The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Taxes should be decreased for the Rich

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,277 times Debate No: 20946
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

The first round is for acceptance. I'm just throwing out debate topics.
lannan13

Con

I accept...
Thank you Ron I now can finaly have a serious debate...
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1: The Rich make a significant contribution to GDP through buying.

They buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP.

"The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together."[3]

Point 2: The Rich create businesses.

Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more they spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment.

"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year."[1] This means that the more money businesses have, the more they will expand, thus creating jobs. If the rich had more money, the same principal would apply.

"Lower taxes on the rich will allow them to invest more money into the the US marketplace (obviously if they are smart enough to accumulate and hold onto the money they are smart enough to invest). By investing this money they produce jobs, they produce capital goods which create cheaper goods for the population to enjoy. THe taxes are still too high even with the bush "tax-cuts". Does it make sense that taking money away from the producers of the nation that all of the sudden jobs will be created? Of course not."[2]

"The issue boils down to simple economics. Paraphrasing the columnist Daniel Henninger: we can't create new jobs and eat them too. If the United States wants the jobs that small businesses create, then the government cannot confiscate an even greater share of the incomes that generate those jobs."[3]

Point 3: The Rich pay a 45% tax rate, and the bottom 50% pay no taxes.

"The top 3% earn 30% of all income and pay 52% of all income taxes."[3]

"Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as "greedy" and "selfish" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it."[4]

Point 4: The Rich give a lot to charity

"Those making over $200,000 account for 36% of all charitable contributions."[3]

[1]:http://www.bloomberg.com...
[2]:http://answers.yahoo.com...
[3]:http://www.demint.senate.gov...
[4]:http://rightwingnews.com...
lannan13

Con

First thing I can't use sources because the school has blocked most of the internet...
1. The top 5% and GOP (Grand Old Party aka republicans). Humans are greedy creatures by nature and as you said yourself they don't give a dam about anyone else, except their "Personal Items." The more $ you give these hogs the more they'll buy putting the regular people in a bind. As I say Tax the rich and give to the poor.
2. Indeed you need $ to incorperate a business and build jobs, but you get the blame when it crashes. Lets look at Germany the reason for the Holicost of the Jews was of the sterio type that Jews were good with $ and when the economy failed they blamed the Jews.
3. That's because the people at the top have gotten their way up by a trickle up theory. Tax the poor to get rich.
4. 36% I'd be more convinced if it was in the 70s.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1: How does the rich spending their money put regular people in a bind? In fact, it helps them by giving them more money and getting them employed.

"Rich people also spend a lot of money. And in so doing, they provide a lot of employment for those lower down the income scale. Frank notes that the top five percent of earners today account for more than 37 percent of consumer outlays. "Most Americans are very strapped for cash, so they're not spending," said Frank. "And at the top you have an arms race in status spending and conspicuous consumption, which, love it or hate it, creates la lot of jobs."[1]

"The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together."[2]

Point 2: It doesn't work like that anymore. The Government generally gets blamed for economic problems.

"Poll: 51% still blame George W. Bush for economy"[3] That's at least 51% of the population blaming the Government, specifically George W. Bush.

"The reason we're most likely to believe that is it takes capital to start businesses generally, and usually the people that have capital are going to be wealthy."[4]

"The President's new taxes could threaten to destroy up to 1.2 million jobs per year and would cost small businesses $74 billion annually. Americans making more than $150,000 spend an average of $125,000 per year – enough to support more than two middle-class jobs."[2] Take away money from the rich, you lose jobs.

Point 3: The U.S. has the most progressive tax system among OCED Nations. And what's with your statement with this point? I don't get it.

"The typical household with over $1 million in income will pay an average of 29.1 percent in taxes this year. The typical household making between $50K and $75K will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower income households (below $50K) will pay an average of 12.5 percent in federal taxes (virtually 100 percent in the form of Social Security taxes)."[5] "America has the most progressive tax system. The top 10% of households pay 45% of all U.S. taxes, a higher tax burden on upper income earners than any other industrialized nation."[2] Is this fair? Is this what Obama calls economic fairness? No! He wants to make the tax system even more progressive!

Point 4: "the rich are often the ones that are providing more of the money that valuable charities need to survive and thrive, these charities are more important than government imposed services because they are funded by choice, not by force."[6]

"Charities in the United States play a vital role in areas such as education, health care, community development, and meeting the needs of the poor. In 2008, those making more than $200,000 accounted for 36 percent of all charitable contributions. Raising taxes on these individuals and families will leave them with less money to contribute to charities.[2]

Convinced yet? And as a side note:

"Whereas someone in the 39.6% tax bracket could previously give $1,000 of earnings to a charity without having to pay taxes on those earnings, the itemized deduction limitation would mean that $116 of their previous donation would be taken away in taxes, leaving only $884 left to give to charity."[2]

Attack Point 1: These taxes are almost worthless.

"Sowell explains that high taxes don't really effect the rich because they can hide their money in ways the common small business owner can't. Your local restaurant owner, your gas station owner,your car lot owner, your retail store owner or your factory owner won't have access to loop holes."[7]

"Squeezing the rich doesn't work. Despite marginal tax rates as high as 90% and as low as 28%, federal tax revenues have remained fairly constant around 18% of GDP."[2]

[1]:http://finance.yahoo.com...
[2]:http://www.demint.senate.gov...
[3]:http://www.politico.com...
[4]:http://www.miller-mccune.com...
[5]:http://www.newsmax.com...
[6]:http://debates.juggle.com...
[7]:http://freadomnation.blogspot.com...
lannan13

Con

1. They buy up things that other people should have.
2. I blame the big cats on Wall St. not Bush. He was just embracing the future.
3. ...
4. Yes, but they don't do it a lot.
5. The government is stupid we need some way to pay back our debt which'll never happen. If we fixed the system it would be political suiside.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1: They don't "buy up things that other people should have". Most people today are not in poverty and have most of the things that they want. And even the people who don't don't have the rich to blame because they aren't stealing anything. This makes no sense.

Point 2: Well at least 51% blame the George W. Bush and "Fifty-one percent say George W. Bush deserves “almost all,” or “a lot but not all” of the blame, while 31 percent said the same of Obama."[1] That's 82%! 82% blame the Government. Got sources to prove otherwise?

Point 3: Your point?

Point 4: Ok. With my source I have said that the top 2% or so pay about 36% of all charitable donations. I have already disproved your point. Either concede or come at me with sources.

Point 5: To pay off the debt, it is more important that we cut spending instead of raising taxes, especially right now. If we cut spending tremenduously, have a set flat tax rate of say 15% at a rate where we are constantly having Government budget surpluses, we could pay off the debt in no time. Then when we have paid off the debt, drop the flat tax rate to about 2-3%. If we fixed the system, it would save the country.

Attack Point 1: The cost of high taxes on the rich to jobs:

[2]


Attack Point 2: Higher marginal tax rates will not increase tax revenues:

[2]


Sources:

[1]:http://www.politico.com...
[2]: http://www.demint.senate.gov...;





lannan13

Con

sorry bussy preparing for LD I have to give this to ROn
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

Thanks lannan.
lannan13

Con

Don't mention it...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
I don't agree with that you sarcastic idiot. And if you vote bomb this debate I will report you.
Posted by charleslb 2 years ago
charleslb
Yeah, taxes should be lowered for the rich, and they should also be legally permitted to flog their servants. That's sarcasm, by the way, for any conservatives who think that corporal punishment for unproductive workers would be a good way of increasing efficiency.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
Meh, this is an easy debate. Do you know how to post pictures to debates? That would really help with this one.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yahoo answers?!
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yes
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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: lannan... when will your debate skills ever improve?
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
Ron-Paullannan13Tied
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: A clean sweep for pro unfortunately. Conduct for taking the debate without enough time to complete it. Sources because only one side had any. Arguments were forfeited. Poor debate, 7:0 pro win.