better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally
Debate Rounds (3)
We should stop giving general tax breaks to people who merely invest in general... and give all that money more directly to people who create jobs and new businesses. This would be in society's overall best interest, compared to just giving breaks to anyone who simply invests.
example. do we want to give money to a business who simply buys more computers, or puts more in their bank account. this will only enrich computer makers more, and perhaps to some small degree, might eventually make a job or two, as a figure of speech. if we direct the money to those who actually create jobs and new businesses, more will benefit in society as more jobs will be created per dollar invested. (the investment is by both the business owner, and society in terms of not getting as much tax income)
we can't give breaks to everyone when we are going into debt as a country.. we have to choose. why not choose what's in society's best interest?
and it'd work just as well, and is fairer. Capital gains investments are often taxed at 15%. We don't need to give people more money to invest... they'd invest anyway, because they want more money. Warren Buffet often points out that he pays 15% on taxes while his secretary pays 30+ percent... and it should just be at the very least, more equal
My challenge as I understand it is to defend the tax cuts of those who invest in industry.
Investor in industry in America use money to build up many type of businesses. Many of these businesses are small up and coming "shops" that exist only do to the investment of others. These investor contribute to forming many new businesses which in turn hire other people as employees. These people then use the money they earn to spend on items they need and want this helps the economy.
I argue against my rival in the idea that tax cuts on both parties are needed to create jobs in the private sector. It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work. Maybe even more so on investors part.
this seems to be the essense of con's argument. he earlier says that investors in general "spend on items they need and want and this helps the economy". i don't dispute this. all i'm arguing is that it's better to give tax breaks to those we specifically are creating jobs and new businesses, as that is in society's better interest than investments in general. other investments would obviously be made, given people will always want profit... even if they are not made as much. what we will have on balance is more jobs and new businesses (more stimulant for the economy) per dollar the taxpayer spends.
con has not shown why it's better to spread a set money around to everyone, as opposed to focusing it on job business creators more specifically. he just asserts some benefit that would be caused if we did, not giving an over all picture.
It is a fact that the average small business owner had to get a loan (a form of investment) from a bank. This is of course do to the average savings per household is 6000 USD http://www.score.org...
The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982. http://www.sba.gov...
This shows the work of investments.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Truin forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
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.