Taxes should be raised on the rich

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!