azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent of the wealth should pay 75 percent of the tax is what you said but how can 50 percent of the wealth pay 2.78 percent of the tax ? Do some math for me !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

^ ||
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

^ | |
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

^ Follow | The| Arrow
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent of the wealth pay 75 percent of the taxes so you say. But how can 50 percent of the wealth pay 2.78 percent of the taxes ?75 plus 50 equals ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

So, do you finally admit that you had no idea what I wrote even though you agreed with it any way?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Why would you agree with me without understanding the math? You wouldn't. You know the math.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

He isn't mixing up the percentages. That implies a mistake.We both know he "mixed" them up intentionally.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Intentionally implies that he is smart enough to know which percentages are which.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

I'm not convinced he is as stupid as he seems. There's a consistent, choreographed nature to his stupidity that to me is more indicative of deep rooted troll.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

He wouldn't be able to pass a Turing test.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

I think that's part of his persona.The fact that he seems more lucid in his private messages seems to demonstrate that he is definitely putting on an act, at least to some degree.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Fair enough.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Haven't you heard the old adage about how idiots ultimately win debates?Because if you have, you really should rethink actually bothering with outlaw.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Didn't you create this account because of FromWithin? :)
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Yes, as well as IAmSparticus. That goes to show that I have extensive experience and know what I am talking about :PThat said....good point.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Sorry, I had to.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

You got it. The group of people who make 75% of the money would pay 75% of the taxes in a fair system.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

What if someone doesn't MAKE 75% if the money, rather, he has 75% of the money? There are such things as wealthy individuals who make less money annually than a McDonald's worker does. Why? Because some rich people earn their money all at once and, afterwards, don't earn income. It would suck to have more taken away from that person when all it does is drain them of it. Those who actually have enormous salaries are the ones to be taxed more, if anything.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Don't you think that, in effect, penalizes working, rather than serves as a form of wealth taxation?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

What if someone doesn't MAKE 75% if the money, rather, he has 75% of the money?They shouldn't be paying taxes if they didn't make money.There are such things as wealthy individuals who make less money annually than a McDonald's worker does. Why? Because some rich people earn their money all at once and, afterwards, don't earn income.Those people aren't paying taxes under the current system and that shouldn't change. They wouldn't be part of my calculations about the top 75% of taxes paid currently.It would suck to have more taken away from that person when all it does is drain them of it.Agreed. Those who actually have enormous salaries are the ones to be taxed more, if anything.The problem is that once you start owning things the government allows you to start claiming parts of your salary were never earned. It then becomes impossible to compare proper numbers since no one releases the real income.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Yes, that's true. I'm sure tons of scumbags would soon begin hiding the fact that they make incredible income and just avoid taxes all they can. This may be useless to argue about, but I would like it if, somehow, those who have no proper income (yet own a great amount of stagnant wealth) could be exempt from increased taxes. I mean, one could assume that someone able to make a fortune all at once could easily do it again, but one cannot know the circumstances of everyone. For all we know, there could be someone who scored big one day and then never held a steady job afterwards. Should they continuously be overtaxed until they simply have no wealth left? No. It's all just a gray area, frankly. There should still be more emphasis put upon those who make loads of money every year vs. those who HAVE loads of money NOT from income. Income tax is the only thing that should be raised, besides large corporate tax. Small business tax should not be raised, but we should definitely have companies like General Electric pinned after what they've been doing to avoid taxes altogether.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

It's called an income tax... Not a 'what's in your bank tax'. If you are making less than a McDonald worker then you will probably get like... A 10-20% income tax. His bank account/money stash would be left untouched.Those who actually have enormous salaries are the ones to be taxed more, if anything.That is exactly what we are saying.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

There are benefits of a progressive tax:1. Income Distribution Inequality- The lower income would have to sacrifice a larger percentage of their purchasing power than higher income under a flat tax. A progressive tax solves this problem.2. Larger amount of tax revenue- More tax revenue means the government can afford more benefits to the public.3. Benefits the lower income and middle class- Wealth inequality is rising, so the lower income is much in debt and median household income is going down. The middle class is dying in the U.S.However, the rich are gaining more, so to tax them at a higher rate and decrease taxes for the lower income will bring more purchasing power to lower income Americans. This will boost the economy. Its best to gain more tax revenue while hurting the economy the least. The progressive tax increases tax rates for those who can afford more with the lowest burden on the low income.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

I consider that we need to be equitative, the Rich People sometimes or in the mayority evade the Taxes, they have to pay the same that we pay; a mean if you have a lot of money why you won`t pay high taxes?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Why not? They have so much money anyways. We have a big debt and they can fix it.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Imagine if you worked at home, didn't make a steady income, and had a few million dollars that you made some years ago. Now imagine if your taxes were raised heavily (not income tax, but general taxation of the '1%') and caused you to go from having $3 million to becoming middle-class and eventually lower class. By then, the person will have entered the middle or lower-class range and will have had to ditch their normal means and go get a 9-5 job that may or may not be what they even were interested in. This person can't "fix" the debt; they will simply be drained of their money from extreme taxation.Bottom line: Large corporations should be the ones heavily taxed, especially based upon their merits. Joe, who happens to have a few million, should NOT be drained of it just because he is considered rich.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

In what tax system could someone's bank account be curtailed from $3M to less than $25K--i.e., the 'lower class'?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Money doesn't work that way. People who are "rich" still are making tons of money even if they are not working. Just because Bill Gates has sold Microsoft doesn't mean he doesn't earn any more money.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

The so-called rich already pay the lions share of the taxes. Enough is enough. How about the whiners and complainers pony up so dough and become contributing members of society.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

The whiners and complainers already pony up the dough. Even your chart says they do.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

The bottom 50% pays less than 2%, so your position holds no water. That's why you're always wet. Oh, and btw,.......SQUISH!
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

The bottom 50% paysYou said they don't pay anything. Your position holds no water. Thank you for announcing you got squished.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

You can micro-nitpick all you want, but I win, you lose. Oh, once again..........SQUISH!!!
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

You can micro-nitpick all you wantIt isn't micro nitpicking. It is recognizing how words work.but I win, you lose. I agree. I win, you lose. Oh, once again..........SQUISH!!!Just like when I squished you by getting you to admit you want to raise taxes.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Raise taxes on those who don't pay taxes, like the bottom 50%? I agree; then they might have room to complain.Have you ever figured out the difference between income and assets, yet? Probably not.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Raise taxes on those who don't pay taxes, like the bottom 50%?That will really help fix the debt. Take all the money from the people who have nothing. Oh, and they pay 2%, not nothing. I agree; then they might have room to complain.More room to complain. They already pay something.Have you ever figured out the difference between income and assets, yet?I did. You were the one who couldn't figure it out. I said income over and over again and you kept saying assets. Why do you think that rich people making money is considered assets, but regular people making money is income?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

What about the 40 percent you never answered that ! Looking for your answer !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Who are the 60%? I have no idea where you are getting the 40% number from.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Top 10% pays 69.8% of the federal tax billBottom 50% pays 2.78%50 plus 10 = 60Whom pays the other 40 percent ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

The 40% pay the rest.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

No I don't support the rich NOT paying more taxes. They should by all means. They make and have more, so they should give more. So many people are hard workers and were not ruthless or fortunate enough to strike it rich. When more is given, more is expected.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

So, those who do well are ruthless or lucky to strike it rich???? Most worked hard, worked smart, saved bit by bit and over time did well. It's not luck, or ruthlessness; it's just methodically following a plan.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Most rich people were lucky enough to grow up in an environment which seeded their future. A prime example is Warren Buffet: he wasn't born into a 'rich' family, but he grew up around stockbrokers, bankers, and businessmen, which was certainly essential in his lucrative future. A number of people could do the same, or at least something similar, if they didn't grow up around drug addicts and (non-white-collar) criminals.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

The so called whiners and complainers do pay. They work hard to support their families while paying taxes at the same time.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Not federal taxes.--------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

In effect they already do. If the rate of tax was equal for everyone ( you know, the equality laws!!! ) then the higher the earnings the greater the tax revenue will be. Why should someone who has sacrificed years of leisure time to study and obtain qualifications which are in demand, or simply took risks and worked hard be penalized with a heavier rate of tax than the day dreaming lotus eater. One way to kill the spirit of a nation's enterprising entrepreneurs to to tax them to a point where they decide that they would be better to join the brain dead of 'grazing herd' or just jump onto the benefits wagon, or emigrate.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

The only way raising taxes on the rich will be beneficial in getting a person into a higher level of living is if the added money going to the government goes back in the form of tax cuts for the middle class. Then you have an incentive to work harder and keep more of your hard earned money. But the liberals want the money to go to the poor in the form of food stamps and welfare checks, which won't get the poor into the middle class. It will instead keep them where they are and make them more dependent on the government.If you raised taxes on the rich so a single person making say 30,000 doesn't have to pay any income tax then more people will move into the middle class by working more and saving more of their paycheck. But simply giving out more free goodies to the poor will never get them to the next level. This is a common fallacy of the liberals that taxing rich people more will make the free loaders or the working poor middle class. It doesn't work this way.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Do you think we are at the point where we should raise the taxes on the rich and cut taxes for those making 30K?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

I have no problem with doing this, so yes. In any prosperous society you must have a strong middle class. There will always be rich and poor in all nations, but the middle class is non existant in some countries, mainly third world and communist nations. But the exchange must be revenue neutral. Whatever take out from the rich must go back to the middle class, otherwise, the government will either have extra to spend on worthless projects or the deficit will expand. The 30,000 number was arbitrary, I did not research it. It could be lower or higher.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

I think your idea makes sense. It sucks that it is a mixture of the 2 sides of the debate so it will probably never happen.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

It's hard to say, honestly. I think animals should have to contribute more to society as well, because we use a lot of our resources cleaning up the messes they leave in the butcher's.I mean, it'd make more sense right? We'd just have to finish creating technology that bestows animals with higher mental capacity.That way, rich people will actually get more of what most of them worked so hard for.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

I would say 'No' for those that are rich because of a one-time occurrence. For example, if someone created a start-up or something and received tons of money, yet otherwise doesn't have income, he should NOT be taxed extremely heavily. Those who continuously earn tons of income can be taxed some more (especially stupid companies like General Electric, which avoid taxes altogether), but not those who had a one-time hit. All that would do is make a rich person less and less wealthy, assuming they don't earn a continual income. Normal income tax makes sense, but not stupid things like a 'rich' tax or, even worse, property taxes. Property tax is stupid: you have to pay money to own property that you already paid for; and if the city creates a new, expensive project, your property tax goes up higher! Only large businesses should be charged with property tax... but that's a whole different debate.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Yes, we should take as much as possible so they can't create jobs and completely remove their incentive to innovate, NOT! Free markets are what has made America the greatest and most powerful nation on earth and the wealthiest nation ever. Socialism is a colossal failure, do you want America to look like Cuba? Then vote for Bernie Sanders...
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

The Untied States has never once had a free market, or any form of Capitalism that Adam Smith would have approved of.Socialism is also no longer existent in the Western world in the context you are referring to (Authoritarian). Sanders is a Social Democrat and thus does not approve of countries like Cuba.You should educate yourself on a person before dismissing them.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Free Markets or free market economies are a system where prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and customers. Being a business owner with 17 employees and having the liberty and freedom to set our own prices for our products and services fits this definition. If the government were to impose pricing or intervene with price-setting monopolies then our free market system would cease to exist and so would jobs, innovation and liberty. If you have the need to put a finer point on this go right ahead. I didn't mention Adam Smith nor did I refer to his definition of a free market system. So your point is irrelevant. Sanders "I'm not a capitalist, I'm a democratic socialist", so I believe the word "socialist" is in there somewhere. The Nazi's were "democratic socialists" and we fought a whole world war to stop them. Socialism of any sort is an assault on personal liberty and free market systems. Socialism is a facism of force on the liberty of individuals through force and the very engine of poverty.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Free Markets or free market economies are a system where prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and customers. Which hasn't ever occurred here. Free market economics require a lack of regulation.Being a business owner with 17 employees and having the liberty and freedom to set our own prices for our products and services fits this definition.Not it doesn't. A business owner is not, themselves, an economy. That business owner is subject to local, state, and federal regulations.If the government were to impose pricing or intervene with price-setting monopolies then our free market system would cease to exist and so would jobs, innovation and liberty. If you have the need to put a finer point on this go right ahead. It isn't me that is putting a finer point on it. It's simply how economics works. As you said, for it free market requires actors to be able to freely set prices on goods and services, but no such freedom exists due the regulations and taxes they have to factor into their final price as well as regulations on the means of production. Our market is regulated, which means it isn't free. It's just a catchy term we like to use about a system that has never existed here. Much like "Marxism". I didn't mention Adam Smith nor did I refer to his definition of a free market system. So your point is irrelevant.You didn't have to for it to be relevant. Free Market Capitalism was essentially the invention of Adam Smith. He is the one who created the very concept you are referring to.Sanders "I'm not a capitalist, I'm a democratic socialist", so I believe the word "socialist" is in there somewhere.Democratic Socialism inherently requires capitalism to exist. That's kind of the big thing about Democratic Socialism. The Nazi's were "democratic socialists" and we fought a whole world war to stop them. No, they were National Socialists, who were in actuality Fascists. Please educate yourself before so destructively and irresponsibly throwing around these terms. Socialism of any sort is an assault on personal liberty and free market systemsRegulations of any kind are an assault on personal liberty and free market systems. Our country has never believed in pure negative freedom, socially or economically.Socialism is a facism of force on the liberty of individuals through force and the very engine of poverty.Socialism and Fascism are two entirely different ideologies and systems on opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. It is also clearly not "The very engine of poverty", considering the overwhelming majority of poverty, both historically and contemporarily, have existed absent of either socialism or fascism.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

We all chip in 40% of our wages here in England and it is not fair to anyone. Whether it is through generation or not, someone has worked hard to earn the rich person's money and just because they have it doesn't mean that we should steal it away.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

No, the rich shouldn't have to pay more taxes than anyone else, because the government didn't work for that money, the rich people did. And if they inherited the money, well, their ancestors worked for it, not the government! Also, it shouldn't matter to the unrich people, because it doesn't affect you in any way. All it would do is destroy what they worked for.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a good decision

I'd read an article recently on my cell phone and had to go back to find it...https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-03-29/why-russia-gave-up-alaska-americas-gateway-to-the-arctic It's a complex mix of history but basically the Russian population in that vast land was miniscule through almost their entire ownership of it. So even though there are strategic reasons today why it would be nice for Russia if they still had it the truth is it would probably have set vulnerable and underutilized anyway. And worse, during the Cold War, being so close the the USA, their presence there could have actually sparked real military clash between the two superpowers. Heck we went out of our way to blockade and then ostracize Cuba over missiles, just think what we would have done relative to a military presence on our own land mass.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a good decision

I believe Russia made a good decision by selling Alaska to the U.S.. Russia had just lost the Crimean War against France and Great Britain. They needed money and Alaska was a good way to get it. Russia did not have much use for keeping Alaska as they had completely destroyed their main source of income from it, the fur trade. Russia also needed the U.S. as an ally and by selling Alaska to them they would remain on good terms.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a good decision

I agree with this argument because they were in need of money even if they didn't get it right away. They exploited Alaska for the fur and they really didn't need Alaska after that