Dodecanese Dictator Debate No. 1 – Income Tax

I must say, I have enjoyed myself. I will move to clash, then affirm my case with closing statements. 1) "Rent and utility bills – pays half salary for two-bedroom apartment". If these are settlers, as you have so claimed, then they would not pay to rent an apartment. They would own their own homes. 2) "Travel Expenses – the whole family walks everywhere as they cannot afford a car". I believe that we both established that the entire purpose of this debate was based on public transportation. If they are paying these taxes, they do not have to walk; they can use what they are paying for. 3) "Entertainment – singing songs while dad plays the mouthorgan is all they can afford. " This is illogical. You can not prove that every father would play an instrument or propose this as the only form of entertainment. FOR THE RICH: 1) "Groceries – has vintage champagne, Beluga caviar and fois gras flown in from Harrods in London but mainly eats out or employs professional caterers to come in and cook. " Not every wealthy person lives extravagently. It is not fair to say this nor is it logical. 2) "Travel Expenses – runs a helicopter and a Ferrari, hires a chauffeur-driven limousine for transfers to and from town and has a luxury yacht moored in the harbour. " Again, this is not fair to say, my friend. If we assume that the rich are predicably indulgent and the poor are underfed and maltreated, then you're appealing to the audience and not setting a fair debate (i. e. vitemizing the people from people who are too indulgent). 3) " books private tables at gentlemen's clubs " Lol! "They (rich) would be able to produce receipts to prove that they spend a far bigger proportion of their income than the family does. " Reguardless, you have classified them as rich, acknowledging their financial status as well and that they make a lot of money. Before they even got their checks, they would have to pay. Since they have dependecies and are able to afford them, then they would not recieve "discounts" like the poor, who truely need them. "So, we can see that under my opponent's scheme, the rich will pay little or no tax and the poor will have to, in effect subsidise them, by paying more than their fair share (up to 41.5% of their income) in order to make up the required ï¿½50 billion, which cannot be considered morally just. " MY RESPONSE: It is not morally just to just ignore the wealth of these people and the income that is flooding into their pockets! Since their investments are in your island, you would directly pay them, and to say that it is not within your power to tax the rich is absurd, my friend. In the history of European countries, it is commen to not tax the rich to subsidize the poor and it's failed. That is not my aim. My aim is to, indeed, tax the rich based on their assets like the poor, but with less benefiets. Is it fair? That's debatable. Is it the best course of action that has minimal, if any, detrimental effects? Absolutely. Since your country is a major investment, then they would not abandon it if you taxed them, even if somewhat more than the poor. They can afford it, the poor can not, and it is as simple as that. "I do recognise, however, that low tax regimes attract high net worth individuals and that they should be encouraged to settle in San Antray. However, there is very little financial gain to the island from them being there if they pay no tax. " As I've stated before and now, they SHOULD and can pay taxes! I'm all for it and my opponent has agreed with my case. In this, I do believe I have won for the reason(s) above. Thanks for the debate and =VOTE CON=