The Instigator
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
murdokahn
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 5 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,899 times Debate No: 35595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

1Historygenius

Con

In this debate I will be arguing that taxes should not be raised on the rich, but should instead be lowered in order to create economic growth and raise revenue.

My opponent must argue that taxes should be raised on the rich. By definition, the rich will be considered everyone making an income over $147,000.

No trolling or semantics.

Round 1 is for acceptance of the debate only.
murdokahn

Pro

Hello, I am new to this website and if I make errors in regard to formatting I apologize. The way I understand the argument is this: You are for a flat tax - where everyone is taxed the same regardless of income. I am arguing for a progressive tax rate. People who make more money should pay more in taxes. I am not making the argument that people who make a lot of money should give away their money simply because they make a lot - I am making the argument that a progressive tax rate is better than the alternative flat-tax rate for moral and economic reasons.

Economic reason:

We know that low taxes spur business growth. This in turn allows for business to accumulate profit and have more money to employ people - thus stimulating job growth and the economy.

With a low flat-tax rate, there will be additional revenue available to those business to expand their business and stimulate employment and economic growth. I am aware of that. The goal of Americans should not be to serve the economy. The purpose of any economy is to help serve the needs of the people - this is what the founding father of economics, Adam Smith, has said. With a low flat-tax rate the purpose is to serve the "engine" of economic growth without seeing what the result of that growth would produce. It would produce monopolistic companies dominating a particular sector in each and every market. Why? I'll show you.

Company "A" is a small business. They make $10,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $9,000. Let's say they reinvest half of the profits (which is what business do) back into their business to expand it. They grow at a rate that $4,500 worth of capital will allow. Now, let's take a look at company "B" a very large business. They make $50,000,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $45,000,000 and reinvest half of the profits (just like the small business does) back into their business to expand it. We can see that the very large business will grow exponentially faster than the small business. What does this mean? By having a low flat-tax rate on a very high-earning business, they can achieve market dominance by offering their goods or services much cheaper than the competing businesses - and have the funds to grow new chains of their business everywhere. Now that they've achieved market dominance by way of producing more cheaply than the competition - and also by offering more availability by having the funds to create chains in towns or cities the small business did not have the funds to create, they are incentivized to produce low-quality, overpriced, products - with a disincentive to invest in research and development for discovering new technology to enhance the product, but only to lower the cost of producing it.

With a progressive tax rate, it allows for more competition from the small business by slowing the rate of growth from the big corporation. This means that consumers win by having differentiated products, technological advancements to enhance the product, and superior-quality products competing for the demands by consumers.

Moral reason:

This one is actually quite simple. You could make the moral argument that you believe it is unfair to tax a large corporation more than a small one, but then you have to take into consideration of fairness to the middle-class, not just to the large corporation. If Joe makes $1,000 a month and pays a flat-tax of 10% and he is left with $900, then where is the fairness in taxing the large corporation the same amount, but keeping $45,000,000? A flat-tax harms the middle to poor class more than anyone, because they still need to buy groceries, food, gas, and other essentials but proportionally, have significantly less income to do it and less taxation means that those in poverty have less tax-funded assistance to help them pay for those essentials.

Taxes are not complete waste as some seem to view them. With a progressive tax-rate, you not only have economic and moral reasons to support it, but also for the tax-funded goods or benefits its yields. Taxes are what funds education, police, military, infrastructure, national parks, social security, amongst many other critically important things relating to the well-being of Americans.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

The Laffer Curve

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.
murdokahn

Pro

You have a sound proof for your argument - which is for economic growth only without taking into consideration equity or morality.

If you abandon the needs of the people, and only work to serve the "engine" of economic growth as I've mentioned in my last post, then the needs will focus on the economy rather than the people within the economy.

A great example of a country following your ideals for "economic growth" above all other considerations is China. China has had a major shift in economic philosophy over the years - the "opening up" policies in 1978 let private industry maximize market share without the government regulating the economy [1]. Fast forward to China today: Capitalism is destroying the country economically and ethically. The environment is in China is utterly destroyed [2.] - factories sought profit without regard to paying for their waste, so they did not have reason to change their ways as long as "economic growth" was being achieved. There are terrible labor laws - child labor, no workers rights, working in dangerous environments, working in crowded environments, and working with little or no pay at all. It did not change because "economic growth" was being achieved by taking advantage of them. As a result of this booming economic growth, the Gini Coefficient, which is a standard measure of inequality [3], is estimated to be above 0.60 (one of the highest in the world).
The worst of all, China's government sees no need to change the increasing output of pollution, worker discrimination, environment degradation, and rising inequality because it is attributing to "economic growth."

This is your major argument: economic growth should be our main focus because you believe that economic growth alone translates into a higher quality of life for people. I argue that our focus should *not only* focus on economic growth, but on sustainability and quality of life as well.

Sustainability in regard to the environment - we should not just exploit the resources of our finite environment to achieve economic growth. The environment provides us with not only resources, but with fresh air, beauty, and scenic value.

Quality of life - this is affected by equity and the environment. In regard to to equity in America, there is an increasing rate at which the gap is widening between the middle and upper class [4]. If people have less and less social mobility, what is the point of solely focusing on economic growth to help only the richest of Americans and push down those who try to rise up?

Economic growth is focusing on growth only.
Economic development is a balance of economic growth, sustainability, and quality of life.
We should focus on economic development.

SOURCES:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://topics.nytimes.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

Basically my opponent said I was right on economic growth and government revenue. As he says here:

"You have a sound proof for your argument - which is for economic growth only without taking into consideration equity or morality."

This debate was over if raising taxes on the rich would create more economic growth and more revenue, so my opponent has basically lost this debate.

However, I will address my opponent's moral and equity arguments anyway.

My Refutations

Equity

My opponent is really confused here. I'm talking about income taxes, not corporate taxes. Because of this, I will not counter my opponent's point because he is simply wrong and is not arguing what were debating.

Moral Reason

Again, were talking about the income tax, not a corporate rate. My opponent has seemed to confuse the two.

He then talks about China, but in fact there not having good economic growth because their a socialist country. Free market capitalism is the way to go if you want economic growth. Also, I have refuted your quality of life argument. Under every tax cut, income mobility rapidly increased.

Finally the environment. This has to do with regulations, not taxation.

Conclusion

My opponent is very confused here. My arguments have been agreed as correct and my opponent's arguments are just plainly irrelevant to this debate.
murdokahn

Pro

"This debate was over if raising taxes on the rich would create more economic growth and more revenue, so my opponent has basically lost this debate."

If the intention of this debate was to prove that a known cause leads to a known effect, you are simply lacking critical thinking. Critical thinking employs good judgment, context, and competency in making a decision (in this case, whether or not we should have progressive taxation) - especially a decision which huge implications that concerns the economy. Critical thinking takes into account not only efficiency, but equity and morality as well. Is it efficient to kill every murderer that is guilty after being convicted so we dont have to house them in jail? yes. Is it moral? No. Also, it is not up to you to declare who has already won the debate - it is up to the voters.

Equity: I am talking about income taxes. Who starts a corporation? A person at one point who starts the business. How do they start this business? With an income. The income he uses to start the business is separate from the corporate tax rate. People who are born into rich families inherit a monetary. Also, I see that your shallow reply to my key points show that you don't understand the concept at all.

Moral reason: there is a moral implication involved in tax rates. Let me set an extreme example for you: Everyone gets taxed at 99% of their income. Would this be moral? No. Who would be able to survive? The richest 1% would still be able to buy basic necessities but neither the middle or lower class would. This is the same fundamental concept of morality in the income tax rate: Those who earn millions, should pay more in taxes than someone that lives in poverty. To say morality doesn't apply to the income tax rate is simply wrong.

The point in mentioning the China example is that they were using capitalism focusing solely on economic growth (as you do) and it created numerous problems for the well-being of those living in China so it also would in America. Well-being is the central focus here: just because lowering taxes on the rich would spur economic growth, doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the majority of people within that economy.

The point in mentioning the environment, is that it is simply an exploitable resource in the eyes of capitalism. Taxes help to support national parks and the preservation of the environment - funding helped by a progressive tax rate.

Your concluding sentence is very arrogant: "...My arguments have been agreed as correct and my opponent's arguments are just plainly irrelevant to this debate." Let the voters decide for themselves. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Con

"If the intention of this debate was to prove that a known cause leads to a known effect, you are simply lacking critical thinking. Critical thinking employs good judgment, context, and competency in making a decision (in this case, whether or not we should have progressive taxation) - especially a decision which huge implications that concerns the economy. Critical thinking takes into account not only efficiency, but equity and morality as well. Is it efficient to kill every murderer that is guilty after being convicted so we dont have to house them in jail? yes. Is it moral? No. Also, it is not up to you to declare who has already won the debate - it is up to the voters."

Critical thinking was never supposed to be part of this debate. I am arguing economic growth and government revenue only. Never was equity or morality supposed to be part of this debate at all and that's the bottom line. If I wanted to to debate if raising taxes wasn't moral, I would debate that and NEVER were we debating progressive taxation vs. a flat tax. This is only on taxes and the rich.

"Equity: I am talking about income taxes. Who starts a corporation? A person at one point who starts the business. How do they start this business? With an income. The income he uses to start the business is separate from the corporate tax rate. People who are born into rich families inherit a monetary. Also, I see that your shallow reply to my key points show that you don't understand the concept at all."

Lets get back to your original argument:

"Company "A" is a small business. They make $10,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $9,000. Let's say they reinvest half of the profits (which is what business do) back into their business to expand it. They grow at a rate that $4,500 worth of capital will allow. Now, let's take a look at company "B" a very large business. They make $50,000,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $45,000,000 and reinvest half of the profits (just like the small business does) back into their business to expand it......"

Your are clearly here talking about corporate taxes, not income taxes. You go on about monopoly, but that's also strictly business and does not focus on the individual, economic growth, or government revenue. This argument fails because this is not what were taking about.

"This one is actually quite simple. You could make the moral argument that you believe it is unfair to tax a large corporation more than a small one, but then you have to take into consideration of fairness to the middle-class, not just to the large corporation. If Joe makes $1,000 a month and pays a flat-tax of 10% and he is left with $900, then where is the fairness in taxing the large corporation the same amount, but keeping $45,000,000? A flat-tax harms the middle to poor class more than anyone, because they still need to buy groceries, food, gas, and other essentials but proportionally, have significantly less income to do it and less taxation means that those in poverty have less tax-funded assistance to help them pay for those essentials."

That's your moral argument. Now:

"Moral reason: there is a moral implication involved in tax rates. Let me set an extreme example for you: Everyone gets taxed at 99% of their income. Would this be moral? No. Who would be able to survive? The richest 1% would still be able to buy basic necessities but neither the middle or lower class would. This is the same fundamental concept of morality in the income tax rate: Those who earn millions, should pay more in taxes than someone that lives in poverty. To say morality doesn't apply to the income tax rate is simply wrong."

Morality was never part of this debate. We're arguing economic growth and government revenue. Obviously with a 99% income tax there would be little economic growth. However, lower taxes does create income mobility and economic growth, I have proven that.

Finally, on China and environmental issues these still do little with overall taxes in the United States. I said lowering taxes would be a good idea, but I never said where the tax revenue had to go.

Conclusion

The voters know what we were exactly supposed to debate and my opponent did not refute my arguments. He also focused in two issues not involved with economic growth and revenue. That's one point against conduct. The other point against conduct falls n the fact that he was not supposed to give opening arguments in the first round. Arguments and conduct to me.
murdokahn

Pro

I appreciate your response - but I believe it is incorrect.

"Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich" is the title of the debate.

"Raised" is the keyword here. "Raised" as in, not a flat tax. The tax system we have now, is a progressive one. If you wanted to specify your debate question further, you should have worded the debate as: "should taxes be raised on the rich further than what they currently pay in [which is progressive] income tax?"

I am using critical thinking in my approach to answer the question this whole debate is about: whether "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" - as opposed to "not raised": not raised would mean a flat-tax. The method in answering this debate question is not about efficiency "(economic growth and government revenue [are increased by non-raised taxes])", but whether we should go that route in answering whether or not to have a raised (as opposed to a flat) tax on the rich. The method in answering whether or not "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" requires concern to not only economic efficiency, but morality and equity as well.

My stance in summary

1. in answering the question of this debate, which is "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" I am making an argument for a progressive tax rate (where the rich get taxed more) as opposed to a flat-tax (where everyone gets taxed equally regardless of socioeconomic status). If you refute that this debate was not about that, the burden rests on your lack of specificity in the question. This is not a matter of semantics, but of ambiguity (if it was unintentional) thus, my arguments to the question are valid and completely relevant in answering the question.

2. We should have a progressive ("raised") tax rate on the rich, as opposed to a flat tax rate where everyone is taxed the same.

3. The reason we should not keep a flat-tax rate on the lower, middle, and upper class, is because it would create even more inequality (as shown below) -leading to lower social mobility - (which is already a widening gap even though you said it wasn't - see picture below), and it trades economic efficiency for both morality and equity. I believe that efficiency, equity, and morality should all be deciding factors on whether or not taxes should be "raised" on the rich.

http://jobenomicsblog.com...

Proof that inequality leads to lower social mobility: "Several studies have found the ability of children from poor or middle-class families to rise to upper income — known as "upward relative intergenerational mobility" — is lower in the US than in other developed countries— and at least two economists have found lower mobility linked to income inequality [1].


4. China followed the same capitalistic ideals of having an "economically efficient" vs an "economically developed" country, which has led to its current problems of morality and equity.


Moral problem of solely focusing on economic efficiency:

A. Decline in quality of life:

- workers rights: none or little pay, no regard to external costs to the environment (china has 7 of the worlds 10 most polluted cities in the world resulting from it's immense economic growth)

- complete disregard for the environment. China has 7 of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world [2] and produces the most CO2 emissions in the world[3]

- rising income inequality gap - one of the highest in the world and rising. This lowers social mobility for the lower and middle class. The "Gini Coefficient" which is used to measure income inequality, is estimated to be at 0.60. "A report by the Chinese Household Finance Survey Center of Chengdu's Southwestern University of Finance and Economics said in Dec. 2012 that the coefficient was 0.61 for 2010, much higher than the global average of 0.44. [4]"

- The Chinese government has intentionally overlooked these problems, as would we, if "economic growth" - AKA "GDP targets" was the only goal. Now they are facing serious problems [5].


Equity problem of solely focusing on economic efficiency:

- It will lead to an even higher income gap between the richest and middle class - lowering social mobility, or in other words, the ability to rise up into a different socioeconomic status

- It leaves less funding for tax-supported public goods such as: education, environmental preservation, police, national defense, social programs, and more.

- those living in poverty will be taxed the same percentage-wise as a billionaire.

5. Income tax is relevant because it determines how much money can be used to buy business capital.

You say that I am talking about corporate tax, but I am talking about a flat income tax across all classes negatively affecting the business dynamics in America because the rich would have far more money than they would today to achieve market dominance. Let's say a middle-class man and a rich man plan to start a business. In order to start a business, you need money to start it. If taxes are at 10% on someone who earns $1,000,000 a month, regardless if he acquired that money after corporate taxation or not, he is significantly more able to begin and expand a business than someone who is taxed at 10% earning $5,000 a month. The difference in income by having a non-raised (flat) tax on the rich, will only exacerbate this problem and lead to monopolistic domination of a particular market because the person who would be competing against him in the business world would not have enough capital to start his business. This happens currently - look at Walgreens vs. Rite Aid, look at Sony vs. Microsoft, look at Coke vs. Pepsi. They dominate in the pharmaceutical, console, and soft drink markets respectively. This kind of market dominance will be much worse if the rich are taxed at a low-flat income tax rate because they would have significantly more money to attain business capital. I have listed the reasons why monopolistic dominance in a market is bad:
". . .they are incentivized to produce low-quality, overpriced, products - with a disincentive to invest in research and development for discovering new technology to enhance the product, but only to lower the cost of producing it."


In response to your last sentence: The issue were were to debate is "Taxes should be raised on the rich" and that is the argument that I am addressing. You ask this question in your debate but then say: But only based on variable "A" without taking relevant variables "B" and "C" into account. The variable "A" is efficiency, "B" is morality, and "C" is equity. The debate is over the question asked and I addressed it with relevancy.


I could argue that you should have conduct points taken away also for reasons I won't say but have pointed out earlier, but that would be poor conduct to do so - so I will not. I also addressed possible issues of my formatting by apologizing in my opening sentence because this is my first debate ever on this website. You decided to proceed with the debate the way it was, and it was accepted.

I am glad to have been a part of this debate and look forward to possibly debating you in the future, hopefully in good spirit.

Voters - you decide!




SOURCES:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://news.discovery.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.wantchinatimes.com...

[5] http://www.gulf-times.com...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Darn, I just vote without reasons, because the people I vote for just seem better in their arguments. I got banned from voting because I didn't give reasons for my vote.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
BTW, on your 0.6 gini source, if you include US off-shoring into an honest assessment in income equality, you may arrive at a similar conclusion. There's no justifiable reason to use this source or argument to assert that lack of socialist redistributive policies would lead to some sort of imminent collapse you envision China (and not America) is currently undergoing. If anything, socialist policies in China predating WTO entry were much more indicative of social collapse.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Your points on corporate taxes are debatable, and your source is dubious.

Most other sources point out that the wealthy pay the vast majority of corporate tax and is thus progressive, but this is only because the wealthy inordinately participate in corporations...it does not substantiate progressivity on its own, but only the source of income.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

Personal income taxes are progressive because the more you earn, the more of a percentage of your earnings are subject to tax, unlike flat taxes i.e the corporate tax. There is nothing that necessitates that the more you earn, the more you must pay in corporate tax...that's a batty assumption to have. It could be that all your assets are held in non-corporate entities.

---

"Funny when you say my claims are unsubstantiated but don't provide a source for your facts."

I'm not debating this resolution. If you want a source, you're more than welcome to politely ask for one. As a debater though, it's expected that you source a claim like this in your debate.

---

"False, I sourced it in my concluding argument - which you didn't read."

Then you admit to not only not sourcing it where you cited it, but also admit to plagiarism in that instance as well.

Please properly source.

---

"...I honestly thought we were arguing a progressive vs. a flat tax and its implications on the economy."

1) You conceded that CON's arguments were about economic impact and agreed with them.
2) To my knowledge you did not demonstrate why social and environmental impact affected the economy, or were so important to warrant the resolution. Maybe you did in the final round, but I did not read it for reasons I cited.

---

Since this is your first debate here, I will give you conduct. Welcome to DDO.
Posted by murdokahn 3 years ago
murdokahn
Wrich: http://wiki.answers.com...
The amount paid in corporate taxes is still higher proportionally for middle and lower class.

"Totally unsubstantiated. Most (above 90%) of Chinese think their lives will improve economically."

Funny when you say my claims are unsubstantiated but don't provide a source for your facts.

"Unsourced, and I know this to be false...it is around 0.4 to 0.5, around the same as America. This is irresponsible and reprehensible to assert."

False, I sourced it in my concluding argument - which you didn't read.

I admit I made mistakes in this debate - mostly for not centering on my position and going off-topic - but I honestly thought we were arguing a progressive vs. a flat tax and its implications on the economy. In that argument I believe I would've won. Oh well, it was a fun debate as well as my first. Congrats Con!
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
CONCLUSION

To be fair, I did not read PRO's closing statement, as he would have had 3 rounds of argumentation compared to CON's 2. I also did not read CON's final round, as I was already convinced how I would vote after PRO's second round of argumentation.

I found CON's position to be something I disagree with, but PRO conceded they were valid from an economic perspective.

PRO attempted to argue that higher taxes leads to equality and environmental protection, the latter being absolutely absurd. Hunter-gatherer societies have a smaller economic footprint and thus conserve nature in its natural state better, but the benefits of a higher-order society far outweigh such considerations.

PRO's case was essentially that economic growth is not enough to warrant lower taxes. While I agree with such a stance, I do not see PRO substantiating it in an honest or coherent manner for various reasons. As BoP is on PRO, it did not matter much what CON actually cited, although I recognize that PRO did not refute CON's case in a credible manner.

Arguments CON.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO broke rules in turning round #1 into more than acceptance, but PRO also has BoP, so I will allow it.

2) PRO: "We can see that the very large business will grow exponentially faster than the small business"

Wrong. They grow at the same rate...the large business does not grow faster.

3) PRO: "By having a low flat-tax rate on a very high-earning business, they can achieve market dominance"

Again wrong...they already have relative market dominance.

4) PRO is essentially equating the progressive tax system to anti-trust law. This is IMHO ridiculous, since the engines of growth are corporations, and corporate taxes are not progressive.

PRO's moral reason is synonymous to the commonly accepted reasons for the progressive tax, i.e. cost of living considerations.

5) CON: "When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus."

What also followed was the causes of the Great Depression, i.e. unrestrained "animal spirits". Will see if PRO goes here.

6) Laffer is argument from authority...had I taken PRO on this I would have cited Buffett's refutation of this theory and argued that Buffett is a better authority. Again, will see how PRO argues.

7) PRO: "Fast forward to China today: Capitalism is destroying the country economically and ethically. "

Totally unsubstantiated. Most (above 90%) of Chinese think their lives will improve economically.

8) To think that low taxes are responsible for China's economic degradation is wholly ridiculous.

9) PRO: " the Gini Coefficient, which is a standard measure of inequality [3], is estimated to be above 0.60 (one of the highest in the world)."

Unsourced, and I know this to be false...it is around 0.4 to 0.5, around the same as America. This is irresponsible and reprehensible to assert.
http://www.reuters.com...
(conclusion next)
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
I just wanted to say that the Con is handing out astonishing information and sources I've been needing for a while. Thank you for this debate :)
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
The Rich have higher taxes. With the Tax Bracket system, the average person is taxes from 10%-20% while the wealthy get a glorious 35%.

If you want to argue Tax cuts, than understand that the Rich are not the only people using them. Everyone uses tax cuts, 47% of the population uses so many that they do not even pay income tax.

True equality must be met on every level, for every person... Be it the level of treatment, public education, or Taxes, and be it the poor, the middle, or the wealthy.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
I'll keep debating.
Posted by ThePhilosopherRuler 3 years ago
ThePhilosopherRuler
Certainly, I'll be keeping my eye on this debate, so will you still be continuing the debate with murdo as con or will you be restarting this thread?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
1HistorygeniusmurdokahnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Do taxes need to be raised on those earning over $147k/year? Yes. This is true for so many obvious reasons that I had expected to see a far better justification for common sense in taxation. (Require those who use the most infrastructure to fund the most infrastructure.) I feel that PRO demonstrated enough rhetorical skill to accomplish this, but missed the point of the debate - to argue this premise. I agree with PRO, but I am forced to award arguments to CON.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1HistorygeniusmurdokahnTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Will give conduct to PRO because this is his first debate on this website.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
1HistorygeniusmurdokahnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to state I am very liberal but I understand the point to capitalism and why it is better than socialism at least in my opinion. I believe Pro got a bit off topic. Cons arguments could be construed as weak, but due to pro being off topic in some of his arguments, it was not capitalized on. As far as the sources this goes to con by default because of how many times pro uses Wikipedia, instead of taking the times to use the links within the site. In most formal debates Wikipedia would not be accepted as a source. While I believe taxes on the rich could be raised in some instances, and even work in today's society, however in this particular debate Con met his burden of proof. He stayed on topic and had a few good arguments.
Vote Placed by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
1HistorygeniusmurdokahnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro got completely off track during the debate. Raising taxes on the rich being better for the people is only an assumption and it is completely false. I would have liked for Con to address the fact that raising taxes on people does not help anyone but just sends more $ to the government who will find a way to spend it on things the people often care little to nothing about. Also, why should taxes be raised on the rich when they pay so much more than the poor. Instead of focusing on percentages which is the wrong focus, focus on the actual amount the rich pay. The top 1% feed the government about 38% of its revenue. The top 10% pay 70% of the total taxes so the bottom 90% earners pay only 30%. That is what you need to understand more than anything, Pro. Fairness would be lowering taxes on the rich.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
1HistorygeniusmurdokahnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro got pretty off topic and didnt entirely dress the economic reasons for not raising taxes on the rich which was the main argument in the case. A lot of cons arguments were unproven correlations and kinda weak, but he still met his BoP and gave reasons for not raising taxes that in the end stood. Arguments to the com but everything else was about even, could've been better