Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended
Debate Rounds (4)
Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy should not be extended.
I affirm the resolution.
Contention 1. Let me first point out in my contention one that the Bush Tax Cuts were never intended to last this long. They were only a temporary stimulus to boost the economy for a short time. Our country vitally needs the tax revenue from these wealthy citizens.
Contention 2. The government is only taxing those whom are WEALTHY! They can afford to be taxed to a reasonable limit. While those who can't afford to pay high taxes are losing their homes and vehicles to the government.
Contention 3. The deficit in this country is huge. By not taxing these people, we are only adding more and more to that total debt. If the government does not find a way to decrease this debt, than we will eventually become bankrupt.
Lets keep it brief and simple. Thank you.
The Republicans and Democrats have recently reached a compromise over the tax cuts; if the Democrats extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, the Republicans will agree to a program which would stimulate job growth through a combination of unemployment insurance and tax cuts for America's poorest citizens. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan could create 3.1 million jobs. Voting for the pro and taking a moral stance against the "rich" is not just if it breaks the backs of America's poorest.
Contention 2: It is unfair to punish the rich for being successful
Taxing the rich is unjust--it's a punishment for success. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money provides an incentive for fiscal responsibility. Voting con forces the government better fiscal practices-- which are the real key to closing the deficit and reducing our debt, instead of just increasing taxes whenever they screw up.
In response to the pro's first and third contentions:
We need short term stimulus right now even more than we did when the Bush Tax Cuts were originally taxed. Sure, our government needs tax revenue, but extending the tax cuts creates 3.1 million jobs-- or 3.1 million more tax payers.
Improving our economies health in the short run by creating jobs creates the sustainable tax base we need to pay off our debt/reduce our deficit. Furthermore, neglecting to promote domestic consumption-- which is what we need to create jobs and power us out of our current recession-- increases the likelihood that we enter a "double dip" recession. Voting pro creates a "w" shaped recovery. Voting neg creates a "J" shaped recovery. A double dip recession and the massive stimulus required to escape it would put us in an even deeper hole for paying off our debt and closing our deficit.
In response to the pro's second contention
a) Why should the government be allowed to decide "what a reasonable limit is"? The government's definition of a "reasonable limit" is however much money they want. Unless you can prove that there is no other way to avert financial ruin besides increasing taxes on the rich, deciding to punish American citizens for being successful and hardworking is unjust.
My opponent argues that creating more jobs will decrease the deficit. With every job created, the economy is only being increased around $1.50 in worth. The cost of extending the tax cuts overpowers the benefit. The only way we can help improve our economy is through Socialist principles. During The Great Depression, government officials agreed that the only way to improve an economy is to increase the money flow. Voting Con will add over 500 million to the 1 trillion dollar deficit we already have. This actually will cause our country to endow into a W shaped recovery. We got what we needed in the short run from these tax cuts, so let them be ended. We have no domestic consumption to promote because our government has no money to just give away anymore. Precedents and failure have shown that just handing out stimulus checks to for short-term use does not work as well as it does on the chalkboard. Also voting Con will make the United States have a downward spiral know as the "slippery slope". The slope will be a continuing procrastination for ending the tax cut. Republicans will always argue for two more years. Without government intervention, more kids will go homeless from the lack of resources they do not possess. But taxing those who make well over what is necessary to run a more than sufficient household to create stimulus for below poverty citizens isn't fair? Not increasing the taxes now will only lead to more procrastination when the next tax cuts expire. When we look into the reality of it, nobody wants to be taxed more than they already are, but it is necessary for the future of our country's economy.
Regarding my opponents Contention 1 and 2:
Adding 3.1 million jobs is not going to effect the economy as much as the 954 billion dollar expenditures that along with it. Without the tax money, our government has only the option to keep borrowing the money adding to the debt. Extending the tax cuts so far have only made jobs scarce and unemployment high. Republicans would rather have low taxes, than the growth of an economy. Extending tax cuts is in fact the immoral decision. It shows how selfish people really are. When looking at it from a moral standpoint, extending tax cuts for struggling middle and lower class families is rational because these families need the money. Upper class citizens do not need that income as much as others do. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money"- This is not true. Remember that we are debating a tax CUT. These are not the normal taxes that should be in place now. The taxes were cut because the majority of citizens, whether wealthy or the less fortunate, were facing hard times. Now as we are slowing moving up, middle and lower class people are still suffering. Extending the taxes is only going to leave the rich richer and the poor even poorer until not only the unemployment rate is high, but so are the homeless rates as well.
Again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.
negrodamus forfeited this round.
negrodamus forfeited this round.
CJay forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CJay 5 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:||0||7|
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.