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

Tax increase should be Prioritized over spending cuts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/6/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,014 times Debate No: 27919
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




This Debate will be run like a standard PF debate: Round 1 for accepting, Round 2 for posting opening arguments, Round 3 for Rebuttals, and Round 4 for closing arguments (which no new evidence made be presented)

I look forward to Debating. hope to hear from someone soon!


Hi, I will gladly accept your debate, for I am also a PF debater. I hope that this debate is fun and is enjoyable to all of us.
Debate Round No. 1


First off I would just like to thank my opponent, and another PF debater, for accepting my challenge. May we have fun, and may it serve a greater purpose in the up coming weeks, as it is the current high school PF resolution. Now let us begin!

"Although it is not usually popular with the American public, the concept of raising taxes does offer certain benefits. In some cases, additional tax dollars are needed to continue vital services or to balance budgets. Due to this statement provided to us by Chris Joseph, I stand in strong affirmation of today's resolution. Resolved:" The United States Should prioritize tax increase overspending cuts . To provide an outlook on my current stance, 3 key areas will be reviewed.

Key area of analyzes 1) Prioritizing Tax increase benefits the economy in more ways then people think.

Sub-point A)More revenue and a balanced budget. Chris Joseph reports that “Raising taxes results in additional revenue to pay for public programs and services. Federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security are funded by tax dollars. Infrastructure such as state roads and the interstate highway system also require taxpayer funding. Real estate and property taxes are used to build and maintain schools.” as you can clearly see, without tax increases we can not sustain normality of life in the future, without the federal programming we currently have due to taxes. Also, if we look to an article written by the Noble Prize winning in Economics, Paul Krugman, he affirms how we need taxes by saying "The Obama Administration has proposed a Tax increase plan that will generate $1.6 Trillion in additional revenue in the next decade, while the GOP has only proposed a spending cut proposal that will cut important social programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, while only generating 1/5 of what the Obama Administration has proposed already".

Sub-point B) Sin Taxes help the general health, while bringing in additional revenue. If we look to a study, done by the, we see that Taxing harmful items such as tobacco could discourage people from using them. It states “If every state and the District of Columbia added a $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes, 2.3 million kids would not take up smoking, 1.2 million adults would give up the habit and 1 million premature smoking-related deaths would be prevented.” Also, on the website, it states how "Sin taxes, when last used in 2009, created an additional $20.6 Billion in revenue."

Sub-point C) The raising of income tax rates are proved, in the past, to work. On the website we see an article that shows how the raising of income taxes helped in the past, and they will help again. “ In 1993, President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress enacted deficit-reduction legislation that raised income tax rates for high-income taxpayers. In 2001, President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress cut income taxes. economic growth and job creation were much stronger after the Clinton tax increases than after the Bush tax cuts.”

Key area of analyzes 2) Spending Cuts destroy our economy.

Sub-point A) Budget cuts harm the economy. The the Heritage Foundation it gives 5 points on how spending cuts harm us. Here are 3 of them: 1) “As government health care is cut (or not provided in the first place) each of us must take on those costs on our own, and as demonstrated, pay up to seven times what the same care would have cost.” 2) “As infrastructure maintenance and modernization is cut, our economy becomes less competitive, unemployment increases and our wages and spending power fall.” 3) “As spending on education is cut, our costs of educating ourselves and our kids increase. College costs soar. And the overall education level of our people will decrease, making our country less competitive in the world.”

Sub-point B) Social security cuts will devastate the economy. Also, on the Heritage Foundation it affirms “Social Security allows working people to retire with at least a minimal income. If this is cut many could not retire for many more years (if ever), which would increase the unemployment rate because their jobs would not open up. The same is true as the retirement age is increased -- fewer job openings.

Thank you For you time, and I look forward to your opening statements Con!



Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts. The opposition side strongly negate this resolution. My contentions for negating this resolution are: prioritization of tax increases will harm us in the long term, we can afford to cut government spending, and spending cuts are more effective.

Our first contention is that prioritization will harm us in the long term. If the government cuts its spending, it would trim the 2013 deficit by $500 billion and could presumably get its borrowing under control. If this were to occur, while there may be a short-term recession, after 2013 economic growth will pick up and the labor market will improve. As a result, the unemployment rate will drop to 5.5% by 2018.The question becomes, are we ready to pull off the band-aid all at once and deal with the pain, or do we want to drag out the process over a period of years in hopes of evening out the discomfort? If we increase the tax, we will be on the right track in terms of trimming our deficit, we"ll head back into a recession in 2013. In the alternative, if do nothing, we may preserve our recent economic growth, but by failing to address the government"s bigger problem " it"s bloated deficit and outstanding debt " we may end up worse off ten years from now.

Our second contention is that many projects funded by the government is wasteful and can be afforded to be cut.
"Spending Cuts Instead of Tax Increases - Citizens Against Government Waste."Spending Cuts Instead of Tax Increases - Citizens Against Government Waste. Citizens Against Government Waste, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
It is not difficult to find waste, fraud and abuse in a $1.7 trillion budget. Each year, Citizens Against Government Waste finds the most flagrant cases of mismanagement and then prepares a blueprint for eliminating them. CAGW's Prime Cuts documents bureaucratic excess, corporate welfare, and poorly managed, obsolete, or duplicative programs. This year, 545 recommendations, which would save taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion in five years, include: Reforming government sponsored enterprises, saving $4.9 billion over five years; Giving states more control over the Superfund Program (getting rid of state's hazardous wastes) , saving $3.6 billion over five years; Privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority (company that builds dams for electricity), saving $2.5 billion over five years; and Eliminating the Advanced Technology Project (trying to find more advanced technology), saving $429 million over five years. It is clear that government isn't using its money effectively. Instead on focusing on increasing tax, which is not the best choice, we should focus on things that we know certain will work and can be afforded to, such as spending cuts.

Our last contention is that spending cuts are more effective. The $200 billion decrease in military spending had an immediate positive impact on the economy. Harlem Children's Zone (helping people in poverty) is another great example of how managed spending can still yield good results and outcomes. If stop spending as much money, the economy will grow by an average of 0.05% per year and an average of 231,000 jobs would be created.

( Which hurts more, tax increases or spending cuts, Veronique de Rugy, November 15, 2012, the National Review) The economists looked at 173 "fiscal consolidations" in rich countries, times when governments decided to reduce the long-run deficit. They then checked to see whether consolidations based mostly on tax hikes turned out better or worse than ones based on spending cuts. Both GDP and consumer spending tell the same story: Spending cuts are the less painful path to fiscal rectitude. When countries tried to get right with the bond markets, this IMF study found that nations that mostly raised taxes suffered about twice as much as nations that mostly cut spending.
Mark A. Bloomfield [President and CEO, American Council for Capital Formation], "A Symposium of Views: Can Tax Reform Save the U.S. Economy?" International Economy, (Winter 2012), pp. 48-56.
An econometric study by respected economist Allen Sinai notes that the economic activity sparked by eliminating the capital gains tax increases GDP by a little over 0.23 percentage points per year. Jobs increase by an average of 1.3 million annually while the unemployment rate drops 0.7 percent at its lowest point. Conversely, Sinai found that raising the top rate from the current 15 percent to 20 percent, as suggested in several deficit reduction plans, would cut annual economic growth by an average of 0.05 percent per year and an average of 231,000 jobs would be lost from 2011"16. Because tax increases will hurt the economy more, we cannot afford to gamble with the current crisis. We must prioritize a method that will work and will be better for the economy.

Because of these reasons, the opposition strongly negate this resolution.
Debate Round No. 2


I would first just like to thank my opponent for continuing the debate.

Now we must look into the many Miss-conceptions of my opponents case

In his first contention, he talks about about how "Tax's will harm America in the long run", however, this is a total false hood. He stated that "it will cut the deficit by $500 Billion", but if we look to Paul Krugman, Noble Prize Winner in Economics, we see him projecting "Spending cuts will only create a $300 Billion revenue by cutting NECCICARY programs within our government". My opponents then says "if we prioritize tax's, our economy will be in another recession", but once again a miss-conception. We are in the mess we are in now from cuts in the past and tax reductions...We have never seen tax's within an economy hurt, like in my case when I talk about how the Clinton Administrations tax increase was the reason for our surplus. We can also look to other countries. On the website Forbes. com, we see countries like Belgium (with a 54% tax rate), Finland (with a 49% tax rate), and Germany(with a 45% tax rate). these countries also have the highest GDPs in the world, ranking in the 8th,14th, and 18th places. The last MAJOR miss-conception is "Employment". my opponent would like to make you think employment will go up and unemployment will go down to 5.5%, as he stated in his case, however, this is not true, once again. In my case,from the Heritage Foundation it affirms “Social Security allows working people to retire with at least a minimal income. If this is cut many could not retire for many more years (if ever), which would increase the unemployment rate because their jobs would not open up. The same is true as the retirement age is increased -- fewer job openings.

Now my opponents 2nd and 3rd Contention are in the same boat, trying to say we have un-neccisary spending, however that spending creates American jobs no matter what it is. An example of this is in my opponents case by "Eliminating the Advanced Technology Project", which saves only $2.5 billion, compared to $1.6 Trillion from tax increase. If we "Eliminate" this project we will "Eliminate" American jobs, which will only harm social programs, the economy, and everyone even more. Another example is "spending cuts to the Military" as my opponent has proposed. first off, cutting this spending may help generate a billion dollars in revenue, it is still not worth destroying jobs and putting OUR country in harms way when tax increase will generate 100x more money. Second off, the Jobs and the way the military spending helps in every aspect of life. Even if you don't think the military effects YOU as a person, it does, because there are manufacturers of military machinery, which in return they get paid from the government and spend it at YOUR local store, which YOU get paid with... All and all, every piece of money the government hands out to programs, small, big, un-neccisary, or neccisary, it all gets circulated and is the reason we can sustain normality in life within our nation this moment. So, that turns all government spending into a neccisary process in which the government must participate in to survive, and I feel for ALL these reasons, and many more, that my opponents has no idea what a TRUE tax increase will do, and what a TRUE spending cut will destroy.

Thank you for your time, back to you CON!


Thank you for your rebuttal, and now I will go on to my own.

Let us first look at proposition's side of the argument.

First contention: Prioritizing Tax increase benefits the economy in more ways then people think.
Sub-point A)More revenue and a balanced budget.

Looking back at my own first contention, spending cuts will lead to a short recession but in the end, will solve the problem. Tax increases, however, in 10 years will lead to another economic downfall. (I will rebuild on this contention later on) Not only that, it is claimed that the government will take the money from social services, however, as I have mentioned in my second contention that there are wasteful projects that we can take money away from, so I feel that spending cuts will lead to a normal life, but in a more less dangerous way. Also, tax increases will lead to "abnormal life" The government is raising taxes. How can that be normal? People will have to pay more taxes and more money going out of their income. Thus, this contention falls.

Sub-point B) Sin taxes help the general health, while bringing in additional revenue.
Firstly, sin-taxes are not the best representation. While many people don't do these harmful things, many will continue on with these things even with taxes. If you're addicted to something, will money stop you? No. Many people will keep trying to get their hands on money to keep smoking or drinking. Also, this will hurt the poor and the middle classes.

Sub-point C) The raising of income tax rates are proved, in the past, to work
I would like to point out that I am not advocating for tax cuts, but that we should not prioritize tax increases. Since tax cuts have nothing to do with spending cuts, I see that this point is invalid. Also to point out that tax increases and tax cuts are not the opposite of each other. In a way, yes but just because tax increases may work doesn't mean it's better than spending cuts or not increasing taxes.

Key area of analyzes 2) Spending Cuts destroy our economy.
Sub-point A) Budget cuts harm the economy.
this point seems to be mainly about cutting social services and all that. As I have mentioned, we do not have to cut from these areas. There are wasteful projects that we can cut from. Thus spending cuts do not harm our economy.

Sub-point B) Social security cuts will devastate the economy.
Again, we have wasteful projects to cut from. I will talk about jobs while rebuilding my points.

Okay so now let's go on to my points

First contention, increase in tax will harm America in the long run
My opponent states that our mess is from tax cuts so tax increase will save our economy. Again, tax cuts and tax increases are not the exact opposites. So say that tax cuts are bad. That doesn't mean tax increases are exactly beneficial either. But this is not about this matter. It's about whether or not tax increases should be prioritized or not.
With the jobs, my opponent states that jobs will not open up because social security is cut. But, we have to realize that there are other sources to cut from, not just the social security. So this will not influence the raising of unemployment rate so my first contention still stands.

Second and Third contention has been refuted by saying that cutting projects will cut jobs and we will cut from important things. Firstly, while the jobs may be cut, in my first contention, I stated that jobs will increase and there will be less unemployment rate. I feel that this is no problem. Secondly, because there are other sources that we can cut from without harming ourselves, there is no reason for things like military to be cut.

Ultimately, spending cuts will not harm our social security or services, nor will it decrease creation of jobs. In the end, will solve the problem.

Thus I believe that this resolution must fall and that tax should not increase because it will affect our living and all the harms mentioned.

I now will look forward to the last part from the proposition.
Thank you
Debate Round No. 3


Maverick32 forfeited this round.


bestdebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jchung1029 5 years ago
so no cx?
No votes have been placed for this debate.