Taxes should be Significantly Cut
Thanks Pro for this debate. I will argue that significant reduction in taxation is not a good idea, and that taxes are necessary. Good luck Pro, I am CONtra.
The 7 are:
The Income Tax.
The National Retail Sales Tax.
The Payroll Tax.
Excise Taxes (on things like Cigarettes, Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, etc...).
Gasoline and Carbon Taxes.
Now for the opening debates:
Tax 1 (The Income Tax): I will split this into two parts. First Point: Raising the Income Tax right now will kill the economy. This is simple economics. Right now, the more consumer money spent, the less we will be in an economic slump. Consumer buying increases aggregate demand, which in turn increases supply, thus raising GDP. Raising the income tax would take money away from consumers that they would otherwise spend. "Since the economy is already growing so slowly, why in the world would we want to implement a 3.8 trillion dollar tax hike by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? That would be like planting a steel-toe boot to the skull of the economy when it���‚��„�s already on the ground, bleeding.": http://rightwingnews.com.... Second Point: The Income Tax is too Progressive. The disprarity between the rich's tax rate and the poor's tax rate is astounding. The top 1% pay a 45% income tax, while the bottom 47% pay no income taxes. Not to mention, raising taxes on the rich would prevent money that would have previously gone into creating new businesses or investing in new ones, thus creating jobs, would be gone. "The rich in America obviously have lots of money, but there are simply not enough of them to fund the president�‚��s preferred level of spending.""They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that ���‚��"tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,���‚��� as ���‚��"an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.���‚���: http://american.com.... "Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.: http://www.devvy.com.... Decrease taxes, help the economy.
Tax 2 (The National Retail Sales Tax): Again, I will split this up into two points. First Point: Raising the National Retail Sales Tax right now will kill economic growth. This has a more profound effect during a recession than raising the income tax does. This charges people extra to help the economy! How silly is that? If we raise the sales tax, the Government would be in essence encouraging people not to buy, and therefore, not to help the economy! "This tax increase would take over one billion dollars out of the hands of North Carolina working families and put it back into government coffers.""They seem to forget that the sales tax affects everyone, and has a greater impact on working people and senior citizens on fixed incomes. Everyone loses more money if we raise the sales tax, including those who are unemployed.": http://www.beaufortobserver.net.... Second Point: The sales tax is exteremely unnecessary expect in extreme inflation periods. The sales tax is unneccesary even in a normal economy because you are still penalizing the consumer for shopping. Why would you do that? That is what keeps the economy afloat. Decrease taxes, help the economy.
Tax 3 (The Payroll Tax): I will split this into two points. First Point: The Payroll Tax is extremely unneccesary. Most of the revenue drawn from the payroll tax goes back to them in later years through social security, but in small amounts. Social Security should be to the choice of the worker. If the worker does not want social security in later life, than the Federal Government should not forceibly take his money to fund a project that he or she does not even want. It is not the Government's Obligation, Job, or Duty to make people save. That is the individual's decision, and they have the right to choose for themselves. Second Point: A cut of the payroll tax is good for small businesses. "You have to spend money to take advantage of that tax credit, but if a small business is thinking about expanding, it provides more certainty for them to schedule an expansion or upgrade.": http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com.... Small business has taken the brunt of the recession's fury, and an increase in the payroll taxes would make the financial and economic situation even worse. In fact, cutting them would help the economy in many ways.
Tax 4 (Property Taxes): I will not go in to much detail on these taxes, but they are even more unnecessary than the top three. Why would you tax someone on the amount of land they own or the inheritance they receive? Especially the inheritance taxes. I mean the poor receive inheriatances too. It' is not just the rich. "It (property taxes) doesn't work so well when it is used to redistribute wealth on a grand scale. ": http://www.tax.com.... "The tax (the estate and inheritance taxes) also is very expensive to comply with. A 1992 National Tax Journal study found the compliance cost was $1 for every $1 raised. Combining these costs with the reduction in output it causes, it is clear the estate tax is a burden on the U.S. economy.""The estate tax makes it difficult to make economic decisions and results in unintended consequences, the burden of which falls primarily on the lower and middle classes. Rather than giving in to the politics of envy, we should have a tax structure that encourages innovation and saving. That is how the poor will become wealthy.": http://www.mrc.org.... The main reason for these taxes is to tax the rich even more. Which one, I have proven will worsen the economy, and two, these taxes don't just effect the targeted rich.
Tax 5 (Excise Taxes): At first, they seem like a good idea to deter alcohol, smoking, and other bad habits. But when looked at closer, the same effect is going to happen as the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. People are going to start selling "tax-exmept" alcohol and cigarettes underground, which will just one, increase crime, and two, have no effect on the usage of alcohol and cigarettes whatsoever. Also, why is it the Government's job to discourage bad behavior? (I mena stuff that is not illegal). Why is it the Government's job to stop people from drinking or smoking? If the people are dumb enough to do those things, than they should suffer the consequences. Is kind of a tax is unconstitutional because the Government is stepping over it's bounds.
Tax 6 (Corporate Taxes): These taxes have the same effect as taxing the rich. They kill the economy. If an economy is trying to recover from a recession, than a decrease in income and sales taxes coupled with a decrease in corporate taxes will not only allow consumers to buy more, but it will allow producers and distributors to sell more to keep up with the increasing demand. Taxing profit is bad enough. Taxing the entire business is terrible. Why would you tax a business that is making a loss? And taxing profit is preventing the business from re-investing the profit back into the business to increase wages, fix equipment, and produce more. "Corporations should NOT be taxed. This is beneficial to the corporation, consumer, economy, and government tax revenue.""If taxes go down, product prices go down (Think Wal-Mart). Corporate taxes are where the consumer gets reamed. Every purchase you make, you are paying corporate taxes.": http://visiontoamerica.org... benefits of no corporate taxes are simple. No taxes mean cheaper COGS, which mean cheaper goods and services for the consumer. Cheaper goods and services for the consumer mean your money goes further and you can purchase more. The more you purchase, the more products need to be made, which eventually requires corporate investments and employee hiring. Eventually, you have more business generated for corporations which eventually lowers prices to stay competitive, higher employment which means more spending in the economy, and lastly a higher tax revenue from the larger economy and increased employment.: http://godfatherpolitics.com....
Tax 7 (The Gasoline and Carbon Taxes): Raising, or even having, a Gasoline Tax makes the price of Gasoline already higher than it should be. Gasoline could be a lot lower if the tax was gone. Now of course, the goal of these taxes is like the excise taxes, so that people will use less gasoline. But one, we do not need them right now, and two, they don't work. "Raising the gas tax would heap yet another burden on New Jersey residents and employers already struggling to afford to live and do business here.": http://www.politickernj.com.... Now the Carbon Tax will fail. It will not discourage people from using Carbon. But the real big one is the taxes on business using carbon and coal in production. This will yet again hurt the economy due to lower production. And this system of Carbon taxes does not even work. "Fear of dangerous Global Warming from man-made CO2 is dissipating with more recent scientific evidence and exposure of much bias, exaggeration of dangers and neglect of benefits of warming in existing scientific consensus. Any warming from CO2 is likely to be a harmless < 1 Deg Celsius by 2100. Higher predictions are only computer model speculations, arguably due to the modeller's confessed ignorance of natural climate cycles." "Even if CO2 were dangerous and we reduced it successfully in Australia or even globally, there is no physical evidence that it would have a significantly beneficial effect on climate.": http://www.nocarbontax.com.au.../.
Taxes in General: I have shown on several occasions that most taxes are either unnecessary, worthless, or harmful to the economy. They need to be cut to help the economy and to help business.
Taxes are justifiable:
Taxes are justifiable and needed. First, the taxes we pay are used to pay for infrastructure, our legal system, educational resources, and economic opportunities that allow people to make a lot of wealth in the first place. Second, providing for our social programs and our safety net raises the overall standard of living in the nation, allowing for more productive employees, a larger number of active consumers, greater entrepreneurship, and a much more dynamic economy overall. Therefore, the wealthy, having done in life with help with society, they can afford to give back to society, and have a moral obligation to do so.
National Sales Tax
We argree here. I do not support a national sales tax, and if one shall exist, it should be small. Still, this is administered by the states, and I don't think the federal government should dictate the states on what their taxes on sales should be. Plus, the sales tax reduces inflation.
This is an interesting topic. You are ignoring the societal consequences of eliminating Social Security. You only mentioned Social Security, so I will center my argument around this program. First, if you allow workers to withdraw from the program, nearly all of the rich will exempt out of this program because they do not yield. However, then the millions of poor and middle class suffer because of a lack of funds. Then you see the negatives of exemption. The government should help make a broad prosperity in America occur. With social security, literally 11 million people are taken out of poverty (among elderly).  This strongly helps the economy, and helps small businesses, who have already receieved payroll tax cuts. Consensus: A broad prosperity that makes America stronger and helps society should be maintained.
Property and Estate Taxes
About Property taxes, YOUR SOURCE shows support for property taxes. He says at the local level that they are efficient. The source is opposed to a state-wide property tax, saying it is inefficient. I think that a compromise, perhaps among counties would be good idea.
About estate taxes, your claims are unsupported. It prevents all capital from being consolidated to a few families. More important, is that many do not pay any estate taxes at all. In 2009, 99.75% of estates payed NO estate tax. The notion that this prevents the poor from gaining wealth is ridiculous. 
If they are sold underground, it does not relate to the resolution. If they are being sold, they initially payed the excise tax. Plus, the excise taxes reduces the likelihood that people engage in dangerous/ poor behaviors. The reason this tax is Constitutional is because it the Constitution grants Congress to
"lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
I think that your logic is somewhat off. Currently business' profits in the USA is over $1.6 trillion dollars.  However, the businesses are not reacting by increasing employment and reinvestment. Compare this to the Stimulus package. It cut taxes on 95% of working families.  However, you don't see a boom, a rush seeing consumers spending their new funds on products. This proves my logic: tax cuts don't increase stimulate the economy in poor times. However, I still do favor a reform of Corporate taxes. I think that, since Corporate taxes are already high in the USA compared to the rest of the world, unlike taxes on the wealthy (we are low compared), I think Corporate taxes should be cut by 10%, to 25%. Then, eliminate all of the loopholes, and the tax code will be more efficient, more businesses will be willing to move to the USA, and tax revenues will continue to be stable, instead of eliminated.
Gas and Carbon Taxes
The goal of gas taxes is to improve transportation infrastructure. They are critical for having a flourishing economy, and with poor ways of moving goods, a nation will suffer. However, this tax is regressive - it hurts the poor more than anyone else. Perhaps a better method of improving infrastructure could come. About carbon taxes, I have no opinion, but am not for them. I support Cap and Trade as an alternative. Plus, global warming is real, I looked at your source and it was seriously biased. A decreasing majority? ONLY 97% of climate scientists belive global warming is man made.  I have much more reasons why global warming exists and is man made, but that is not the discussion topic.
Plus, I will answer my opponent's question about taxes in the comments.
--- I believe that loopholes can be mostly eliminated, and rates can slightly drop as well. The rich can pay their true fair share. Corporate taxes can be lowered by some, and all loopholes eliminated.
Taxes should be kept the same for the most part. The USA has a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. Right now taxes collected is only 14.8% of GDP. In the 1980s, it was 18.2%. There is no evidence that tax cuts will improve the economy. The richest americans (top 400) pay less than the middle class at an average of 18.11%. all:  Is this fair? My opponent is saying so. America needs to have a stronger future and the government can facilitate a better, higher prosperity in this nation.
 "What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't" By Jessamyn Conrad. 2008. A nonpartisan guide to the issues.
Point 2: Lowering taxes for the individual frees up money so that he or she can buy something and feel comfortable about it with no later regrets. And all of the Bush deficit talk was just Clinton's policies taking into effect. After 2003, the deficits decreased significantly. The rich not only invest in stocks and securities, but they buy multi-million dollar cars, houses, yachts, and much more. And a lot of that money they re-invest back into the business becuase it will make them more money. That is the one good thing about greed. It keeps business alive. And if the rich received tax cuts, they could either countribue to GDP by buying a big-ticket item or go invest in his or her business(s) which will help them by getting them more money, help the workers by having better working conditions, salaries, and a reduced risk of being laid off, and helps the consumer buy letting him or her have a high quality good at a lower price, which is very appealing in bad economic times. And again, it is not the Government's job to institute Social Programs or to build safety nets.
Point 3: Like I said, you can use the sales tax during inflation. That would lower GDP, thus curbing inflation. I guess drop this tax.
Point 4: I am not saying you should end Social Security, I said that it should be privatized (for businesses), and even then, it should be the employee's choice. And the businesses offering social security would not give it up because one, it does not waste their money, and two, makes sure their employees live a good life (yes, businesses care about their employees). Privatized Social Security would not only decrease taxes, reduce the deficit, and reduce Government aspending, but it would benefit the employees better than National Social Security because they can opt out when they are in a difficult financial situation and need money.
Point 5: The property taxes penalize people with a lot of land. Poor or rich. A poor farmer with the same land as a billionaire would be paying the same in property taxes. It reduces agricultural yield. And the estate taxes (or inheritance taxes) are unnecessary for the same reason because they affect the poor and rich because all people inherit. And I said inheritance taxes, not estate taxeds. All pay taxes for inheritance.
Point 6: If they are sold underground, by nature they are not paying taxes because that is the definition of underground selling. And excise taxes do not reduce likeihood that people engage in dangerous/poor behaviors because most of these behaviors are addictive, and they will buy the product no matter the price. And why do you think they repealed prohibition? Because prohibiting dangerous materials of that nature (not hard drugs, like alcohol or smoking) should not be prohibited or penalized by the Government. That is not their job, and they should not because it is unconstitutional.
Point 7: It's not the tax cuts, it's the market speculation and Obama. The tax cuts again by nature free up money for businesses because they have more to spend. If their amount of money is over their current safety net, they will expand. There is a constant point on the safety net. It is not forever. When they expand, by nature again, they build more businesses, thus increasing GDP, hire more, this reducing unemployment and increasing GDP (because they have more money to spend), and it encourages more companies to do things like that, thus making a meaningful difference in the economy. And like you said, if the tax code was more efficient, it would increase foreign investment.
Point 8: The current energy sources are fossil fuels, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that renewable energy is a lot less effective than fossil fuels. We should not be in a rush to move to renewable energy sources because it will cause a crushing recession and will slow travel down by over 95%, thus making the economy even worse. And the rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes, and the poor pay less than their fair share in taxes.
Point 9: If the Government would reduce spending (which it needs to do), the current tax system would be outdated. And that quote you gave that said that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class is impossible because the current tax rates say otherwise.
Contra: Sorry if this was a semi-lousy argument with no sources. I have a slight fever and forgot about my debates until it was almost too late. I will make my argument better and have a lot more sources for the next round.
C1: Taxation in General
"Some taxes are justifiable and needed, but the current tax rates are terrible"
So you and me agree that taxes are justifiable and needed. Plus, public services come from the nation as well, including regulatory protections with our environment, food, air, water, products that we buy, and other entities. The government provides many institutions we take for granted, such as our infrastructure and others I'll discuss in R4. The rich pay less than the middle class in taxes because of tax loopholes. Consider this Chart:
Nation /Taxes as % of GDP/ Special Mentions 
Finland / 52.4% of GDP/Best education in world, Universal Health Care
Australia / 32.3% of GDP/Strong economy, low unemployment, high ranking health care system
Japan / 32.5% of GDP/Best Health Care system in world (universal), great education system
Germany/43% of GDP/Strong infrastructure and competitiveness
USA/14.7% of GDP/Most dynamic economy in world among large nations
---As you can tell, nations that have high enough taxation prosper, the contrary of your argument. Nations with sufficient tax levels can fund a strong system of universal health care, and can manage and have clean environments, and a better infrastructure. As you can see, lower taxes =/= stronger nation in all cases. [1, 2] America spends about 2% on infrastructure, while Europe spends 5%. This shows that higher spending here is needed.  So, your argument is not good economics.
C2: Safety Net
The safety net supports families that are poor compared to the national average. When we give the poor a full living, it is counter-productive. When we give them nothing, they are horribly in shape, and cannot get easily into the workforce and stay there because the poor usually live in a cycle of poverty, one where a person lacks the skills necessary to hold a well-paying job. The basic line: When generation after generation lives in various stages of poverty—it’s not because they have some undiscovered laziness gene. We have some serious systemic problems. 
The current system needs to be reformed but kept. It has been concluded by several programs that when given intensive job training, supplemental earnings for a temporary time, and shifting workers into the workforce over time carefully has been successful. It is critical for prosperity. 
C2: Wealthy have a moral obligation
If society helps the wealthy become wealthy in the first place off what the taxpayers have paid for, the wealthy deserve to help the people that made that guy wealthy. Here is what Bill Gates Sr. (Bill Gates' father) said:
There is no such thing as a self-made man, Bill Jr. didn't invent the internet. He just used to - to make billions. Every businessman has used vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He didn't get rich alone. There is no such thing as a self-made man! Therefore, the wealthy, who've gotten rich off what the taxpayers paid for, owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. 
If you disagree with a rich man whose son is the richest guy in the world, you currently are not looking into reality yet.
C3: Money for the rich and Corporations
"if the rich received tax cuts, they could either countribue to GDP by buying a big-ticket item or go invest in his or her business(s) which will help them by getting them more money, help the workers by having better working conditions, salaries, and a reduced risk of being laid off"
As I showed, in R2, corporate profits are at record highs. However, people are still, more than usual, at a risk of being laid off. The rich received tax cuts in the early 2000s, but the economy declined. It is absurd to say this was the Clintonian policies taking affect. No evidence. The Clinton tax changes increased government revenues, eventually balancing the budget, which led to more confidence. Plus, because a business has more money, they will likely invest, but they WILL NOT INVEST IN THEIR OWN PROPERTY. This is the number one thing. Businesses never hire with more money. Businesses hire and expand with more demand. So, we need more demand to improve worker's salaries, working conditions, and make businesses truly expand, instead of just "investing" in Wall Street, which doesn't help Main Street by much at all.
Social Safety Net Constitutionality:
If you look, the Constitution was set up to allow the federal government to:
As I have discussed, a social safety net improves the general welfare of a nation as well as makes a more perfect union. Thus, a safety net is Constitutional.
The true solutions to fix this program:
If you allow workers to opt out whom are middle or lower classes, when retirement comes, they will likely need more money again, and thus you would have a crisis. Plus, if people can opt out, the wealthiest will opt out because this program is designed for the middle and lower classes. Then, with few people to support the program, the program will collapse, and hurting millions of seniors. This is a slippery slope, you allow people to opt out, then the system crashes.
http://www.usatoday.com.... "Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent.": http://www.foxnews.com.... The supposed "rich tax loopholes" are just made up by people like you just wanting a free slice of the pie.
Besides the Middle East and a few parts of Africa, almost all countries have a double digit taxes as a percentage of GDP ratio. Zimbabwe has a 49.3% tax rate-GDP ratio. Lesotho has a 42.9% tax rate-GDP ratio.:http://en.wikipedia.org.... Having a high percentage is also bad. These tax rates are common.
The higher taxation rate arguments is again bombed by the fact that these tax rates are common. Almost all of Europe has over 25% tax rate-GDP ratios. And they are tumbling into disaster. And it's the fact they use the high revenue in taxes to have health care, other welfare programs, cleaner environment, and infrastructure that they are in that mess. "Universal coverage does not mean universal care, as it will lead to rationing of care, either overt or via extended waits for care. Universal coverage would result in the government running the health care system making it worse than it is today - because the government can't do anything right. Competition is what made this country great, and universal coverage is anti-competitive as the government is involved. Even though every other industrialized country has some form of universal coverage, many are looking to add market mechanisms to their plans. This shows universal coverage doesn't work.Health care is not a right; if we are guaranteeing health care why not guarantee food, clothing, housing...": http://www.joepaduda.com.... With the environment, it is not as bad as the Government says it is and the Government is overstepping boudaries. And infrastructure works better under a competitive environment.
Implemented immediately. Expansion increases jobs. There is no other way.
Point 5: The Constitution also says that Government overstepping its bounds (tyranny) is unconstitutional. Providing a bill like that is overstepping Governmental bounds. Government Social Security is an unconstitutional way of providing welfare.
Point 6: If the lower and middle classes don't WANT to save, why force them? If they are dumb enough with finances, why make sure that the Government provides it to them free of charge and at a cost to the Government? The whole thing is unconstitutional because it makes the Government to big (read the Constitution) and just raises the Government debt.
Point 7: Again, why make the poor pay it? This is just a "just-in-case" tax in case they run a deficit and need to balance. If the Government spends too much, they should face the consequences.
Point 8: Why do it through the property tax? Why not some other tax? Why charge agriculture for education? Surely there must be better taxes for this. And if this is all you are proposing is necessary for the tax…
Point 9: Again, most excise taxes are on addictive substances. They cannot stop taking the substance because they are addicted to it. It does not lower use because nothing can lower use except internally.
Point 10: The competitive increase from the corporate tax decrease would be a great thing because that would increase quality and reduce price, thus helping the economy. And again, given free money, businesses will expand. That is the good thing about greed. It never ends. They will always want more. And with more comes more jobs. Businesses handed profits would not in their right mind not grow because they are essentially losing money. They will expand when given the opportunity.
Point 11: Renewable energy sources are good when they are one, used in the right places (they cannot be used everywhere), and two, be managed properly and be kept out of by the Government (which means no carbon or gasoline tax, but also includes Government interference in the Renewable energy business). But you can also reduce dependence on foreign oil by drilling at home. Right now, renewable energy sources are just too expensive. If we drill at home, gas prices will plummet, and we will live in a stabler economy. We should wait to use renewable energy until it become practical to do so. Completely jumping in would be totally wasteful (but a little bit is good).
Point 12: We need to cut all that is unnecessary to save the Country from disaster. That will mean making some hard sacrifices including the complete repeal of welfare.
VOTERS: The Computer cut out half of my argument and I do not feel like re-making it. Please vote for my opponent.
CONTRA: Thank you for accepting the debate and debating through. Thanks for a through and intelligent debate. I hope you will except a re-challenge on this same topic later once I get out of my many debates and get to feeling better. Enjoy the win.
Point 1: I do not object that the rich payer higher amounts of the total tax base. This is because they have much more money. They, however, do not pay much more in percentage amounts. We need to end nearly all loopholes, or let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for all to reduce the deficit. It is simple mathematics. About high tax rates, yes they do reduce competitiveness, we need an equilibrium. If we have enough revenue, and a fiscally prudent, effective government, the nation will flourish. A nation with strong infrastructure with 25% tax-to-GDP is more attractive than a lawless, crumbled 5% tax-to-GDP country.
Health Care and Infrastructure: Single-Payer healthcare is a great way to fix the system. It covers all, returns competition to the system between medical professionals and hospitals instead of insurance priorities, it also removes all of the paperwork and costs for profits, marketing, etc. It could cover all uninsured people currently and have a surplus from the funds being spend right now. Competition leads to 45,000 deaths a year, a poor healthcare system, rationing based on income and wealth class, and puts us in a bad spot. Infrastructure is great for a Capitalist nation. Building it is a great idea with government funding, private constructing. Your source is misguided. Here is mine, a real source:
Point 5: I addressed this problem in round 3. A social safety net is constitutional.
Point 6: Social Security - The point isn't primarily about saving, although it is important. We have to remember that without Social Security, over 38 million more seniors will be plunged into poverty. It is a form of redistribution, that allows the rich to help their workers who make them rich. It is moral, Constitutional, and common-sense.
Point 7: I don't exactly know which topic you are discussing, but I have explained how a social safety net is Constitutional, and helpful to society. If this is on the gas tax, we currently have no alternative in funding our highways. If a better idea was proposed to fund the transportation infrastructure, I would be happy to hear it.
Point 8: Property Tax - It is mostly for school funding. It makes more social equality. Therefore, it would be less heavy of a burden on those will have the least.
Point 9: Excise Tax - If it doesn't exist, your cannot have it. Besides this fact, rehabilitation programs for people would be a more effective strategy.
Point 10: Corporate Tax - We agree here. Lower this tax and (my opinion) end all loopholes and (my opinion) switch all coal/ oil subsidies to renewable energy (I showed the benefits in R3). However, it should only be lowered for companies that invest in the USA, and have proof of this, because if you don't ask for proof, you won't get any. This is what happened during Bush's tax holiday for corporations, no jobs were created. Remember however, Businesses usually expand with more demand, not more money.
Point 11: Renewable Energy - We somewhat agree here. I think that the fossil fuel subsidies should be moved to renewable energy, and I showed why in R3. However, we can use natural gas in the USA as well as renewable energy, if the process that extracts it - I believe it is called fracking - is done in a responsible way. We however need to put more government help into starting the renewable energy industries in the USA, to help the economy, public health, and fight global warming.
Point 12: Cuts in Spending - I agree on cuts, but disagree on what cuts. I think that we need to reduce food subsidies, reduce the Department of Defense (like some defense officials suggest), end electric, and fossil fuel subsidies, privatize the power marketing administrations, Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending, (in coordination with ObamaCare plan), and other numerous subsidies we don't need right now. Tax policy needs to be reformed too.
Conclusion: The rich have a moral obligation to help the society that allowed them to get rich off publicy funded infrastructure. The government can help facilitate progress in a nation. Also, corporations have to pay their fair share, and will be rewarded with a stronger society.
Thank you Pro for this debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|