The Instigator
BobTurner
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
stolethekimchi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

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 6 votes the winner is...
BobTurner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 49327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

BobTurner

Pro

I want this to be a very quick debate on whether taxes ought to go up or not.

For the sake of this debate, the "rich" will be defined as the top 2%.

Con should post his or her argument in Round 1, and then must post "no round, as agreed upon" In round 3 -- failure to do so results in a 7-point forfeit to me.
stolethekimchi

Con

ehh boi, et me start off by shakin me wopper n' sayin' i ain't yur teepicul drek irushmun. now we irush ain't got nuttin" genst rich and nuttin' for, but aint' these the ladeehs who need supportien? en iruland me bois love a good brawl and thee reech fol always pey for oor beer n' milk. yu simpley dont understaund me countree and yu try tu slap ur ideas in ma face like i slap me giant whoppper in ya wifes feace.
Debate Round No. 1
BobTurner

Pro

I put my opponent's first argument into Google Translate, and here's what I came up with:

ehh boi, et me start off by shakin me wopper n' sayin' i ain't yur teepicul drek irushmun. now we irush ain't got nuttin" genst rich and nuttin' for, but aint' these the ladeehs who need supportien? en iruland me bois love a good brawl and thee reech fol always pey for oor beer n' milk. yu simpley dont understaund me countree and yu try tu slap ur ideas in ma face like i slap me giant whoppper in ya wifes feace.

That's not much of an argument, nor is there anything that I can rebut necessarily. I'm not "slapping my ideas" in anyone's face. We're simply debating the topic, as the purpose of this site is.

Anyway, here are my arguments:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts are good for the economy. The Congressional Research Service looked into this and analyzed tax rates since 1945 (1). Here was their conclusion:

Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax 
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession.

They concluded, after looking at 65 years of rates, that tax cuts do not increase productivity, savings, or investment, but do increase income inequality, which by and of itself poses a substantial threat to the economy.

2. The Laffer Curve is plausible, but there is no evidence that we are at the peak of the Laffer curve and in danger of shrinking revenue or growth. The Economy Policy Institue had this to say about how high the rate could go (2):
Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013. This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.

Furthermore, they commented in the same stae on the impact of tax rates since WWII, and came to the same conclusion as the Congressional Research Service:

Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth—private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity—nor on overall economic growth rates.


3. Corporations are getting huge breaks (3). Citizens for Tax Justice conducted a study and found, among other things, that one third of corporations they studied paid a tax rate lower than 10 percent; that, out of the 288 companies they studied, 55 enjoyed enjoyed several years of no taxes -- 203 no tax years in total -- and 111 companies, including GE, Boeing, and Exxon Mobile, paid negative tax rates; and the average corporate income tax is 19.4% only.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that corporate tax rates generate growth. According to the EPI, again, not only is the corporate income tax not high by historic standards, but there is no evidence that cutting it would generate growth (4).

4. We have a federal deficit we need to address, and an economy to stimulate, and simply need the money. We can get more money by raising taxes, and we know the ramifications of doing so range from negligible to zilch. So let's do it.




1. http://www.foreffectivegov.org...
2. http://www.epi.org...
3. http://www.ctj.org...;
4. http://www.epi.org...;
stolethekimchi

Con

stolethekimchi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTurner

Pro

All arguments dropped, and the R3 rule still applies.

Please vote Pro.
stolethekimchi

Con

stolethekimchi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
I did actually lol. I'm doing a number of mini-debates.

I don't know if I'd report him...
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Pro start this debate with someone else. Also, everyone report Con's post. He clearly has no intention of taking this website seriously, and he isn't funny.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Was that actually an argument? At first I thought it was in a different language..
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
It's terrifying that I could read and comprehend con's argument and relate to it....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had bad grammar, and forfeited. Pro had a convincing argument with sources.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: No doubt, pro won the debate.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won hands down. Con had a terrible argument with horrible grammar. Pro gave a superior one backed up by sources. Con dropped the whole debate with forfeits. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: FF
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
BobTurnerstolethekimchiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro since Con forfeited two rounds. S & G goes to Pro for obvious reasons. Pro was the only one who made a coherent argument. Pro was the only one who actually cited his sources.