EMPIRICALLY, the most comprehensive dataset shows that about half of immigrant households are on some form of welfare,"......... When you look up the word "empirically" you'll see what I'm talking about. Empiricism rejects the concept of logic. This opinion piece also tries to say that medicare and social security aren't welfare programs, and the reason the CATO institute came to those conclusions was because they factored those things in. Umm, since when are they not welfare programs? They cost taxpayers money. Ya, that's not a study, that's just someone trying to refute the CATO study without relying on objective reasoning. The study (not opinion piece) I posted is an OBJECTIVE (that means it's not empirical)study. But don't be sad, if you have any LOGICALLY based evidence, you could always try using that instead!
    CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 969 Pts
    edited January 5
    piloteer said:
    @CYDdharta

    Your opinion piece you posted readily admits that it is not a factually based claim, or rooted in logic. It clearly states "EMPIRICALLY, the most comprehensive dataset shows that about half of immigrant households are on some form of welfare,"......... When you look up the word "empirically" you'll see what I'm talking about. Empiricism rejects the concept of logic. This opinion piece also tries to say that medicare and social security aren't welfare programs, and the reason the CATO institute came to those conclusions was because they factored those things in. Umm, since when are they not welfare programs? They cost taxpayers money. Ya, that's not a study, that's just someone trying to refute the CATO study without relying on objective reasoning. The study (not opinion piece) I posted is an OBJECTIVE (that means it's not empirical)study. But don't be sad, if you have any LOGICALLY based evidence, you could always try using that instead!

    If you want to try to make a point like that, it's best not to start with a commentary (opinion piece), just a suggestion so you don't look like a fool next time.
    piloteer
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