The Instigator
TheCynicalDebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Should Taxes Be Raised Exponentially For The Rich

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 4 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 69948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

TheCynicalDebater

Con

Should taxes be raised exponentially for the richest Americans? Round 1 is acceptance.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept.

Debate Round No. 1
TheCynicalDebater

Con

To understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like.

Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1,2]

Dr. Laffer also says:

"Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs." [1]

History

To understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth.

I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts

When President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus.

Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,3]

II. Kennedy Tax Cuts

John F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 25% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue.

Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1]

III. Reagan Tax Cuts

When he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility.

The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. [1,4]

Sources

1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
2. http://www.debate.org......
3. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.
4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

CON has a really nasty habit of stealing other people's work, and I noticed that he's done this in his other recent debate, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw what appeared to be an interesting case, but it nevertheless looked familar. I poked around on Google, and lo and behold, he plagiarized his entire argument from a debate 1HistoryGenius did a while back. You can locate that debate here: http://www.debate.org...


So, judges, we have a few options here: I obviously expect to win conduct because plagiarism isn't cool. But I also love this topic, and I'm a nice guy, so I want to give my adversary one more chance to post an actual argument that he himself has created. Heck, I've also been dying to debate 1HistoryGenius, so I may, if the muse strikes me, type out a couple dozen paragraphs refuting the (plagiarized) case my adversary has provided. But all of this is contingent on how PRO opts to respond in the next round. I'm not going to waste my time on a case if he can do nothing more than plagiarized--in that case, I urge you to vote for me, and we can move on from what I was hoping to be an interesting debate but turned out to be nothing more than a colossal waste of my time.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCynicalDebater

Con

Yah i admit it i give up
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept CON's concession.


Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Actually, I'm being dumb--that only means I'm arguing for a graduated marginal tax system, lol.

Okay, I'm definitely going to consider taking this.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I'd love to take this, but here's my concern.

Exponentially - "Something is said to increase or decrease exponentially if its rate of change must be expressed using exponents. A graph of such a rate would appear not as a straight line, but as a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower."

I'm all for arguing for a tax hike, but I don't have an exponential equation ready for what that rate ought to be, lol.

If you change the wording to "significantly" or just cut it all together, I'll gladly take this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
TheCynicalDebaterResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism and concession.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
TheCynicalDebaterResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism is bad :(
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
TheCynicalDebaterResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarised.
Vote Placed by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
TheCynicalDebaterResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized.