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

Tax cuts for everyone

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,139 times Debate No: 21534
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The government should cut taxes for everyone including the rich. This is what will happen step by step if they do that.
1st: People will have more money.
2nd: People will spend more.
3rd: Businesses will improve.
4th: Businesses will hire more employees and pay more tax dollars.
5th: The government will regain the money they lost from the tax cuts.
Also: if the rich gets a tax cut then businesses will improve because a lot of rich people own businesses. They also invest in businesses which helps start it. They should start off by cutting the highest tax rate from 35 percent to 33 percent and the second highest from 33 percent to 30 percent. The middle class and the poor should get a larger tax cut because they need a lot support.


Hello, superkamal26,
interesting debate topic, personally I agree with you, but let's see if I can play devil advocate.

Laffer curve
1. Your arguments center on the framework of the laffer curve where by a hypothetical economy would receive diminishing returns after a certain margin of taxation. (just rephrasing your argument)

1.10 Diminishing returns
1.11 the idea that the curve slopes downwards is because there are no incentives for entrepreneurs to work at 100% tax rate. However, there is research that shows it is possible (Malcomson, J, 1986). In brief, it depends on technology and the elasticity of labor supply in which they share a negative relationship.

1.20 Government spending
1.21 What we see as taxes by the government are mostly pure transfers. Taxes by the government are usually spent on building infrastructures, which also improve the condition of businesses. With a reduction in taxes, the onus is thus placed on the businesses to come up with such infrastructure themselves.

1.30 Market failure
1.31 This leads to my next point. In the situation of having free-riders, it is possible for the market not to produce the goods needed as aspiring entertainers could benefit without contributing for said infrastructures.
1.32 in the event of negative externality, it may be possible for the government to spend more to internalize these effects. For instance, pollution being an externality would become more than expected and government need to spend money cleaning up the environment which may be greater than the increase in tax.

1.40 Saving
1.41 In most economy, saving plays a huge role in the multiplier effect. In countries where saving is a great deal, consumer spending would hardly seem to increase as the money would be hoarded by them. in contrast, if saving isn't a huge percentage , reduction in taxes would plays a more prominent role.

Optimum point
2. In your argument
, you state that the highest income earners need taxes to reduce by 2% and the next income bracket by 3%. However, there isn't any economic backing to these clams.

2.10 Proving too much
2.11 By saying that reducing taxes increases spending, you are going in to the fallacy of "proving too much". This is so as by throwing back your argument to itself, one could keep reducing taxes ad infinitum until the government hasn't any percentage to tax from thus voiding the original premise.

2.20 Optimum point
2.21 from wolfram|alpha, we could see a decrease in tax around 2003 led to decrease in state revenue even at prevailing mean value of 15-12%.
2.22 In addition, statistical tax rate differ across countries and while some countries might have low tax, high tax revenue, it does not apply universally.

Malcomson, J (1986). "Some analytics of the laffer curve". Journal of Public Economics 29 (3): 263. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(86)90029-0
Debate Round No. 1


If you think the government should higher taxes then you're wrong because if they do that then people will spend less money and save more. Most people spend more money when they get a tax cut not a tax increase more money people spend the better it is for the economy. When people spend money, they usually spend it by buying something from a business or paying a business to do something. When they do that, businesses make money. When businesses make a lot of money they succeed and hire more employees, that's why the more money people spend the better it is for the economy. If the government cuts taxes then businesses will make more money because people will spend more. When the government first cuts taxes it will take in less money but like I said businesses will pay more tax dollars to make up for the decrease in government revenue. In the same time jobs will be created. There needs to spending cuts if this happens so that the tax cut does not add to the deficit. President Reagan cut taxes which stimulated the economy. By the end of his presidency the economy was a lot better than it was in the beginning of his presidency. Did this argument change your opinion on taxes? If not feel free to send me another argument.


Hello, superkamal26,

Nope my argument still stands. My point was never a pure calling for higher taxes but to show that an optimum point exists that it may be higher than the current level. It appears that you reused your stating premise, thus allow me to deconstruct it and rebut point by point.

3.0 “higher taxes … people will spend less money and save more”

3. 1 Assuming that we are talking about income tax, higher taxes do not encourage people to save. Instead, people would still spend according to the elasticity of the goods. In fact the reverse is true. Having less capital to spend, people would not be able to afford to save if they wish to maintain their current standard of living.

4.0 “When businesses make a lot of money … better it is for the economy.”

4.1 It is debatable that businesses would choose to reinvest back to the economy especially if there is an on-going financial crisis. Instead, businesses might want to build a hedge fund or worst, funnel their resources overseas.

4.2 You also assess that businesses create jobs. This might be true in the States. However, in some countries, the government is the main employer of jobs. This means in the short term, these workers would suffer a decrease in wages, this would lead to less consumer spending and, in the long term, lesser revenue for businesses.

Debate Round No. 2


superkamal26 forfeited this round.


Since superkamal26 forfeited, I will address Buddamoose concerns (found in the comments)
Taxes are necessary for a) correcting market failure and b) expenditure on social goods. Without going into too much details.

a) Market failure occurs where there is an external cost or benefits which businesses do not account for. Thus, the greater the mismatch, the greater the taxes levied.

b) These are goods which the community as a whole deem to be important but businesses do not cover because there is no way to prevent free-riders to latch on. Example, defence spending, infrastructures…etc
Debate Round No. 3


superkamal26 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Ive always thought the whole premise of tax cuts or tax increases as a boost to an exonomy was flawed. Simply put, Spending now= less spending later, saving now= more spending later.
No votes have been placed for this debate.