The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Taxes should be raised on the rich

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 12 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,858 times Debate No: 37169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (12)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

Rich shall be defined as anyone making $250k per year. I shall argue that the us ought to increase taxes on the rich. My opponent shall argue that not only should we not increase taxes but decrease them to generate revenue. My opponent is 1Historygenius. Special thanks for him to accept. BOP is shared. Standard ddo code of conduct shall apply.
Good luck and have fun!!
1Historygenius

Con

I accept your challenge!
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

First, I want to point out what I will and will NOT be arguing.

I will be arguing that taxation is good for the economy, that taxes on the rich ought to be higher, and that the taxation system it's self is fine, but a few minor adjustments would really help the US start to “boom”.

I will NOT argue about the morality of taxes, as this silly idea that somehow taxes are theft ignores two central points: 1) taxes are voluntary, if you do not like the stuff governments fund, you can practice tax resistance in a safe and legal manner, and 2) you get services back for those taxes that are mandatory, which is counter-intuitive to the idea that they're theft (which implies taking without the intent of giving something else to you in return like a good or service).

I also wish to point out our current state of affairs with taxes right now, we have 3 types of taxes. 1) an estate tax (getting money when someone dies), 2) ordinary income (making money via an ordinary job) and 3) capital gains (returns on investments, such as stocks, bonds, etc...) bare this in mind as this is key to my argument later in this round.

Furthermore, this misconception of “tax brackets” has flawed our understanding of how the tax code actually works today. Most people believe that if you make a certain amount of income, you have to stay below a certain amount otherwise all your money gets lumped into a new tax bracket. It does NOT in fact work this way.

Let's say we have a tax rate of 10% (at making $0-17 thousand a year), 15% (17-70k a year), 20% (70-142), and 25% ($142+)

Not withstanding tax deductions, if you make 10,000/year you only pay 10% tax. BUT if you make 50k/year, your first 17k is taxed at 10%, the remaining 33k is taxed at 15%, and so on. The current tax rate DOES NOT charge you a rate of 15% for all $50k you make/year.

C1: The Fundamental Role of the State is to Implement Policies That Benefit the Community

First contention is pretty straight forward. The basic philosophy is that the state may interject in the affairs of the community, only on the basis of it's policies, and if they are beneficial to the community or not. These were noted in the Supreme Court Cases of Muller v Oregon, and West Coast Hotel v Parrish, trying to justify cutting women's working hours and implementing minimum wage. The same goes for taxes. Taxes reallocate funds to the economically alienated, and are also used on behalf of the state for the best interest of the people (as our representatives). Which is why the state does have a basic reason to interject in today’s community, and dictate why people (either artificial or official) must pay taxes.

While my opponent will no doubt contend that taxation hurts the economy instead of helping it, but research actually shows this is blatantly untrue. In fact, the Congressional Research Service (a non partisan division for congressional research) found that the core GOP philosophy was outright wrong, and found that in the US when taxes were higher, they spurred economic growth.

[http://www.dpcc.senate.gov... ]

[http://www.forbes.com...]

C2: It is Unfair That Warren Buffet Pays Less Taxes Than His Secretary Based On Our System Today!

Indeed, you read that right folks! Warren Buffet noted he pays less taxes than his secretary on his income taxes. This is because the rate of individual taxes varies like in the above example as a progressive taxation rate, meaning they increase progressively. Capital gains taxes are a flat tax of 15%, which means that despite all the income made, that same rate only applies to this case because the person technically made their money in stocks (for example) instead of an actual job working for someone. It seems unfair to me that Warren Buffet (a well noted billionaire) literally pays the same tax rate as the average Joe who makes a simple 50k/year.

[http://www.politifact.com...]

C3: History Has Shown Us That High Tax Rates Mean An Economically Powerful Country

With data collected from the Tax Foundation and a little knowledge of history, I can show you that taxes are actually quite low today than compared to previous times, and furthermore, one case my opponent cannot refute: FDR.

First, as the analysis showed “Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must eventually be cut. Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today. Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed” [http://www.businessinsider.com...]

It continued “Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now). Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice-verse. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.”

Indeed, it seems as though taxes ought to be increased on capital gains to spur economic growth, and for fairness in today’s economy.

Finally, as I had noted, FDR's presidency is the epitome of what it means to interfere in the market place, while maintaining a solid track-record for economic growth. Unemployment dropped under his leadership from 25% when he takes office to 1.4% in 1945, furthermore, the income tax rates were first applied, they made executive Order 9250 in October 1942, later to be rescinded by Congress, which raised the marginal tax rate for salaries exceeding $25,000 (after tax) to 100%, thereby limiting salaries to $25,000 (about $351,000 today). The ONLY complaint about FDR's policies was the mini-recession taking place in 1937-38, but most economists generally agree that was on behalf of the Treasury's refusal to switch to fiat money and stick to the gold standard (which was NOT FDR's policy). Either way, the New Deal is certainly proof of the economically soundness of tax rates being higher.

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

[http://www.voxeu.org... ]


In conclusion:
I think we can see now that taxes ought to be raised on the so-called "rich" due to it's benefits, and I await my opponents response!

Thank you!

1Historygenius

Con

I thank my opponent for creating a great debate. Let's do this! I will make my own case first and then do refutations.

My Case

C1: Laffer Curve

One of the most important factors in an economy is 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.

The important thing to understand is two scenarios in which the tax rate is either at 0% or 100%. In both cases the government is getting no money by either no taxes or a rate so high no one would possibly work because of how much money they would not be making. As the rate rises from 0% the government gets money and as it lowers from 100% more people come back to work. The important thing to understand is that at some point the government would lose revenue rather than make it with higher rates and that is why lower rates should be implented. When tax rates are high, rich people stop investing their money and find tax shelters for it, but when its lower they continue to invest and expand their businesses. [1,2]

C2: History


I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts

Under Woodrow Wilson, the top tax rate rose to a high of 77% and the country went into recession in 1921. Warren G. Harding became the next president of the United States and lowered the rate to 50% followed by Calvin Coolidge after his death, who lowered the top rate to 25%. This was followed by huge economic growth and a massive budget surplus.

During this same period, Real GDP growth expanded from 2.0% before the cut to 3.4% after. The unemployment rate fell from 6.5% to 3.1%. 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. This actually got the rich to pay more in taxes than they did with a higher rate. Production increased dramatically. [1]

Even more specifically with the Coolidge cuts:

"Nor is it surprising that, with increased economic activity following the shift of vast sums of unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent." [4]

II. Kennedy Tax Cut

The tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway.

The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations. [1,3]

III. Reagan Tax Cuts

We all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures.

Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly.

C3: Income Mobility

When the tax rates have been lowered we have seen huge income mobility among people. In a sense, it spreads wealth around and increase income mobility better than any social program could. This means that lower taxes is better in helping the poor because businesses are able to provide more jobs and increase wages. Income mobility is in the best interest of the people.

During the Harding-Coolidge years:

"The facts are plain: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable that number fell drastically, to just 21 people by 1921. Then, after a series of tax rate cuts during the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more rose again to 207 by 1925. Under these conditions, it should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue after tax rates were cut." [4]

During the Reagan years:

"The percentage of families earning more than $50,000 in 1990 dollars rose by 5 points from 30.9 percent to nearly 35.9 percent. During the 1980s, millions of middle-class Americans disappeared into the ranks of the affluent." [5]

During the Reagan years, there were fewer than 5,000 people who had an income of $1 million or above. When he left 35,000 people did. This shows that there was huge income mobility at the time. [5]

My Case

R1: Higher Taxes do not Benefit

My opponent and his report claim that when taxes were higher, economic growth was greated. This is simply not true. The rate was 90% under Eisenhower and the economy grew at 2.3%. During the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies when the tax rate was 70% the economy grew at 4.9%. This is far greater than under Eisenhower. Under Reagan, the economy grew at 3.2% with his low tax rates. In fact, every president beat Eisenhower with his 90% rate in economic growth except George H.W. Bush. [6]

It is clear that the economy grew strongly when the top tax rate was cut.

R2: Capital Gains

According to Shlaes:

"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."
[7]

The capital gains tax hinders the expansion of business and entrepreneurship which is necessary for every free market capitalist economy to expand, but taxes has hindered them. George Gilder writes about the history of the tax that:

"Government tax policies have done their best to deter innovation and promote mergers, creating a capital blight in which smaller companies that were attempting to expand suffered most throughout the 1970s."
[8]

R3: History

I have proven through the Laffer curve that tax revenue increased dramatically from when it was under higher rates and the economy expanded much faster. Why? Because people took their money out of tax shelters and invested or saved it allowing for economic growth and more revenue. The stock market grew stronger under Coolidge and Reagan than it did under Ike. Coolidge saw over 260% of Dow Jones growth and Reagan saw over 130%. Ike saw 120% growth, but remember that no one was paying their true income in the 1950s as they tried to hide their money. [9]

FDR saw larger growth than Reagan's, but this was mostly because of World War 2 growth. Unemployment fell and real GDP increased, but only because of the war.

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
. United States. Congressional Budget Office. U.S. Congress. A Review of the Accuracy of the Treasury Revenue Forecasts, 1963-1978. Washington D.C.: 1981. Print.
4. Sowell, Thomas. ""Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich"." Hoover Institution, 2012. Web.
5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
6. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.
7.
Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.
8.
Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2012. Print.
9. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term." MSN.com. MSN Money, 5 Nov. 2012. Web.
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

We have a problem. I ask that the audience consider giving me a conduct point. My opponent actually plagiarized himself, by simply copying and pasting half of his argument from a previous one he made. Thank you.
http://www.debate.org...

Rebuttals:

My opponent submits the Laffer Curve as proof of an “optimizing” tax rate. However, it is far too simplistic, to the point that any economists, much less anyone with a little understanding of the economy would reject this, and because of it's simplicity it cannot account for complex variables in the economy and their impacts.

Under the Laffer Curve, my opponent shows that under 0% tax rates, and 100% tax rates government would make no money, either because taxes are too high or too low. This cannot be true, because if we tax at 100% we take away the so-called “profit motive” from the economy. Thus, logically in the economy today, we would find only businesses that seek to make a profit if this were true, but it isn't. Non-profit organizations/volunteers have absolutely NO profit motive, that is, they make 0 dollars, and they have no income taxes to pay as a result. Not only do they do this work essentially for free, but interestingly enough, they help grow the economy! In 2007, Laffer himself said that the curve should not be the sole basis for raising or lowering taxes.

My opponent begins to cherry-pick select cases in history for tax cuts, but never seems to tell the whole story. They kept spending the same, paid off debt, implemented heavy farm subsidies to further agriculture production, and furthered free-trade dramatically. Generally speaking economists agree that spending money to reduce debt, and free-trade is desirable, no question about it, but my opponent cannot show that the correlation he espouses is causation in this situation. Also, agriculture employed about 40% of the workforce at the time, and when they subsidize that, it would appear as growth, NOT the tax cuts. Harding also heavily invested in technology, which would be good economically, not tax cuts as well.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

He notes the JFK tax cuts, but the increase in unions (U.S Steel) and the abolishment of the death penalty in the federal government were more likely. The federal government under JFK reallocated all capital punishment sentences to life without parole. This sounds economically insignificant, until you consider the fact that states with CP have the most appeals for their cases than every other state, which on judges payments alone would have saved the feds a huge sum of money, never mind the jury payments, lawyers, etc... And for that matter what about technology? Under JFK we had huge investments in tech, which caused us to launch several projects for space exploration.

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

Finally, he cites the worst possible example he could cite: the Reagan tax cuts. The Great Communicator increased taxes throughout the 1980's. He actually proved my own point rather than proving his own. In fact, he created several taxes in TEFRA,Social Security, and DEFRA, and TEFRA is the biggest tax hike ever in American history alone, not withstanding the other hikes he made.

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

Finally, my opponent claims it's necessary for income mobility. But this fundamentally ignores how taxes work (reallocation of resources as generally agreed upon, things like social security for instance) which are designed for income mobility. While Reagan might have had more millionaires in the US at the time, it was because other countries agreed with the US on free-trade agreements. Yet to make up for the lost income at the time, slap on sales and duty taxes to make up for the revenue loss. None-the-less, the Reagan years were not given income mobility due to tax cuts, they were off-set by other countries millionaires coming in, and the income gaps furthered under Reagan dramatically, not the other way around.

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

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

The same follows for the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts. Income mobility was caused by the farm subsidies they implemented, not by tax cuts. As agriculture was a major industry at the time.

In short, I can rebuttal my opponent simply with correlation is not causation. He cannot tell if tax cuts were what caused economic activities, or the programs that interfered with the market were what lead to this. He claims that FDR's policies only worked that way due to WW2, but the problem with this, is simply that war is an economic drain on the economy, thus showing the new deal's success still. Leading up to the war, he ignores the fact that unemployment under FDR's new deal plummeted, while taxes were incredibly high, and production was up along with higher GNP's and GDP's than Hoover's terms.

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

My opponent completely dropped the argument about the role in the state in the economy, and why it is justified to interfere in the market place. Meaning now for me to meet my BOP if I find any tax that benefits anyone, I have now filled my BOP. I have; name any social security program you'd like, it's funded by tax dollars and it is beneficial for the fundamental “social floor” below which no one shall fall below.

My opponent completely dropped my argument that it is indeed unfair that Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary based on our system today.

Finally, my opponent cites Shlaes, which is advocating the exact same thing I am advocating as noted earlier; that Warren Buffet pays less tax as his secretary, and that ought to change. As his own source notes “Sinai says he favours raising taxes on one kind of capital gain, carried interest, to treat it as ordinary income“. - http://www.bloomberg.com... I had noted this in round two at the beginning!

C4: Taxes Stimulate the Economy, By Moving Money to the Economically Alienated

As economist Robert Reich notes, Clinton had higher tax rates than Reagan, and also had higher rates of economical growth. In fact, Clinton has the record for keeping us in one of the longest economic booms of all time. This is proof that taxes are wonderful for the economy. [http://www.marketplace.org...]

C5: If Lower Taxation Rates Actually Worked the US Would Rank Far Higher on the Gini Coefficient.

The US holds a rating in the mid 2000's of about 0.48 before taxes and transfers on the Gini Coefficient (which measures income inequality, and economic inequality by countries), after taxes it is 0.37, a decrease meaning the money is far more equitable, and blows a huge hole in my opponents case about income mobility. If you want income mobility, you need to tax.

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

The Gini is used to measure income inequality, and in the developed world, the US is one of the worst offenders, while only bringing in a tax rate of about 21% of GDP, the lowest in the developed world. Indeed, tax cuts actually result in poor quality of life, and if they worked like my opponent maintains, they would have the opposite effect, the US would be number 1. But they're not, and by deduction the opposite has to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly, we need higher taxation rates in the US, and the Rich ought to pay for it. It increases economic activity, prevents inequality, and my opponent's case for the Laffer curve coupled with his examples (which again correlation is not causation), my opponents case is weak, and I have met my BOP, and refuted all his examples.

Thank you!

1Historygenius

Con

My Case

C1: Laffer Curve

"Thus, logically in the economy today, we would find only businesses that seek to make a profit if this were true, but it isn't. Non-profit organizations/volunteers have absolutely NO profit motive, that is, they make 0 dollars, and they have no income taxes to pay as a result."

Were only talking about individuals that do work, specifically the rich who act as businessmen in the economy. The main purpose of business is to maximize profits as much as possible after providing a good or service. We are not talking about a corporate or business tax, but mainly the income and capital gains tax. [1]

Income tax and capital gains taxes are used mainly on the people for money. Liberals advocate higher taxes on the rich through income and capital gains. Corporate taxes is strictly different to take profits from a company, so my opponent is now confusing me.

C2: History

I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts

My opponent cites the Wikipedia article of Warren G. Harding as his source for this. I believe Wikipedia is an alright source to use, but simply citing the president who did not even serve for the dominance of the 1920s or instituted the most major of the tax cuts is a bad example of a source. Coolidge was a huge veto president who stopped all farm subsidies proposed by Congress and repealed Harding's farm subsidies. The government was reduced by over 20 percent and the debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. My opponent is wrong here that th debt was entirely payed off.

Finally, it was not the farming industry that was the big boom of the Roaring Twenties. According to Shlaes:

"In July 1921, there had been 5.7 million Americans out of work; now that figure was 1.8 million. Manufacturing output was up by a third since that time. Iron and steel production had doubled. They might not complete many more tax cuts, but the revenue acts of 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928 represented a strong record." [2]

What we can see here is that the huge economic boom was not from agriculture, but from industry. Unemployed Americans went into factories not farms and the expansion of these industries shows. If we look at the percentages of Americans owning specific goods:

Cars: 26% to 60%
Radios: 0% to 46%
Electric Lighting: 35% to 68%
Washing Machines: 8% to 24%
Vacuum Cleaners: 9% to 30%
Flush Toilers: 20% to 51% [3]

For more on Coolidge see the video.

II. Kennedy Tax Cuts

My numbers for the Kennedy tax cuts are specific to the benefits created by them and they found that the unions and death penalty had little effect. The death penalty has actually been found to create deterrence to crime and create less violence which means more economic growth. One of the key factors in investments for new projects was that the capital gains taxes was much lower back then and the Kennedy tax cut fueled investment. On the death penalty:

"The early empirical research on the subject by Issac Ehrlich has demonstrated strong deterrent effects by the death penalty, and has responded to most criticism of his work. Meanwhile, other studies have come out to prove the deterrent hypothesis. Some economists noted how the models used in the studies were not robust, but the authors of the studies in question have refuted these analysis’s and noted they actually tried to reduce the deterrent effect by various tests but have found these results simply don’t go away. They are robust and correct." [4]

III. Reagan Tax Cuts

Once again, my data looks at Reagan's specific tax cuts and how they affected the economy specifically. The income tax on the rich went down from 70% to 28%, so we do know he cut taxes on the rich. The capital gains taxes remained the same until an increase in 1986 which lost revenue. Keep in mind, that by then it took time for any change is Reagan's tax policy to take effect. In 1981 he signed his first cut, but it had little effect until a year later when unemployment had peaked to nearly 11%. When it went into full effect, it went down to nearly 7%. This proof of the effect it had. [6]

C3: Income Mobility

I have proven subisidies of agriculture did not work, most were either vetoed or eliminated under Coolidge, so this point is easily refuted. In the 1980s, the middle class dropped by 5 points from 53.9% to 49.2%. The income of this 5% was found to specifically move up because they now had more money. Like I said, those owning more than $50,000 received a 5% increase in their group. [5]

My Refutations

R1: Higher Taxes do not Benefit

Dropped.

R2: Capital Gains

It said in my source that if the capital gains tax is cut or completely eliminated, we would receive a huge amount of jobs. Thus the source favors me. He really never refuted my Gilder point.

R3: History

It has been proven that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression from several studies. I will post a video for those who are interested, but we were only discussing taxes and not the New Deal. During the Great Depression, Hoover and FDR both raised taxes from 25% to over 90%. It was a disaster if you look at the unemployment among jobless non-farm workers. Unemployment was over 20% during the Great Depression and my opponent has admitted it backfired through the second Great Depression in 1938. We then get a Greater Depression from the New Deal and the government in World War 2. Thus, the Great Depression did not end until 1948.

The Cole-Ohanian study proved that the New Deal did not work. Instead they should have done a more free market approach:

"Our results suggest that New Deal policies are an important contributing factor tothe persistence of the Great Depression. The key depressing element behind these policies firms to collude with paying high wages. Our model indicates that these policies reduced consumption, and investment about 14 percent relative to their competitive balanced growth path levels. Thus, the model accounts for about half of the continuation of the Great Depression between 1934 and 1939." [7]

In fact, FDR's attempts at taxation were so awful that he most notably:

"FDR raised taxes higher than Hoover did with the Wealth Tax Act (or Revenue Act of 1935) which raised the top rate to a staggering 79%. If anything, it held more politics than it did revenue because only John D. Rockefeller (the richest man in the country at the time) could pay at such a high bracket."
[8]

R4: Economically Alienated

Under Reagan, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population increased from $6,494 in 1980 to $6,994 in 1989. The poor did quite well under Reagan. This is also not the only case in which the rich payed more of the tax burden than the poor. [2,5]

R5: Gini Coefficient

Income inequality exists in every society and there is nothing wrong with it unless your a socialist.

Sources

1.
Anderson, Arnold. "What Are the Main Purposes of a Business Plan?" Chron.com. Chron, n.d. Web.
2. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.
3. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
4. http://www.debate.org...
5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
6. http://www.debate.org...
7. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.
8.
Graber, John. "Progressive Myths About the Great Depression." Conservativepolitico.org. The Conservative Politico, 25 July 2013. Web.


Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

Those two videos were an attempt to add in more material while getting passed the character limit. They certainly do not fall under the character limit, I ask they be dismissed due to violation of the rules.

Re1: The Laffer Curve

I was arguing the fact that because of volunteering initiatives and non-profit organizations, we can see that your Laffer curve should be rejected. It fails to take into account all actors of the economy, and in this case my opponent dropped the fact that even Laffer himself later noted it should not be the only basis for justifying raising or lowering taxes. I did note volunteering on an individual basis in my previous arguments.

Re2: The Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts Didn't Cause the “Roaring Twenties”

First of all, I stated that paying off some of the debt is good economically. Secondly, Coolidge himself forced the top 2% of income earners during his time to pay any income taxes at all, which also furthers my point as we're disguising increasing taxes on the wealthy, and thirdly, my opponent misunderstood my argument, I was speaking about Harding's subsidies, and his investments in technology which paid off, same as Coolidge which caused the roaring twenties in the first place, not tax cuts. Finally, when cutting taxes, the depression kicked in at the end of the 20's, my article notes that the sugar high was met with the crash of Wall street and the world enters the depression. Coolidge in fact had such a lack of regulation on the economy, it was almost invincible.

As the following article shows, there is absolutely no economic correlation between tax cuts and spurred economic activities: http://www.forbes.com... In fact, it shows that under the Clinton administration the tech boom also took place. The difference is that we got into a recession (not nearly as bad as a depression, especially with higher tax rates Clinton pushed), and no tech investments or economic activities ceased or slowed because of taxes as per my other articles I noted as well.

Re3: Unions and CP Abolishes Do Have Good Economic Consequences Under JFK, Not Tax Cuts

CP (Capital punishment) does not in fact have a deterrence as agreed upon by a majority of criminologists http://www.amnesty.org... . California got rid of their CP same as New Jersey and New York, and all saved huge sums of money. Shortage of lawyers, and appeals costs more otherwise the rule of law is sacrificed, and reallocating it would have saved the feds tons of money: http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

Furthermore, as the World Bank notes, Unions are excellent for economic growth as opposed to non-union countries. http://web.worldbank.org... they also cause more productivity, especially when they have lesser turnover-rates, causing economic activities to increase. Under JFK, unions increased dramatically, and under Coolidge, they plummeted. It is more likely that the money and economic activities as a result of these two consequences (and JFK's heavy investments in tech to land us on the moon) that furthered his economic activities.

Re4: Reagan Tax Cuts Indeed Gave a “Sugar High” But When Compared to Clinton's Tax Raise on the Rich, Reagan's Policies Fail in Comparison

My opponent completely dropped the fact that Reagan was notorious throughout the 1980's for hiking taxes instead of dropping them. He dropped taxes for the wealthy overall, but hiked taxes several times, and still has the highest single-handed tax hike of all time. Finally, what follows with tax cuts on the wealthy again? Depressions. Again in 1987-88 another depression hit, going into the early 1990's. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Compare this to the fact that Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and the fact that he led us into the longest economic “boom” in US history, we see that taxes do work, and this is the worst possible case for my opponent to try and defend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if we grant that Reagan's policies “took time to work” as my opponent maintains, that 7% surely increased when depressions hit, showing his policies didn't work, along with inflation increasing to 5%.

Re5: the “Middle Class” May Have Started Making More Money ....But...

The policies I was referring too were the Harding subsidies which would have artificially inflated wages, not Coolidge's. Furthermore,Your argument is that if there is any lower rung people move to a higher rung, then upward mobility is not an issue. But that's not income mobility. Income mobility is the measure of how much your parent's economic status predicts your economic status. The facts actually show that upward mobility in the US is less than other nations. Alan Kruger, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers showed that in 1985 when Reagan's policies can be fully felt, his “Great Gatsby Curve” showed that US inequality skyrocketed. It was harder under those tax cuts to increase your income based on your parent's already social-economic status. Why is this important? Because giving a tax cut to a rich man has a minimal impact, he's already made his money, but do the same to a poor man, and we have whole other consequences (the likes of which are being debated by Republicans and Democrats.) http://joewo.com...

My opponent falsely claims I dropped his argument that tax cuts harm the economy. I rebuttal-ed with two more contentions, that they help the economically alienated, and are needed for income mobility in the previous rounds via the Gini coefficient, which is good economics.

My opponent claims his source advocated for lower taxes. But this is untrue, it just mentioned that Hong Kong uses a 0% income tax rate, but the economist in question advocated for capital gains taxes to be on par with ordinary income, which is what my argument rests on with the Warren Buffet argument, to which he completely dropped. I never dropped his Gilder point either, if economic activity increases it stands to reason more businesses are opening up and people are spending money (which is required for economic activity in the first place)

Finally, FDR's policies were removed shortly after WW2, so the long term impacts cannot be measured. One thing we do universally agree upon: it did cause unemployment to drop, with exception to the 1937-38 mini-rescession, which as I had shown was the result of the Treasuries actions, not FDR's. Even if it was bad policy, my opponent cannot deny the Treasuries acts were to blame, not FDR's policies.

Re6: (see above gini coefficent argument, a lack of income mobility shows those policies failed the poor, and the result of increasing wages were due to inflation which was 5%.)

Re7: One can advocate for more income mobility and not be a socialist. This is an uncalled for ad hominem. I want less income inequality, I stated nothing about heavily redistrubuting funds.

My opponent dropped my Warren Buffet arguments, and the arguments of Clinton's policies resulting in better economics as a result of higher taxes. He plagurized, and committed causational fallacies and an ad hominem. He dropped my gini coefficent arguments as well! I have met my BOP, and refuted all of my opponents arguments. Tax increases of the rich to the same as ordinary income ought to be enacted for better economic policies and consequences, and income mobility. My opponent fails to understand correlation is not causation, and that the investments in farming, tech, and unions caused better economics along with higher taxes, not the other way around which caused "sugar-highs" and massive crashes.


Thank you for this debate.

1Historygenius

Con

"Those two videos were an attempt to add in more material while getting passed the character limit. They certainly do not fall under the character limit, I ask they be dismissed due to violation of the rules."

No they weren't. I added them for use of showing how President Coolidge vetoed most progressive legislation including those farm subsidy bills. I am going to assume that my opponent means I hacked debate.org by making the character limit longer in order to add videos, but I don't know how to hack anything so that was not my intention.

The Great Depression video was there to explain how more economic intervention such as tax increases dramatically hurt an economy. Again it fell in 10,000 characters, so I do not understand what my opponent is citing. Perhaps he can cite the code of conduct for a better understanding in the comments or pm it to me.

My Case

C1: Laffer Curve

Simply relying on charities and non-profit organizations in an economic recession, or in an economy in general, is a very bad idea. Businesses will always be there and they need profit. The more profit they have then the more they can expand their businesses. The same with capital gains taxes to expand ideas and entreprenuers. My opponent seems to be arguing to get rid of private businesses who seek maximum profit for charity. That does not work. My opponent did note what Arthur Laffer has said, but my opponent has not give an alternative form besides the Laffer curve to look at when discussing tax revenue and economics growth. Had he mentioned another kind of curve or idea then we might have something. Since he has not, we only have the Laffer curve to follow. I have won this argument.

C2: History

I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts

As I stated before from Shales' book and that video, most farm subisides were cancelled and did not have a huge effect in the 1920s because they did not exist for most of the era we are discussing. They only existed in the early part of the 1920s and were stopped or vetoed when Coolidge entered office in 1923. Because of the fact that the subsidies were not responsbile for the economic boom that dominated most of the 1920s, they are not a benefit.

The lower tax rate under Calvin Coolidge actually got the rich to pay more in taxes. Those making over $100,000 shared 29.9% of the total payed income taxes. In 1929 when Coolidge left office they payed 62.2%. This is before Hoover's tax increases. What we can see here is that there is a huge correlation between lower tax rates making the rich pay more. Higher tax rates make the rich pay less of the percentage. [1]

I showed economic variables before and after the tax cuts. What we saw was that there was more growth after the tax cuts because businesses could expand more. I will briefly refute Clinton with the 1994 midterms:

“We took a special interest in 1946 and 1994 when a first- term Democratic president lost both houses of Congress to the opposing party,” Birinyi analysts Cleve Rueckert and Daniel Erdelyi wrote in the report. “In both cases the market was down in the two months prior to the election, and was up over the ensuing three months.” [2]

When the Democrats lost Congress in 1994, the stock market grew at a rapid pace. In late 1993 the GDP growth rate was 2.1%. After the midterms it was 5.4%. We can clearly see that the supply-side Republicans saved the economy by simply winning Congress in 1994. [3]

II. Kennedy Tax Cut

My opponent looks at only some cases of abolishing the death penalty. Let's look at the specific my time my opponent was talking about instead of simply a few states at later times. According to Johansen:

"The number of executions plummeted from 47 in 1962 to 2 in 1967 to zero in 1968. The homicide rate, which had been holding steady around 50 throughout the 50's, started up in 1965, just two years after executions began their plummet. The biggest increase in one year came in 1967, the same year that the last person was executed." [4]

Here's a graph to back that up: http://www.debate.org...

When the death penalty was put back in place crime fell by a wide margin.

Now on the unions. Unions have been found to help their workers but hurt consumers and people searching for jobs. They block the market from hiring new people and effectively tax investors forcing businesses to pass the expenses of higher wages to consumer through higher prices. They completely cause a negative effect. [5]

III. Reagan Tax Cuts

My opponent looks into a depression occuring sometime around 1987 and 1988. Unemployment remained under 6% for the rest of Reagan's presidency after the recession (http://www.debate.org...). It was clear here that there was massive economic growth. Stocks boomed under Reagan as well (http://www.debate.org...). We can see here that there was clear economic growth from Reagan's tax cuts. Inflation dropped heavily under Reagan from 11.8% to 4.7% [7]

I have already refuted Clinton's "growth" which was caused by capital gains tax cuts and the 1994 "Republican Revolution".

C3: Income Mobility

I have already refuted this point by proving that the poorest fifth of the American made more money $6,494 to $6,994 in a period from 1980 to 1989. The poor did make more money, the reason it is small is because most poor people don't work and live off government welfare systems, so obviously they would not be effected by any tax cut, but they still did better under Reagan than Carter did. [6]

My Refutations

R1: Taxes Benefit the Economy

My opponent made this argument through the Eisenhower years, but he has not brought Ike back up so this must be dropped. He instead changed his own argument to a different period. This argument was dropped.

R2: Capital Gains Taxes

According to the article:

"Sinai says he favors raising taxes on one kind of capital gain, carried interest, to treat it as ordinary income. But the bigger picture is that lower taxes on capital are good for workers, a group that includes protesters and their siblings. They will have to decide whether they care more about punishing the rich or about increasing the number of jobs on offer to their friends. It’s a tough call. My guess is, as the temperature drops, the protesters will take jobs over rage." [8]


R3: New Deal

Unemployment drops inevitably the recession. We want to know what makes it drop faster, higher tax rates or lower ones. In this case this case lower tax rates were needed because it was proven they could work. Instead, FDR had a huge tax hike which would lessen economic growth and weaken the recovery as proven the Ohanian study.

R5: Gini Coefficent

Look up because I refuted this point earlier with wages and inflation.

My opponent talked about income inequality in his R7, but that is discussed higher too.

Conclusion

I have proven tax cuts on the rich help everyone by dramatically increasing economic growth and saving the economy. They create jobs and increase income mobility. Vote Con!

1Historygeniusslapped!


Sources

1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
2.
Gammeltoft, Nikolaj. "Democrats Losing Senate Would Probably Give Boost to S&P 500, Birinyi Says." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 17 Sept. 2010. Web.
3.
Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.
4. Johansen, Jay. "Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime?" Johnasens.us. N.p., n.d. Web.
5.
Sherk, James. "How Unions Work." Heritage.org. Heritage Foundation, 21 May 2009. Web.
6. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
7. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...
8. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
This debate declined in quality as it wore on, and the numerous fallacies almost made it impossible to judge. Nevertheless, it can be judged, albeit not decided. Basically, both sides' historical arguments were just cherry picking fallacies - they tried to prove causation through correlation, and that just doesn't work. Neither side bothered to explain why their case was true. The attempted to look at the economy idealistically without any external variables, which the economy most certainly is not, and this made the majority of their arguments basically irrelevant.

The only other arguments discussed were the Laffer curve and the Gini coefficient. On the former, again, neither side explained why their side was right. They never tried to figure out the optimum value along the curve for maximum revenue. As for the latter, this one leans slightly in con's favor. Pro never explained why redistribution was important, just that it was so.

Overall, I can't decide on arguments because there are far too many logical fallacies (in addition to all the cherry picking, there was con's ad hominem by calling pro a socialist).

As for sources, con used more reliable articles (albeit most are not visible) and had two videos, while pro relied too much on Wikipedia. Con had more reliable, numerous sources. Pro loses conduct by wrongly calling out con for plagiarism. You can't plagiarize your own material.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
the important thing to know about 90% tax rates is that virtually no one paid them. High tax rates provide an incentive to use tax loopholes. Tax loopholes are deliberate incentives set up by government to push people into preferred investments. for example, oil depletion allowances were big back in the 50s through 70s. It caused money to flow into oil investments. A cornucopia of tax loopholes flourished during the post-war years. Reagan struck a deal to lower tax rates in return for closing some of the loopholes. Tax collections increased. Getting rid of politically-created incentives promotes economic efficiency.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality of wealth in a society. A coefficient of 0.0 is perfect equality. That is achieved if everyone makes exactly one million dollars or if everyone makes exactly zero.

Suppose that two societies each have an average income of $100,000 and society A has a lower Gini coefficient than society B. That means that Society A has fewer poor people than Society B. That in turn means that Society A will have fewer of the problems associated with poverty. That's what studies confirm. The problem is keeping a high average income in the face of government redistribution of wealth. The US has a Gini coefficient of 0.38; Greece with aggressive redistribution achieves 0.33. Redistribution destroys the economy, so there are nonetheless more problems. North Korea would have an easy job getting close to zero; all they have to do is get rid of the small number of well-off people in the ruling elite and then enjoy the equality of universal poverty.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
The Laffer Curve explains the concept, but it is not to be taken literally, more as a general model. The curve could peak at 99%, or it could peak at 1%; it only specifies that there is a peak.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

Conclusion: I didn't find Con persuasive at all. Pro was minimally persuasive, mostly with the comment about Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary. If the rich aren't paying their fair share, then they should pay more. And that is the topic of this debate. If Con thinks that people who want the rich to pay their fair share are socialist welfare queens with anger problems, then he is out of touch.

Both sides worked hard, but lacked cogency.

I'm going to vote for Pro, but not very happily. His case wasn't all that strong.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

Pro suggests that Con linked to videos to get around the character limit. He asks that we not consider Con's linked videos. I don't know Con's motivation, so I'll assume that he wasn't trying to cheat. Nonetheless, we cannot consider the videos as part of Con's argument. They are something else, elsewhere, not written by Con, not less than 8000 characters, not part of this debate.

They're like the comment thread: possibly interesting, but not to be voted on. They are not the performance of the parties debating.

This goes for all other debates too, whether someone requests us to ignore links or not: If a voter follows the link, he or she must do so knowing that he or she is stepping away from the debate to do something else for awhile.

Con wrote: "The Great Depression video was there to explain how more economic intervention such as tax increases dramatically hurt an economy." If Con intended us to view the video and be persuaded by it, then he was cheating. The debate has to take place on this page, in his own words. If, on the other hand, Con wanted us to believe his own words, and wanted to support those words by linking to a supporting authority, then that's cool. The take-away is this: You cannot link to another site in the hope that that other site will make your case for you.

Con quotes someone saying, "But the bigger picture is that lower taxes on capital are good for workers, a group that includes protesters and their siblings. They will have to decide whether they care more about punishing the rich or about increasing the number of jobs on offer to their friends. It"s a tough call. My guess is, as the temperature drops, the protesters will take jobs over rage." This hurts Con's credibility.

===conclusion===
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

Pro offers non-profit ventures as a rebuttal of the Laffer curve. Very strange. The economy would not thrive if it consisted entirely of non-profits. The Laffer curve absolutely proves that tax rates could theoretically be too high to maximize government income. What does that have to do with whether the rich should have to pay higher taxes now, in our current situation?

Con did a lot of post hoc ergo prompter hoc: "The rate was 90% under Eisenhower and the economy grew at 2.3%." Pro points this out: "My opponent begins to cherry-pick select cases in history for tax cuts, but never seems to tell the whole story." I don't know whether Pro tells the whole story either, though. I'm not qualified to weigh the examples and counter-examples.

Gini Coeficient: Pro wrote, " If Lower Taxation Rates Actually Worked the US Would Rank Far Higher on the Gini Coefficient." This is too abstract to have much meaning. Maybe if we knew how Gini ranked, say, Saudi Arabia and the USA and Norway, then we would have a feel for the significance of this. Or maybe you could calibrate us by saying something like, "Back in 1950, when CEOs made only ten times what their average worker made, our Gini coeficient was 7. But now our Gini coeficient is 1293 because CEOs make 15,000 times as much as their average worker." As it is, while I suspect that there is something to this Gini thing, we haven't been given persuasive information.

Con's response to Gini was, "Income inequality exists in every society and there is nothing wrong with it unless your a socialist." (sic) This suffices as refutation, given that we don't have significant information about Gini.

"Unless your a socialist" (sic): This is an just one example of Con's alienating moves. It's as if he wants us to think that his arguments are motivated by hostility rather than calm wisdom.

===continued===
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
S&G: Both parties had serious problems with grammar and incoherency. Since it was both of them, I'll call this a tie.

Do higher taxes help the economy? The parties went back and forth on this, using many examples. I was confused. Neither party persuaded me on this issue. Nor was the issue on point. The debate was supposed to be about whether taxes should be raised on rich people specifically.

Pro said it's wrong for Buffet to pay less tax than his secretary. That's a telling point that I don't think was refuted.

Con fielded the Laffer curve, but he never connected it to his case, never made it relevant. Yes, it would be possible to increase taxes to the point where tax revenue would fall, but Con never established that we are in that zone. More to the point, for this debate, he never established that rich people are in that zone.

Con Wrote: "I have proven through the Laffer curve that tax revenue increased dramatically from when it was under higher rates and the economy expanded much faster."

No, the Laffer curve proves that taxation could theoretically be high enough to reduce government income. Con didn't use Laffer's curve to prove any actual historical event.

Con continued: " Why? Because people took their money out of tax shelters and invested or saved it allowing for economic growth and more revenue. " They took money out of tax shelters to save and invest instead? That makes no sense. I wonder what Con thinks tax shelters are.

Plagiarism: Con didn't plagiarize. You can't plagiarize yourself unless you have sold the rights to your work. If Con was confused about this, then it may have been appropriate for him to ask for the conduct point. But, we've explained now that this was not plagiarism, so it would be inappropriate for Con to make similar requests in the future.

===continued===
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
donald.keller wrote:
: It was his materiel. He had his permission to use the material, therefore it isn't plagiarism.

I agree that this wasn't plagiarism, but I want to clarify so that this comment doesn't confuse people:

If you copy someone else's work without crediting your source, you are guilty of plagiarism _regardless_ of whether you have permission.
Posted by 1Percenter 3 years ago
1Percenter
GDP should not be treated as if it measures the whole of the economy. It is an accounting device and can be misleading when used to gauge economic growth. Prosperity should be measured by changes in national wealth.

It was not enough for PRO to point to high income taxes rates and upward GDP growth. The problem here is that it assumes marginal income tax rates are good indicator of how much taxes the rich are actually paying. At high tax rates, tax avoidance strategies are employed. If anything, this shows that lowering taxes doesn't hurt the economy. So in order for PRO to establish that Eisenhower-era tax rates were effective, he needed to show the higher tax revenues that resulted and compare them to eras with lower tax rates. PRO's contentions regarding New Deal-era tax rates and decreasing unemployment were strong, but I feel that CON refuted this by pointing to sky-high unemployment rates of non-farm workers.
CON however failed to adequately refute PRO's contention regarding the prosperity under the Clinton administration, where he could have easily pointed much greater prosperity after the major tax cuts of 1997.

Ultimately, CON was more convincing because he successfully showed that national wealth grew faster under periods of lower tax cuts. His most effective points were citing the growth in incomes and decrease in unemployment under Reagan, and the increased ownership of things like cars and washing machines as well as the increased tax revenues under Harding/Coolidge. PRO failed to make a good case for increased revenues from higher tax rates.

Lastly, it is not plagiarism to copy and paste your own arguments from another debate. Plagiarism entails that you are copying from an author other than yourself. Conduct, S/G and Sources all tied.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
hmmm...After reading a couple RFDs, I agree with thett3, that had PRO focused on debt relief, and how during the Ike years there was a massive payoff of debt during a 90% tax rate, and how debt-to-GDP levels today are similar to what they were at the beginning of Ike's administration, this would have been a solid win for PRO.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof. In order to prove that higher taxes stimulate the economy, Pro must show that it not just correlation (higher taxes are more accepted in prosperous times, or whatever), but that there is mechanism by which prosperity is encouraged. Pro only cited the idea of "reducing economic alienation" without giving an explanation. Pro didn't explain why anyone would invest if taxes took 100% of the gain. He cannot meet the burden of proof without a solid explanation of why the government taking all the money would improve the economy, a thing very hard to imagine. Pro therefore fails. Con didn't cherry-pick, he used important cases. There is no conduct penalty for copying yourself; it would be ridiculous to require paraphrasing your own words. A video used as evidence does not violate the word count; it's only a problem if the debater doesn't make an argument, and instead relies on the video to make the argument rather than just support a claim.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave 3 arguments in favor of raising taxes. Con only went after the C3. Con's arguments were mostly from history, however Pro pointed out how Con's arguments were from the "correlation equals causation" and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Con only looked at a small portion of the data. Con brought up the Laffer Curve, but Pro pointed out that it's too simplistic and doesn't take many factors into account. The most damaging thing about the Curve is Laffer himself said it shouldn't be the sole basis for cutting or hiking taxes. Both sides had some problems, but I feel Con had the most. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro, Con's poor rebuttal against Gini was "Income inequality exists in every society and there is nothing wrong with it unless your a socialist." It should've been "you're".
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 1Percenter 3 years ago
1Percenter
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to leave this with a tie, but it was done perfectly. Both side represented the negative and positive effects of raising taxes. Con was able to bring up the Regan tax cuts which is a prime example of why not raising taxes on the Rich could work. He even showed how positively this impacted the economy. Con was also able to work his points around the Gini Coefficient which was quite impressive as well. Both had strong arguments that they excelled at, at some point during the debate. For that this is literally a tie. S&G, sources and even arguments all Even. Great Debate,. I think this is the first one I have ever put as a tie.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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: Comments....
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO turns the "Reagan cut taxes" premises to his benefit, and both sides neutralized one another with inconclusive fact-lists. This allows the "fairness argument" to win the important "Arguments" score. Sourcing must go to PRO for the unsourced use of earlier debate content. Conduct.... I begrudgingly scored for the character limit violation, but I am unhappy with this rule. I would like to see future debates allow the use of videos, posters, graphs, etc, under the assumption that they are simply "Source links." I feel that it is unfair to allow sources if graphs and videos are not. Nevertheless, I feel bound to respect this rule, inconsistent though it may be.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
TheHitchslap1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had a tremendous number of fallacies within their arguments on both why taxes should or shouldnt be raised on the rich, and pro for some reason didnt even make an argument about why higher taxes on the rich could help close the budget deficit which easily could have won him arguments. Neither was more convincing than the other though so I leave arguments tied, but I do give source points to pro since a sh*tload of con's sources couldnt even be verified to backup his own arguments.