The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 871 times Debate No: 61192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Rules: I will write an essay and my opponent will rebut on Round One, along with his or her acceptance. By Round Three, there will be no new points, only conclusions. Good luck to both sides!

Cutting taxes would increase the purchasing power of the people. This means businesses will profit more from consumers and with more money, we can experience increased overall wages, increased earnings for everyone, and this will be beneficial to the country's overall prosperity.

This will also lead to increased employment. Businesses, with tax cuts, will be able to spend their tax cuts on expanding. And what do you need when you expand? You need people, which means more people get hired, in other words, more jobs. This will obviously decrease poverty levels, homelessness, and America's overall prosperity.

The government can also benefit from this with increased revenue. With tax cuts, I mentioned that more people will have jobs, which means more people will be paying their taxes. This will be a winning game to both the people, their economy, and to the government.

In conclusion, tax cuts will increase jobs, encourage or increase economic growth, increase government revenue and benefit us all in the long run.


People don't always spend more when taxes are cut. If there worried about the economy in the future they tend to save not spend more. Also just because business save more money doesn't always mean they will spend it to increase jobs. History epically recent shows that business use these benefits to benefit shareholders directly. Why in the mid 20th century, when corporate taxes and personal taxes where at its highest booming economics. Here's a philosophical question for you to.. That even if what you said was true don't you think that some people, some where would be left out? What your describing is trickle down economics, which doesn't work.
Debate Round No. 1


With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country.

As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1]

I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them.



"With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their business or lower the prices." Yeah in theory but they don't. In an ideal world maybe big business would give us a break. But people are greedy and immoral. The money wouldn't go to expanding business to give people jobs like you think your ideal world. The money goes to shareholders. And where do you think the working class get there money from huh? Taxes. They wouldn't be enjoying the tax cuts from the rich they get less money. With what your saying everyone would be paying less in taxes so who is paying taxes then becuase the government wouldn't have money to help up keep schools, roads ect ect.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to remind myself and the Contender that you can not bring up any new points for Round Three. It is only for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to point out the statistics I put previously on my Round Two post were ignored by my opponent. He or she states that the effectiveness of tax cuts are in theory and idealistic; however, the results prove his argument wrong. Just refer to my source I posted in Round Two.[1] The results of cutting taxes worked as expected and when Michigan did it, they had 10 years of an unprecedented flourishing economy and being ranked as the top third state in job growth during the 90's.

Also, most people in the United States that work get their income from the private sector; and the middle class generally don't like their taxes. At the end of the day, the economy is stimulated because of tax cuts and the economy booms, just as I explained with the case of the economy of the state of Michigan. And yes, job growth does increase significantly with tax cuts, and I just explained why.

And of course we need taxes so we could fund many things, I'm not saying we should abolish all taxes, just cut them significantly enough to stimulate the economy. That would be cutting income tax and corporate tax by 5%-10%. And as I mentioned many times, the statistics and results have proved my case true and working. Just look at the Michigan case in 1991 with John Engler, and even look at the other states that had their taxes cut, which resulted in an economic boom and exponential job growth. And of course, tax cuts work very well with limited spending, which is another story.

In conclusion to my case and to this debate, I firmly believe that tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and even increase revenue for the government as I mentioned in this debate. Thank you all for your attention and good day.



The thing is about your sauce is its biased. Do you even know what Cato institute is? Its a libertarian website associated with right wing groups. Basically your augment is you repeating the same stuff, mostly cherry picked facts with a biased source. But then again isn't that what most debates are? These almost perfect polite seeming people making empty promises with cherry picked facts. However this is my opinion. Look at Germany, Denmark, Norway and Netherlands economy all have very high taxes and are doing great. If we had higher taxes the working class would be doing better, roads schools ect ect would be better.
See I can cherry pick too.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Even John Kennedy cut taxes. A democrat. Maybe that is why he was gunned down. He did not walk in lockstep with the democrat party.Just a thought.
Posted by michael90000 2 years ago
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Works every time.When Reagan dragged the democrat congress, kicking and screaming, to the table to cut taxes, there was a surge in the economy. Always will. Revenues doubled under Reagan. Of course the dumocrats licked their chops at this new found lottery for them to buy more votes. Spending also doubled. Then under the weazle Bush,the read my lips guy, the dumocrats PROMISED to cut spending if bush raised taxes. Of course that never happened. I have been studiing dumocrats for decades and I know when they are lying. Their lips are moving.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Some stimulation. Not a lot, but positive.