Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
See I can cherry pick too.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Some stimulation. Not a lot, but positive.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.