# data[].attributes.body
Consumption tax
The affirmative side states that households could avoid paying taxes every year which could help them fund their retirement, vacations, or other activities. It could increase worker productivity since a higher tax base gets you more money. It could reduce national debt.
The negative side states that it would have to be high to replace traditional tax structures. For it to work, everything would need to have tax. The cost of used goods will increase a lot.
I am in favor of the negative side because although it could potentially set up a good retirement plan, low-income families would be hit hard. Prices on goods will raise and everything would have taxes.
http://brandongaille.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-consumption-tax/

# data[].attributes.body
Should Religious Organizations Remain Tax Exempt?

Pro: Most religious organizations offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, after school programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence. Many small religious organizations cannot afford to stay open without the benefits of tax-exempt status. Losing tax-exempt status would be  the end for many religious organizations operating on a low budget. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year.

Con: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax.

My opinion.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations

# data[].attributes.body
Taxes good or bad.
Pro: Taxes fund many things such as this school, roads, military, and state aid. With out taxes any state funding would be gone because the government could not afford. With out taxes we would not be able to have a government.

Con: More and more money gets taken away for people.

I think that taxes are a good thing it dose more good then bad.

# data[].attributes.body
Church Tax
Pro: If churches were taxed the other non-profit organizations would also have to be taxed.

Cons: There are 300,000 religious congregations in this country that pay no tax: no federal, state or local; no income, sales, or property tax. Church's own $600 billion in property.

I think that churches should not be taxed because some churches don't have a lot of money and can barely afford what they have. If they would be taxed they could have to shut down.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001873

# data[].attributes.body
Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?
The affirmative side states  that Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake. Also, taxing churches would place government above religion.

The negative side states  that a tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. Also, the "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense.

I am in favor of the affirmative side. Because churches have all  they can do to stay running from the gifts and offerings from the congregation. It will be very difficult for the churches to stay active if they have to pay tax. Also, pay tax would mean that there would not be a separation of church and state.

# data[].attributes.body
Brenna Boland

Pro: People say churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.
Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden.

Con:  A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines.
Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified.

Opinion: I believed that churches should have to pay taxes because people who don't believe in god or religion shouldn't have to pay for churches with their tax money. Which in the year of 2016 a reported 42% of american citizens said to be atheist and agnostic.
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion.Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation.

Con: A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Property Tax Cap
The affirmative side states that a property tax cap slows down the growth if property taxes. The tax cap tires to match up with your income tax rates being most people pay with their income for taxes. This also puts the government to think outside the box to find other ideas to help bring in the money. The lower property tax is the more the economy improves with local business.

The bad thing about property tax cap is if your taxes are already to high the cap can't help. If the government has to come up with new ways to get money it may cause higher fees in land owning.

I am in favor with the affirmative side because I think the property tax cap is very affective. With the property tax cap it helps local business with the rate of taxes and how its slowed down.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0535.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Should churches have to pay taxes?
The affirmative side states that churches should pay taxes because they receive more special treatment from the IRS than other non-profit companies and that favoritism is unconstitutional. They also say that churches do not give aid to the government so the exemption is not justified.

The negative side states that making churches pay taxes would combine church and state and put government higher than religion. They also say that small churches struggling to stay open would be even more burdened by taxes.

I am in favor of the affirmative side, I believe because the church is on land that it should pay taxes.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should churches remain tax exempt? NAME?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should churches remain tax exempt? NAME?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:
1. Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
2. Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.

Con:
1. A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.
2. A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religions.

Opinion:
I am on the pro side because I think we should keep the separation between church and state, and churches earn their exemption by offering numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, after-school programs for poor families, and assistance to victims of domestic violence.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Income Taxes
People on the affirmative side say that if we don't have tax, the government wouldn't have nearly enough funding to keep the country's healthcare good without giving it to people who are interested in profit, and also education. It allows a tax return every year.
People on the negative side say that it could cause us to be in debt and some people need more cash. If poor or homeless people get jobs they wouldn't be able to keep it because of tax.
I guess I'm on the affirmative side because it'd be bad if the government didn't have enough funding to keep the good things people need.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/income-tax-or-no-income-tax

# data[].attributes.headline
Would the Lowering of Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Create Jobs? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Would the Lowering of Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Create Jobs? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that high corporate income tax rates encourage US companies to store their foreign earnings abroad instead of investing it into expansion and employment in the United States, but if businesses were offered an income tax cut an estimated $663 billion would be invested into business expansion and job growth in the United States. The lowering of corporate income taxes would result in increased international investment in the United States and therefor more jobs. The average five-year unemployment rate decreased from 1987-1991 after the United States lowered its top corporate income tax rate during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

The opposing side states that corporate profits in the United States are the highest they have been in 61 years, but the federal unemployment rate is higher than most of the rest of the developed world. Lowering the federal corporate tax rate reduces the amount of money the US government receives in tax revenue, thus reducing federal government programs, investments, and job-creating opportunities. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 added three new corporate tax brackets and increased the income tax rates for corporations making income over $10 million.  The US economy added more than 15 million jobs and grew at an average annual rate of 3.8% in the five years after the legislation was passed.

My opinion- I am with the affirmative side. I believe that if the taxes for businesses were lowered it would give businesses the freedom to add more jobs without having to worry about very high taxes. They say that the United States already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, which creates a large disadvantage for US businesses.
http://corporatetax.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Tax Refunds good or bad?

Pro- With interest rates being so low in recent years, you aren't really losing any substantial interest income. If you don't trust yourself to save the extra income you get from reducing your payroll income tax then you'll at least know where it's at with someone else holding onto it. By using electronic filing and direct deposit, you can still get your refund quickly even if tax filing season is slowed for any reason.

Con- You're unable to use that money in the previous year. If you would've received your expected refund as part of your pay, you could've used it for bills, or for an emergency fund. Could have put the money into a savings account for future use. You are at the mercy of the IRS.

I am on both sides. It would matter what my money circumstances are in order for me to choose. Either way I would still get money back at some point.

# data[].attributes.body
Should we include sales tax in the sale prices of goods?

Affirmative:
The affirmative side states that it would make the sale of items much easier so that people know how much money they need exactly to pay for their items without having to guess or take out their phone and calculate it depending on the percent of tax is taken in that state. There are many services where the tax is included in the price but there are many more that do not include the tax in the price.

Negative:
The negative side states that it may complicate the jobs of people who work in environments where sales tax is not included in the price. It may also cause the value of an item to look expensive when really it is only the sales tax being included.

Opinion:
I am on the affirmative side, I believe that it would make our lives easier to just know what we must pay before going to the register.
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-US-include-tax-in-prices

# data[].attributes.body
Should there be a fat tax?

If you didn’t know a fat tax is a tax placed on foods considered to be unhealthy. The tax could be placed on food high in sugar or fat.

The affirmative side states a fat tax would make people pay social cost of unhealthy food. It would also make people eat healthier. It would encourage producers to supply foods lower in sugar and fat.

The negative side states that obesity is caused by more factors than just over-consumption of ‘high fat’ high sugar foods. It is also very difficult to decide which foods need to have a fat tax on them

I am on the affirmative side I think that unhealthy foods should cost more. If it coasts more, healthier foods are cheaper to buy, making it easier to have a healthy life still.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5056/economics/pros-and-cons-of-fat-tax/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- There is a set percentage based on your income that you pay for taxes. This eliminates certain people from being exempt from taxes. Flat taxes help ensure that a rich person doesn't pay the same amount in taxes as someone living in poverty. There also won't be a need to hire professional tax preparers, which will save money for the taxpayer.

Cons- There is no exact "equality". Everyone would be paying a different amount because it is based on income, and most people don't make the same income as everyone else. There will be an elimination of deductions, which will impact the lower class negatively.
I am for the pro side. I believe this will make it equal. I don't think a person with millions of dollars should pay the same amount of taxes as someone who is barely getting by.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-flat-tax-a-good-idea

# data[].attributes.body
Progressive Taxes

Pros
-protects the taxpayer through difficult situations
-shifts the tax burden to those more able to pay

Cons
-can be used in corrupt manner by politicians
-discourages business investment and expansion as the profit is taxed at a higher rate

I am on the pro side because those that struggle financially can really benefit from these taxes.

https://toughnickel.com/personal-finance/Flat-Tax-vs-Progressive-Tax-Pros-and-Cons-for-the-US

# data[].attributes.headline
Kyleigh: Property tax cap is good or bad?

# data[].attributes.subject
Kyleigh: Property tax cap is good or bad?

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative side states that the cap slows the growth of property taxes, protecting local residents from sudden sharp annual property tax increases.A cap forces towns to exercise discipline over budget and tax practices and gives them an incentive to find more efficient ways to deliver services.Lower property taxes benefit local businesses, improves their economic competitiveness, and reduces the chances that they will relocate to other states or communities.

Negative side states that caps do not reduce property taxes that are already too high. A standalone cap may only make the situation worse and not benefit everyone. Could potentially make the area drop lower behind in taxes.

I am for the negative side unless the cap is in place right away. Otherwise if you are trying to bring the taxes down the cap will not do this for you.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0535.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
Ellie---Are food stamps something to keep in the U.S? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ellie---Are food stamps something to keep in the U.S? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative states it helps reduce hunger. Forty million Americans are able to avoid hunger because of the support. It also provides nutrition education. It shows importance of healthy diet, staying physically active, and how to plan your budget for the whole month.
The negative side states it leads to obesity. Food stamps can be used for buying breads, cereals, meats, fish, poultry, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables, many users end up making unhealthy purchases in order to minimize expenses and buy more food. It also states that the system is not fair. Do the people who have food stamps really need it, or do people who really need it even have it?
I am on the negative side because 28 million Americans receive food stamps, 9% of the US population I believe that is too high, we are one of the world’s wealthiest and most advanced nations, but more than 9% of our population is struggling just to put food on the table.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-food-stamps.html
http://cashmoneylife.com/food-stamps-in-america-readers-weigh-in/

# data[].attributes.body
The Affirmative side states that keeping churches exempt upholds the separation of church and state. They also argue that churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the good of the public. Many think that taxing churches would put government above religion.

The Negative side states that a tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. They also say that a tax break for church makes all taxpayers support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines.

I am on the affirmative side because I believe we should keep church and the state separated. I also believe that churches, mosques, etc. give a good service to the public and allow them to express their beliefs.
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that households could avoid paying taxes every year which could help them fund their retirement, vacations, or other activities. It could increase worker productivity since a higher tax base gets you more money. It could reduce national debt.
The negative side states that it would have to be high to replace traditional tax structures. For it to work, everything would need to have tax. The cost of used goods will increase a lot.
I am in favor of the negative side because although it could potentially set up a good retirement plan, low-income families would be hit hard. Prices on goods will raise and everything would have taxes.
http://brandongaille.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-consumption-tax/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should basic income tax be abolished? Keagan Moose

# data[].attributes.subject
Should basic income tax be abolished? Keagan Moose

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that the system is too complex, and many people have found loopholes to get around income tax. 40% of Americans didn't pay income tax at all, and that is unfair to the Americans that do.

The negative side states that having income taxed allows for a stable income stream for the government. Most people get their taxes taken straight from their pay check which makes it easy. It is an effective strategy to spread wealth.

I am in favor of the negative side. This strategy has worked for a long time and there is no point in messing with it.  Unless someone else comes up with a better solution I think we should just let it be.

http://weakonomics.com/2009/03/24/income-tax-the-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Sin Taxes be Imposed on Consumers? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Sin Taxes be Imposed on Consumers? 

# data[].attributes.body
A sin tax is a tax placed on an item that is deemed unnecessary or detrimental to health, or against morals.

My debate topic is, whether or not sin taxes should be imposed on consumers.

People on the affirmative side of this topic say, that imposing these taxes on consumers will help to prevent negative/harmful behavior. As an example, cigarettes have been said to cause cancer, so putting a high tax on cigarettes lowers the amount of cigarettes consumers can afford. Sin taxes provide more tax income for the governments that impose them.

People on the negative side of this topic say, that imposing such taxes could hurt businesses. If a business has to increase the price of alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, or ammunition, even by one dollar, it would decrease the amount of total sales. If the amount of sales decreases, so will the profit.

After considering multiple views regarding both sides of the topic, I am on both sides, I think that to an extent there should be a higher tax on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. but, I also think that these taxes will not necessarily prevent those who chose to purchase these items from purchasing them. I also think that increasing the tax could have a negative impact on businesses, and that is not good either because people that own gas stations/ liquor stores, etc. are also people that are attempting to make a living.

http://classroom.synonym.com/pros-cons-sin-taxes-24326.html

Amber Hickman

# data[].attributes.body
Your prolly asking yourself what are tax right offs??
Tax right offs are where you have made a lot of money and you need to spend it on something. It is used a lot in farming cause you can buy a new welder or tools or anything needed. You should take every tax reduction possible it will lower your tax income.
Pros
Pros on tax right offs are you can buy new equipment, tools trucks.
Cons you might not be able to pay it all off with the tax right off so there for you might have a loan to pay.
My opinion it is a great thing to have cause I can buy new parts or equipment for the farm.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/49-special-tax-deductions-dont/

# data[].attributes.body
This system is used in the United StatesA system based on a progressive tax collects tax revenue from individuals in proportion to their ability to pay. Citizens with higher earnings are taxed at a higher rate, while poorer people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax.

PRO:Progressive tax gives a government more revenue while also enhancing opportunity for its lower and middle class citizens.As income increases, households have more and more income that is not spent on basic necessities and thus can afford to pay more tax in a way that is impossible for the poor.

CON: First that the system violates the basic principle that all people are equal under the law, since it treats the poor and the wealthy differently.high progressive taxes motivate the wealthy to find loopholes, shelter income and even move out of the country, thus depriving it of talented workers and creating inefficient tax-avoidance work for lawyers and accountants that do not end up benefiting the whole country.

I'm on the Pro side, because those who can not pay the same amount as others should be given some leeway. Or those who can pay the amount and over should give a bit more.
SOURCES?

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: Supplies our government with money and allows a tax return every year

Cons: Increases prices, and covers people who don't work (Welfare)

My Opinion: I agree with the negative and positive (take a side)

https://www.sapling.com/7453876/pros-cons-state-income-tax

# data[].attributes.body
Will lowering Corporate tax create jobs?

Pro- The United States is the second largest corporate tax holder at a astonishing 35%. This number forces American companies to re-locate overseas where the corporate tax is cheaper. People say if the tax is lowered companies will start coming back to the United States, and future companies will stay in the U.S.. Having more companies in the United States would mean, the country would need more workers to fill these jobs, thus decreasing the unemployment rate.

Con- People on the negative side state that no matter what the corporate tax is you hire people for demand not just because your tax is lower. A study in 2011 found that only 27% of companies said that the reason they are not hiring new people was because of corporate tax. Companies take loopholes, a study was done of the 500 companies that pay taxes only 115 actually paid the full amount needed. The others paid as low as 5% of what they should have. Companies are not hurting for workers, they will hire when they need to.

I believe the corporate tax needs to be lower, but I don't believe lowering it would increase jobs that much. It is ridiculous being this established as a country, yet our companies feel they need to be in other places of the world, and of the world we hold the second highest amount of corporate tax. Being the second highest in something like this doesn't look too good for the country.
http://corporatetax.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: Hard working families need tax relief. Top companies and millionaires need to pay their fair share. It would bring Billions of dollars back into the economy.

Cons: If we increase the taxes, the wealthy will still pay less than what they pay now. To get the bureaucracy under control it needs 1) less money (which hasn't happened for 50 years and 2) less taxes rates, the government needs to take less money not more.

My Opinion: After considering both sides and MANY opinions,  am deciding to stay neutral. There are really good point on both sides, so it is really up to personal preference..

http://2016election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=002021#ted-cruz

# data[].attributes.headline
Josie Kleinow: Should there be a fat tax?

# data[].attributes.subject
Josie Kleinow: Should there be a fat tax?

# data[].attributes.body
If you don't know, a fat tax is a specific tax placed on foods that are considered to be unhealthy and contribute towards obesity.

The affirmative side states that if we have a fat tax, it will encourage people to eat healthier and make better choices about their diets. A fat tax would also encourage producers to supply foods lower in sugar and fat, so that people can buy it without tax. This also gives  fast food places an incentive to provide a wider range of foods, giving people healthier options to choose from. With taxes being implied to junk food, this will help reduce the obesity percentage in our nation, by making them by healthier things for less money.

The negative side states that it is very difficult to decide which foods need to have a fat tax on them. They say that the foods with a high sugar and food content should have thins tax, but don't know what the minimum should be. Another point to the negative side obesity is caused by more than just over-consumption of foods that contain high levels of fat and sugar, but also because of genetic factors, amount of exercise, and the size of portions that a person consumes.

I am in favor of the affirmative side because I believe that unhealthy foods should cost more. With it costing more, healthier foods are cheaper to buy, making it easy to be on a healthy diet and have a healthy lifestyle.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5056/economics/pros-and-cons-of-fat-tax/

# data[].attributes.headline
Elizabeth Grady- Should Direct Taxes Be Abolished? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Elizabeth Grady- Should Direct Taxes Be Abolished? 

# data[].attributes.body
Should Direct Taxes Be Abolished?

First of all, direct taxes are taxes levied on the income or profits of the person who pays it, rather than on goods or services.

Yes- People who believe that they should be abolished state that the people on the lower end of society end up paying more than what is probably necessary. They say that the rich live off of the poor. They also believe that it would become more fair for all. For instance, caviar should be taxed higher than baked beans. Perhaps it would make all consumers pay suitable taxes for the size and quantity.

No- People on the opposing side state that it shouldn’t because people are always going to believe that the rich do not pay their dues. Above a certain level of income, the rise of the cost of living rises slower than the income. They also believe that switching to indirect taxes would be much more challenging. Who is to be the judge of what should be taxed more? Where do you draw the boundary?

Although I can see where both sides are coming from, I lean more towards the opposing side, stating that direct taxes should not be abolished. It appears to be working, and until they can think of something better, it’ll do. Who really would be the judge of what should be taxed more? Probably not any of us..

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Abolishing_direct_taxation

# data[].attributes.body
Should churches remain tax-exempt?

The affirmative side states that a tax-exemption keeps the government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. These people think that churches deserve a break because they provide crucial social services and 200 years of church tax exemption have not turned America into a theocracy.

The negative side states that giving church special tax exemptions violates church and state and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year.

I am with the affirmative side because I think it uphold the separation between church and state and if has been this way for this long, why change it now?

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative Side- If national sales taxes were implied then there would be an equal amount of tax nation wide. It would also prevent the gradual increase of money being earned. It would also allow households to determine how much taxation affects them, for example. If someone wants to grow food they only have to pay taxes the one time for purchasing the seeds. Also if there was a national sales tax then there wouldn't be a need for income tax, thus removing the need for tax with holdings from employee paychecks.
Negative Side- Sales tax is based on the consumption amount so many people would turn to buying used items rather than paying the tax on new items. With the decrease in consumption of new items the price would increase. Also all the advantages that home owners receive under the current tax law would disappear. This could cause the prices of homes to drop with the dying market.

I am on the negative side, because if there was a national sales tax then we would be paying the same amount as someone in Florida for common everyday goods, this is a problem because the statewide average earning is higher in Florida than in Iowa. Im also on the negative side because when someone retires there is a chance that double taxation can occur, leaving them with little money in their retirement fund.

http://brandongaille.com/12-national-sales-tax-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and Cons of Flat Taxes

Pros- flat taxes  are easy to understand and comply with witch reduces errors and tax fraud
cons- can shift tax burden away from the rich, to the middle and lower class.

I don't like the idea of flat taxes because I feel like people would cheat the system.
https://www.thebalance.com/flat-tax-pros-cons-examples-compared-to-fair-tax-3306329

# data[].attributes.body
Flat Tax Pros and Cons
A flat tax system is where the tax rate is the same for everyone regardless of income.

The affirmative side states that flat tax will elude other taxes. Families won't be asked to enter interest reports or business-related income taxes. The flat tax system is simple by stating there is just a single rate for everyone. Tax filing and reporting would be easy as well.

The negative side states that the flat tax system only benefits the rich. In a country where the tax rate is 10%, a lower-class individual would be left with less money than the an individual of the high-class. The flat tax system would stop the IRS and lead to unemployment. This system will cause the IRS to be re-adjusted, which will cause some people to lose their jobs.

I am in favor of the negative side, because I do not think it is fair to lower-income citizens. Also having a flat tax system would lead to a decrease in employment and many people would lose their jobs.

http://greengarageblog.org/6-pros-and-cons-of-flat-tax

# data[].attributes.body
Fat Tax
Pro:
1. Make people pay for being unhealthy.
2. Encourages a better diet.
3. Increases government revenues.
Con:
1. Some products could be said to be unhealthy, when they really aren't.
2. Might not bring obesity percentage down.
My opinion:
I agree with the con side. I eat a lot of "unhealthy" foods and I am not obese. So why should everyone have to suffer when they just wanna have a candy bar or something?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/16/study-a-20-fat-tax-would-improve-public-health/

# data[].attributes.body
Should Robots take over doing our taxes or should we keep the human part of it?
The Affirmative side states that if we are to have robots do our taxes we could save a lot of time and we could have it to were we no longer would need to pay every year for our taxes to be done by someone else.
The Negative side states that if we start putting robots in the jobs that we are doing that are not dangerous could cause a lot of people to lose their jobs and they feel that they could not apply for the benefits because they feel that the robots would enter information that us as humans cant always remember so how would a robot that doesn't know anything about us know what we did.

I am on both sides for this but I feel I lean more onto the Negative side because having a robot do it and save time is nice and all but I think that if we are going to do this that we are taking away the job and that we are giving a robot the "papers" and having them do it for us. The Law states that if we file the taxes incorrect we will need to give the Tax returns back, in this case we would not know if there was an error so you would have to wait to spend any tax returns for who knows how long to use any of it... long story short, Don't use the robots.

# data[].attributes.body
Does Lowering the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Create Jobs?
People on the affirmative side says that lowering income taxes results in increased investment in the United States and then more jobs and current corporate income taxes are above the rate that funds  corporations and the US government, prevents job growth.
People on the negative side says the US economy added 15 million jobs in the five years following a large federal corporate income tax increase and lowering the tax rate reduces the amount of money the government makes in tax funds which reduces government programs, investments, and more.
I agree with the pro side because it increasing investment in the US so that results in more jobs.
http://corporatetax.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Should Churches remain Tax Exempt?

Pro:
Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state.

Con:
Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion.

http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

# data[].attributes.body
Are taxes good or bad?
Pros- Taxes fund many things such as this school, roads, and military. Without taxes we wouldn't be able to have a government or be able to stand as a nation. Although taxes are a burden, they help more than they do bad in moderation.
Con- High taxes are not the way to do things as it will not only stress the people but it will also destroy the middle and lower class.

My opinion is that taxes are a good thing but high taxes are not. Under the Bernie Sanders tax plan, taxes would be raised tremendously with "free college." As it sounds like a good idea it would end up taxing all the people to death.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- Taxes make our government have money that they wouldn't have otherwise. They spend it on schooling, our military and much more.
Cons- Taxes make us have a lower income and in some cases you don't receive any money from taxes and you loose a significant amount of money.
I believe that we should have taxes and that they are a good thing in some cases. They help our government. It sucks because I loose money out of all of my paychecks to go toward the government. But they help schooling, our military and help fix our local cities.
https://toughnickel.com/personal-finance/Flat-Tax-vs-Progressive-Tax-Pros-and-Cons-for-the-US

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and Cons of Flat Tax
The affirmative side states having a flat tax system would make things a lot simpler, and would result in savings for all parties.
The negative side states enforcing a flat tax system is more complicated than it looks. Businesses need a mechanism to deduct their expenses in order to be fairly taxed.
I am on the opposing side. If enforcing a new tax system is too complicated, it wouldn't be a good decision. People would get frustrated with the new change in their lifestyle, creating more problems than before.
http://www.debate.org/flat-tax/

# data[].attributes.body
Are Taxes Good or Bad?

The affirmative side states that taxes are a good thing because they are necessary for a government to run. Without taxes a government would not be able to hire employees or pay for any social programs. Money from taxes pay for infrastructure such as roads, water systems, parks and public transportation.

The negative side states that taxes are unfair. People believe in the fact that it is their money and they deserved it, so they should be able to spend it all on whatever they desire. Others also believe that people do not spend their tax money for the right things.

I am on the affirmative side because I think taxes are used for more good then bad. Most of the tax payers money goes into education, technology, and to provide goods and services for the benefit of the American people.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-paying-taxes

# data[].attributes.body
Pro's and Con's of Income Taxes

Pros: Those on the Affirmative side state that the Income tax system where the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. This is to spread the wealth.  Our current system allows for a stable income stream for the government. Another great part of this, is the fact that most of the people get their taxes collected straight from their paycheck, making it reliable and easy.

Cons: Those from the Negate side say that our system is complex, maybe to complex. Since it's so complex, an entire industry exist just help explore loopholes. 40% of Americans do not pay income taxes, and some say that is completely unfair to those who do pay.

My View: If the system is working and helping the majority of people then we can stick with it. We only need to change systems when there is a better one thats proven and has a sound background, we can use that.
http://weakonomics.com/2009/03/24/income-tax-the-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and cons of "Flat Tax"

Pros- I guess its easy to understand which equals to less tax fraud. With flat tax you no longer need tax preparers and advisors. Tax loopholes can no longer be made by lawmakers.

Cons- It could shift tax burden from the rich, to the lower and middle class. Thousands of people working as government employees and tax professionals would lose their jobs or have a large decrease in business.

I really don't understand taxes or any of this nonsense. So I don't know which side I really agree with, maybe if it was a topic I would know better and be interested in I would know more, so I don't know what side I agree with.
https://toughnickel.com/personal-finance/Flat-Tax-vs-Progressive-Tax-Pros-and-Cons-for-the-US

# data[].attributes.headline
SaFire- Should Churches Not Have to Pay Taxes? 

# data[].attributes.subject
SaFire- Should Churches Not Have to Pay Taxes? 

# data[].attributes.body
People on the affirmative:
They believe that churches should not have to pay taxes because it goes along with

# data[].attributes.body
pro taxes are necessary for a government to run. Without taxes, a government would not be able to hire employees or pay for any social programs.
con the higher taxes are, the less money citizens will have to spend on goods and services and lower consumption leads to less revenue for business.
my opinion taxes is BS we pay the government to do a job that doesn't make us money

# data[].attributes.body
Should the U.S adopt a flat tax?

Pro- The affirmative side on this debate says the U.S should use flat tax. Flat tax is more simple and less complicated. It is also more fair than our current system. Flat taxes  insure all people contribute equally into the system they benefit from

Con- The opposing side says the U.S should not adapt a flat tax. Having a progressive tax prevents the wealthy from hogging excess money. The rich pay a higher tax since they make more.

My Opinion-I stand with the affirmative side and I believe the U.S should adapt a flat tax so that everyone pays equally.

Source(s)-
https://www.thebalance.com/flat-tax-pros-cons-examples-compared-to-fair-tax-3306329

http://www.debate.org/polls/should-we-adopt-a-flat-tax-instead-of-a-progressive-tax

http://www.debate.org/polls/what-tax-system-is-better

# data[].attributes.body
should food stamps be rid of
pro-  they are mis used to buy candy pop etc
people don't work for them just sign up
con-  they are used to get food for people who are poor
they are used a lot for kids
my side- get ride of them poor people need to work and stop mooching off us working people
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-food-stamps-being-misused

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud
Con- may shift tax burden away from the rich, to the middle and lower class
Pro- professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer
Con- elimination of deductions may have negative impact on taxpayers with lower income
Pro-  lawmakers can no longer create tax loopholes in exchange for campaign contributions or other personal favors
Con- government cannot use the tax code to encourage desirable activities, such as giving tax credits for making a home more energy-efficient
https://toughnickel.com/personal-finance/Flat-Tax-vs-Progressive-Tax-Pros-and-Cons-for-the-US

# data[].attributes.headline
                    Devin                         Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

# data[].attributes.subject
                    Devin                         Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

# data[].attributes.body
pros-Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion
Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.

Cons-A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right
Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional.

I think that they don't have to pay taxes.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Does lowering the corporate income taxes create job in the U.S.?

Pros:
1.
In 1987-1991 we had a very low five year unemployment rate and the income taxes were lowered a year early do to Ronald Reagan's Tax Reform Act in 1986.

2.
When Corporate taxes are high it can encourage business to invest the foreign business money abroad and not spend it into us expansions.

Cons:
1.
When the U.S. added 15 million job in the early 90's. there was a rapid increase in corporate taxes in 1993.

2. There has been many Complaints about high corporate income tax rates because it causes high unemployment.
-There are also many loopholes and deductions found which in turn enable many companies and millionaire's to pay less than the statutory rate.

Opinion- I think lowering the taxes will help the unemployment rate and keep business from not paying all there taxes. It would also help make everybody some what equal when paying taxes.

http://corporatetax.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Should We Get Rid of Income Taxes?
Pros-  Income taxes can increase illegal behavior
-Indirect taxes allow us to modify public behavior
-It could help grow the economy
-Getting rid of income come taxes could empower families
Cons- Indirect taxes are unenforceable
-Income taxes are the price we pay for living in a fair society
-Income taxes are progressive
Opinion- Many people have problems paying their income taxes, therefore increasing the chance that willingness to do illegal things. So this is the reason I am for the con side.

http://debatewise.org/debates/74-basic-income-tax-should-be-abolished/

# data[].attributes.headline
Brandi Alice                       Should we have to pay taxes?       Pro-It pays for the land people love.                                       Con- people will lose money.     Pro- It helps pay for education.   Con- It makes it harder for families to buy the much needed things for their child(ern).                                 I’m with it because I believe in the long run it makes somethings cheaper.

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandi Alice                       Should we have to pay taxes?       Pro-It pays for the land people love.                                       Con- people will lose money.     Pro- It helps pay for education.   Con- It makes it harder for families to buy the much needed things for their child(ern).                                 I’m with it because I believe in the long run it makes somethings cheaper.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/page/10-big-reasons-feel-good-about-taxes

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Churches Remain tax exempt -Austin R

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Churches Remain tax exempt -Austin R

# data[].attributes.body
pro-Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the establishment clause of the first amendment of our  US Constitution.
pro-Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good
cons-Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional
con-A tax exemption is only a privilege, not a right.
I pick the side of the pro because Church is for the people and they are just helping people.
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Hunter Boone Should We Get Rid Of Food Stamps

# data[].attributes.subject
Hunter Boone Should We Get Rid Of Food Stamps

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: It prevents people from starving that don't work.
People can afford to buy other useful things.
People could use the money they save to pay off things they owe like house payments.
Cons: People can cheat the system and buy alcohol or cigarets with their food stamps.
People who are on food stamps mite already get out of paying taxes wile everyone else has to work to pay for their taxes.
If there wasn't food stamps it would encourage people to go get a job then they could pay for things on their own.

I think we shouldn't have food stamps because it's not fair that there are people who work to pay for those food stamps. The people who work and also get food stamps can still get other free things from the government other than food stamps.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100212082343AAHub5i