The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

The united states should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,466 times Debate No: 28126
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




(this first arguments are going to be short)
subpoint a
Spending cuts should be prioritized because tax increases would put to much pressure on the poor according to new York times these tax increases on the whole population would make the average American pay 3 and half thousand more in there taxes.

suppoint b
Spending cuts will provide a budget for the united states vs tax increases all it does is give more money to the united states government more money to spend that is unneccesarysly helpful.


I accept. Good luck to my opponent.
This will be my first online debate, so please bare with me if I make any syntax errors.
My partner and I affirm the resolution resolved: The US should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

Proposal: We would like to propose to increase to 33.1% for the top 1% of Americans. According to Bruce Bartlett, "in 2008, those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, with incomes over $380,000, had an effective tax rate of 23.3 percent. In 1986, a year when the real gross domestic product grew a healthy 3.5 percent, their effective tax rate was 33.1 percent.

Bartlett, who culled Internal Revenue Service data for his analysis, which appears in his New York Times column, goes on to say: "If this group were still paying 33.1 percent, federal revenue would have been more than $166 billion higher in 2008 alone. That would be enough to reduce the budget deficit by about 10 percent this year. If the top 1 percent of taxpayers had continued to pay the same effective tax rate they paid in 1986 every year from 1987 to 2008, the federal debt today would be $1.7 trillion lower."

Contention 1: Improves Social Needs and Public Welfare
Tax increases will enable the government to ensure that services to citizens are available, and necessary expenditures on infrastructure are met without the need for excessive bond issuances.

According to the New York Times, there is a direct correlation between the amount of money provided to Congress for the national budget and the quality of living in the US. In a study conducted by the Bureau of Economic Statistics, in the past 7 years, the average standard of living has been determined through looking at adjusted income per person and the poverty rate. In the years with a higher annual budget, the standard of living has risen higher than in years with a lower annual budget. The Board of Economic Advisors concluded from this study that the national budget reflects directly upon the standard of living in our country.

The government on us imposes taxes so that they can benefit us. Taxes are imposed so that roads get fixed. They are imposed so that we get an education. They are imposed so that people don"t invade our country. They are imposed to protect our rights. What right do we have to say that the government shouldn"t impose taxes on us? If we don"t pay for government programs, that money comes from excessive bond issuances.
According to the Department of Labor and Infrastructure, the lack of funding in their departments have caused the pushing back of almost a decade"s worth of renovation and projects to the point where many projects may never be finished.

By raising taxes, we will be able to ensure that our nation is up to date and has all the necessary expenditures to develop, and we can lower the poverty rate and invest more heavily in programs that will help improve the living conditions and living quality of Americans today.

Increasing tax rates also mean new jobs. The tax rates were increased in 1990 and 1993. Capital gain rates were cut slightly in 1996. And, 21 million new jobs were created in the 90s. That is about a 20% increase in the number of jobs available in the United States. The infamous Bush tax cuts passed in 2001, and even before the Bush recession began, job growth lagged behind GDP growth. After the Bush recession, we had a net job growth of 0%. And, thanks to population growth, no new jobs means record high unemployment, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Contention 2: Can reduce debt
We are currently in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is rising at the rate of 6 billion dollars every single day, according to the Department of Treasury. That"s almost 4 million dollars every minute.
To put our current situation into perspective, judge, our national debt at present is greater than the combined economies of China, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined. Should the burden of this debt be spread to all Americans, each American family in the US would owe about 50,113.78 dollars to various countries in the world.

The biggest problem right now is that we don"t have enough money to pay for some of our major programs and we are getting sucked into a death trap.
For example, 41% of our taxes are spent on Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare benefits according to However, when we pay our taxes for social security, it does not go to a private bank account where it is set-aside just for us. It goes to paying for the current recipients of these benefits.

But the problem is that over our lifetime, Americans still deposit less than the average American will take out of this funding. Every single year, for every dollar put into Social Security, more and more is being taken out.
The Bureau of Economic Statistics released a report in 2009 stating that at the current tax rate, by the time our generation gets to retiring age, there may not be enough money to pay for our social security benefits, and this is just one program of many.
Debate Round No. 1


That is a very nice arguement but these taxes will not benefit us citizens. (To shorten this because im lazy im going to list facts that will generally refute your case. If theres a specific arguement or impact i will tell you)

"The confluence of fiscal policy changes scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 " sometimes referred to as the "fiscal cliff" " poses serious challenges for policy makers. One area of disagreement is the increase in tax rates for high-income taxpayers resulting in part due to the sunset of elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. President Obama has called for the reinstatement of the higher top tax rates in his budget submission to the Congress, while key Republican members of Congress have called for their extension. The increase in the Medicare tax and its expansion to unearned income for high-income earners under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) further contributes to the increase in top tax rates.
The concern over the top individual tax rates has been a focus, in part, because of the prominent role played by flow-through businesses " S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships " in the US economy and the large fraction of flow-through income that is subject to the top two individual income tax rates. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector work force and pay 44% of federal business income taxes.1 The number of workers employed by large flow-through businesses is also significant: more than 20 million workers are employed by flow-through businesses with more than 100 employees.
This report uses the EY General Equilibrium Model of the US Economy to examine the impact of the increase in the top tax rates in the long-run. While a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examined the near-term effects of all of the federal government fiscal policies under scrutiny at the end of 2012 and found them to be of sufficient size to push the economy into recession at the beginning of 2013, this report focuses on the long-run effects of the increase in the top tax rates. This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates:
 The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%.
 The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision).
 The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%.
 The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains.
With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% in 2012 to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%.
These higher tax rates result in a significant increase in the average marginal tax rates (AMTR) on business, wage, and investment income, as well as the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new business investment. This report finds that the AMTR increases significantly for wages (5.0%), flow-through business income (6.4%), interest (16.5%), dividends (157.1%) and capital gains (39.3%). The METR on new business investment increases by 15.8% for the corporate sector and 15.6% for flow-through businesses.
This report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.
Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013
Through lower after-tax rewards to work, the higher tax rates on wages reduce work effort and labor force participation. The higher tax rates on capital gains and dividend increase the cost of equity capital, which discourages savings and reduces investment. Capital investment falls, which reduces labor productivity and means lower output and living standards in the long-run.
 Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3%, or $200 billion, in today‟s economy.
 Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5% or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today‟s economy.++
 Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively.
 Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8%, reflecting a decline in workers‟ living standards relative to what would have occurred otherwise."

Now i would like you focus on the 3 to last point that has + after it. This tax increase on the rich buisnesses and the average american will result in 710,000 jobs. Now this is better then my opponents because this facts that my opponent has given is from a organization, yes this organization is out there to help people with no profit but mine is a government website. Also the reason why we are not letting our nation go over this fiscal cliff is to avoid these tax increases and its affects which i show through my one fact.


Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, round two is supposed to be used for questioning the opponent's case.
It seems as though you have no questions for me, but in response to your "general refutations,"

The point of an online debate is to practice writing speeches. Your refutations seem to be entirely plagiarized from the source you conveniently left me. Therefore all these arguments are null.

You also claim that my sources, since they are "organizations" and yours seem to be an exact copy of a government resource, my arguments are invalid. That isn't the case, because these "organizations," such as the Board of Economic Advisors, are federal organizations run by the government.

In response to your short case:
"subpoint a
Spending cuts should be prioritized because tax increases would put to much pressure on the poor according to new York times these tax increases on the whole population would make the average American pay 3 and half thousand more in there taxes.

suppoint b
Spending cuts will provide a budget for the united states vs tax increases all it does is give more money to the united states government more money to spend that is unneccesarysly helpful."

For Subpoint A: I'm not talking about the average american; in my case I specifically mentioned in a proposal that the US government would rase the tax rate to 33.3% for the top 1% of Americans. However if that's the scenario, the pressure won't be on the poor because more money is going into public sector growth, where jobs on infrastructure, education, and health can be opened. Why would there be more pressure on the poor?

For Subpoint B:
Can you name any specific programs that can be cut?
-How much money annually would cutting these programs save?
Wouldn't cutting spending mean less money going into public sector growth? That would mean less jobs available.
Debate Round No. 2


Busby123 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited this round. Extend all contentions.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by richarddong 5 years ago
Anyways why did CON leave it would have been a good round if he hadn't of left. It would be interesting. :D
Posted by philochristos 5 years ago
Oh, my bad. I didn't notice he was Con.
Posted by BF3MEDIC 5 years ago
He's against (con) the resolution in the title, hence why he is arguing for spending cuts.
Posted by philochristos 5 years ago
I'm confused. In the title, you say that tax increases should be prioritized, but in the body, you say that spending cuts should be prioritized.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by richarddong 5 years ago
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: good good