Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Pro has altered his resolution somewhat. I ask the readers to forgive him this faux paus because any good reformer is willing to admit a flaw in his proposal and tweak it enough to make it work. Pro has changed his position to not extend his proposed right to the wealthy five percent (people making more than $108,000 per year. I will break his argument up into titled sections, as per usual. ======== GOVERNMENT REVENUE Pro claims that by not extending his proposed tax exemption to the wealthy 5% then the government would not collapse because they pay 70% of tax revenue. As if the wealthy of our nation were not already bothered by the fact that they pay the majority of government revenue, under the proposal they will add to their list of grievances the fact that they are the only people paying taxes. The loss of such a huge portion of government revenue (likely nearing 30%), especially with the growing national debt, will be devastating. If it does not completely bankrupt our nation, it will at the very lest severely limit our ability to perform necessary government functions. The resulting cuts in funding will cripple most programs. The defense budget may survive, but would be significantly reduced. Education, already struggling, would be even more strained (if not crippled); roads and bridges, already strained and below quality standards, would wait even longer for repairs; most social programs (welfare, medicare, social security, &ct) would be completely cut. Pro claims that the money returning to the hands of the people will result in an increase in revenue for the government. Let us examine this claim using the 10,000 cited by him: Instead of receiving 10,000 in taxes from Sadolite, the government instead receives the sales tax (most states around 6% - 8%) from the goods and services he spends it on. By most math formulas, 8% of 10,000 ($800) is less than 10,000 - not more. Even an increase in sales tax would result in a lower total tax revenue for the government. That is assuming that most or all people will reinvest their money in the economy rather than saving some or most of it. No matter how you look at it, the proposed reform will result in a significant cut in government revenue. It follows that a cut in government revenue results in a cut in services provided. -------- PROMOTES UNHEALTHY MARRIAGES and DAMAGES CULTURE First, Pro suggests that such marriages already exist. However, the proposed reform would encourage in increase in the number of these unhealthy marriages. As Pro himself mentions, complete tax exemption could well seem quite worth it ($10,000 for Pro himself, and more for others). (note) Pro never challenged my assertion that an increase in unhealthy marriages results in negative consequences to American culture. He only said that such marriages already exist. Pro shows that the poor in America are better off than the poor elsewhere. This is true, except for the most poverty-stricken, of course. Relative deprivation theory (sociology) suggests that this is mostly irrelevant. The poor here compare themselves to the middle- and upper-classes in America, not their poor counterpart elsewhere in the world. As a result, they still feel as though they are deprived (whether or not they are deprived is another matter, and irrelevant to the point). -------- OTHER Pro claims that married couples will have the added benefit of having more money to save for retirement. This is another contradiction and hole in his argument. He earlier claimed that the government will actually have greater incoming revenue because people will have more money to reinvest in the economy. Now he is saying that they will use that money to save for retirement and build more wealth for themselves. ======== CONCLUSION Pro has not met his burden. In order to win this debate he needed to show that his proposed tax reform would have an overall positive effect on the U. S. Fiscal consequences are the most important consideration in any tax reform. His assertions on this point were inconsistent and lacking in relevant data. Cultural consequences are also a relevant and important consideration. His statements were far from sweeping. Indeed, it seems as though he did not consider this point in his initial proposal.