The government should cut taxes for everyone
Debate Rounds (4)
1st: People will have more money because of the tax cut and they will spend more money
2nd: As people are spending more money businesses will make more money.
3rd: As businesses are making more money they will pay more tax dollars.
4th: Government revenue will increase in result of businesses paying more tax dollars
5th: Businesses will hire more employees because they have more money.
This will also result in more government revenue because more people will pay taxes because more people will have jobs.
The wealthy should get a 10 percent tax cut because they will spend more money, invest more and the ones that own a business will hire more employees in result of a large tax cut. The middle class should also get a good size tax cut to make it easier to pay back loans and to spend more money. The wealthy should get the largest tax cut because they create most of the jobs in this country. The wealthy also worked very hard for their money so therefore government should not take a lot of money from them. The government should also eliminate income taxes for the poor because every dollar matters for them. Finally they should cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax, Alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax. To make up for these large tax cuts, the government should cut spending by as much as they cut taxes and eliminate tax deductions and exemptions. This tax plan will create many jobs and result in additional government revenue.
In a perfect world, taxes could be cut for everyone and government spending could also be reduced without anyone being affected by it. However, this is not a Utopian society, and the problem with this plan is that it can't be done while maximizing morally positive outcomes. My opponent has set forth a hypothetical economic cycle contrary to all historic fact. His plan relies on big business being the backbone of the US economy, without bearing the brunt of the weight. In this round, I'll work backwards through his 5 expectations.
5. "Businesses will hire more employees because they will have more money."
By business owners, if I were to adhere to his previous statements on how the wealthy should receive more of a tax break because of their vested interest in creating more jobs, my opponent is talking about the wealthy. Being that he didn't provide a criteria for wealthy, I assume my opponent means the richest 1%. The underlying ideology behind his 5th contention, supported by his previous 4, is that the 1% is giving us money. The contrary, is the truth. Between 1980 and 2005, more than 80% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%.  Along with the increasing gap between social classes, they have been experiencing the lowest tax rate in 30 years.  The result is obvious, there simply isn't enough federal government money to fund our operations and we have an increasing debt. As illustrated by political comedian Bill Maher, "Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives, they open the box, and the first guy takes 80.."
When taxes are higher, our economy does better when it comes to GDP & employment rates. Don't want to take my word for it, how about the Bureau of Labor Statistics with bureau economic analysis? Exhibit A:
3/4. "As businesses are making more money they will pay more tax dollars. Government revenue will increase in result of businesses paying more tax dollars."
As stated above, a combination of their income growth and their tax rate show that when they are experiencing the highest corporate profit total/average of all time , we are still at an unemployment level of 7.9%. Though it has decreased from its peak, it is not nearly enough to justify the claims made by my opponent. To refute this point,Exhibit B:
1/2. "People will have more money because of the tax cuts and they will spend more. As people spend more money businesses will make more money."
Ah, now my opponent is onto something. I, too, accept the proposition of tax cuts for the middle & lower class of the US. They're taking the biggest hit of the recession, and are struggling the most. Tax cuts for the middle & lower class by 5%, tax increase on the top 3% by 3%.
My opponent's conclusion paragraph
1)"The wealthy should get a 10 percent tax cut because they will spend more money, invest more and the ones that own a business will hire more employees in result of a large tax cut"
The wealthy already have gotten a tax cut from the previous administration. They hoarded the money, and didn't increase jobs-- Unemployment increased over the last 10 years.
2)"The wealthy should get the largest tax cut because they create most of the jobs in this country."
Somehow, the wealthy have all been established as the business owning "Job Creators!" The top 1% of US citizens make $380,354/year. There are 314,809,366 people in the US . 1% of that number is 3.1 million. As clarified by the presidential debates, 97% of all business owners fall below 250,000/year. Out of the 29 million businesses in the US, 26 million don't count. That leaves one million business owners, to 2 million other people. My guess is that they're filled with famous athletes, famous actors, and reality TV stars such as, "The Situation," from Jersey Shore-- some job creator.
These people are no more the job creators than the lower class is the working class. Only few create jobs, 97% of which don't even qualify to get their taxes raised (or count as the top 3%/wealthy), and all social classes work.
3)"Finally they should cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax, Alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax. To make up for these large tax cuts, the government should cut spending by as much as they cut taxes and eliminate tax deductions and exemptions. This tax plan will create many jobs and result in additional government revenue."
How much would these tax cuts cost the US government, & where would the federal government cut spending to make up for these losses?
In conclusion, I'd like for the audience to pay close attention to my opponents inability to dictate where the tax rates would be decreases specifically, where the government would cut their spending to match the decreases, and how that will effect the overall economy. There's nothing wrong with debating tax cuts/increases in theory, but when you expand to federal cuts you have to specify which of the programs you intend to take the hit because it has to do with how probable it is.
superkamal26 forfeited this round.
superkamal26 forfeited this round.
superkamal26 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
|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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: I see no scoring opportunities for Pro. The only question for me was S&G, since Pro did not commit notable errors. Nevertheless, the clear, understandable and easy to follow language that Con used would have earned him the score - if Pro had continued to use the same form as that displayed in R1. This is not a votebomb. This is a drunk being thrown out of a saloon window.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.