while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

Pro: given the homestead exemption won't tax your home if it's smaller in value, it wouldn't even affect most people. Some of what you said in the last round indicates that. Other things you said indicate the opposite. Pro Round 1: the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property. From this statement I gather that only property in excess of personal property will be taxed. This will be accomplished by having a homestead exemption. This is an exemption on people's houses. Pro round 1: and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land, This statement indicates that for cheaper lands the homestead exemption would not exist, so for the middle class, they would not have a homestead exemption on their home properties. Pro round 1: but for excessively large properties, it should only be a reduction. This indicates that for large lands, there would be a small exemption for home property. Pro: but, the top one percent is likely to own much property. that means when it's all said and done, they will be taxed more. Sure, the rich will be paying more money than the poor but the rich have far more money to pay with. It is not fair for someone with $1,000,000 to pay $40,000 in tax while someone with $20,000 has to give all his $20,000 in taxes. This tax will hit the poor person hard taking all his money while only taking 4% from the rich guy, barely scratching him. This illustrates the point that at the very least, fair taxes tax at the same proportion of income, not the same dollar value. Since property taxes take a higher proportion of the middle class income than rich income it is unfair to the middle class. In fact the definition of "regressive tax" illustrates my point in this definition of regressive tax: Investopedia: A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder(1). Also, it has been shown that income inequality is high, growing, and a big problem. This point was not refuted. So emphasizing regressive taxes is going to make this problem worse at a faster pace than now. Pro: if in the end it ends up being a regressive tax, we can have supplemental income taxes. i'm not against income taxes, just think they are prioritized below property taxes. if not for any other reason than it helps better distribute something as basic as owning a home. So my opponent admits that private property such as houses are taxed. Instead of trying to counterbalance the deleterious effects of increased property tax with income taxes, why not just emphasize income taxes more and de-emphasize property taxes since property taxes are regressive? Even if middle class houses are not affected by these new taxes, small and large farms are going to be hit hard with hundreds of thousands of acres of taxable land. Apartments are going to be hit hard. This will result in higher food prices and higher rent. Since the poor spend twice the proportion of their incomes on food (4) and more on rent than the middle class and the rich, they will be hurt badly. Food prices have already risen by 40% since 2000 (3) and we don"t need them rising at a higher rate. The percent of renters spending more than 30% of their incomes on rent has gone from 23% in 1960 to 38% in 1990 to 50% in 2010. In 2010 28% of renters pay more than 50% of their incomes on rent. Rent is quickly becoming unaffordable on its own (5). Property taxes than hurt renters need to be de-emphasized not emphasized. And why is excessive property is such a problem? America has plenty of open land. Just try driving around a few miles outside your city. There is a lot of country. Emphasizing property taxes disproportionately hurts people who spend a high proportion of their incomes on paying for their house, rent, and food. This tax affects different groups of Americans unequally in all the wrong ways. Income taxes can be made flat to affect everyone equally or progressive to affect rich more because their incomes are growing so quickly. Income taxes are far better to emphasize. Plus they don"t tax people who are earning no income and yet hold taxable property. 1: http://www.investopedia.com... 2: http://www.businessinsider.com... 3: http://www.businessinsider.com... 4: http://www.npr.org... 5: http://theweek.com...