"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

The idea of taxation, of small versus big government, and of how we spend money within the government, is at the forefront of our current political climate, and one could argue it has been a foundational issue for the United States since its dawn. In light of that, I would like to begin by thanking my friend Robert "Graffight" for engaging with me in this debate to discuss this vital topic. This debate will be centered around whether what has come to be known as "The Buffet Rule" should be implemented in our government and society. This was introduced in early February 2012 as "S. 2059: Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012" and according to govtrack it: "Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income over the taxpayer's modified charitable contribution deduction for the taxable year (tentative fair share tax)." http://www.govtrack.us... According to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill), the Buffet Rule would raise around 47 billion over a 10 year period, or around 4.7 billion dollars annually (give or take). This number has been criticized as small or even paltry, with the implication being that it will not solve our debt crisis or even contribute to solving it in a meaningful way. This is an accurate assessment, yet utterly meaningless to the discussion at hand. Only considering economic or tax related topics that have a sizable impact on the economy as worthy of our attention ignores the fact that much of our spending and revenue can be broken down into smaller components. These smaller components add up, and ignoring them would be unwise if one desires a sound fiscal policy. Anyone who has ever seen their bank account mysteriously dwindle only to find out it was their repeated trips $5-$10 trips to Starbucks and the local convenience store can attest to that. If one is to follow the reasoning on that only bigger fish are worth considering, then complaining about the money lost to Solyndra or the GSA scandal should be ignored as they pale in comparison to the money that would be gained by the Buffet Rule. Instead of whether or not it is relevant to the debt crisis, I believe we should focus on whether or not the Buffet Rule is fair and whether or not it can be of help to the United States. To that end I would like to argue for and defend the following points: 1. Government spending should not be cut to the bone; the government has a right to implement programs for the well-being of its citizens. 2. Progressive taxation is fair and certainly preferable to a flat tax. and finally 3. The Buffet Rule would aid to the end outlined in my first point. In order to establish my first point, I shouldn't have to go any further than the United States Constitution. I will go further, but this by itself would establish my point to be true from a legal standpoint. Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ." [italic emphasis added]. Now I am not of the opinion this clause or the Preamble establish a "Congress can do anything" precedent. I do not believe, for example, that the Federal government can specifically target a group of individuals only for the benefit of those individuals. More specifically, as sad as this is, the Federal government cannot decide to hand me a million dollars because it likes me. A travesty, I know, but such is the case. Rather, I would assert the Federal government's actions are justified if the purpose of said action is in fact for the general well-being. An initial reaction to this could reasonable be "Specifically helping the poor is just for the benefit of the poor, so is it in fact not allowed?" This is a misstep. Take education, for example. Quality education is linked to nearly every social factor imaginable in a positive correlation. The better educated the populace is, the less likely they are to engage in negative social (read: "illegal" or at least very damaging) behavior. A healthier populace given access to preventative health care such as mammograms or vaccines, is more likely to flourish and more importantly less likely to commute illnesses to other members of society. At this point I would like to point out that whether the United States federal government is currently effective at promoting good education is outside of the bounds of whether or not is has the right to promote quality education. The only way this could be relevant is if it was deemed impossible beyond a reasonable doubt that a strong Federal education system could work, and given that Finland has one the best education records in the world right now without even allowing private schools to exist (even in what we consider post-secondary education) would counter that notion. I would also like to argue that all except the most staunch Libertarians would have to agree with my reasoning if they are to be consistent. Perhaps my opponent will want to argue that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, should all be either be removed or should never have been built in the first place, but if he believes the Interstate Highway System was a good and appropriate measure to take by President Eisenhower then we must allow for other Federal improvements in the same vein. As per the second point, that Progressive taxation is appropriate, I will quote someone whom I consider to be the greatest person in the world, Jon Stewart : " . . raising the income tax rate on the top 2 percent of earners would raise $700 billion dollars, but taking half of everything the bottom 50 percent have in this country would do the same." Note that this is not equating a tax increase to the top 2% with taxing the bottom half of the country at 50%. Rather, it means taking the value of everything the bottom 50% owns . . . yearly pay, cars, houses, clothing . . then adding up all of the value from everything they own and charging them half of it. That would get us the same level of revenue as putting the tax rate for the top 2% to the rate it was during the Clinton years. The point here being, that if want an equitable society, we need to take into account what is affordable for citizens when we design our tax laws. $100 to the average American is not the same as it is for someone bringing in a six-figure salary, and $10,000 isn't the same for that group as it is for the top 2%. Overall taxes should be based on how much of the society's wealth you own, so that the group that owns 33% of the wealth the society they operate in afforded them, they should be responsible for 33% of the social burden. Still, some would argue that the poor should still pay something, and I would be remiss to point out that they in fact do. They still pay medicare taxes, unemployment tax, state taxes, local taxes, social security, etc. The source of the tax makes no difference, $5 from payroll is no different from $5 from income. Lastly, my third point, that the Buffet Rule has the capacity to aid in public welfare. This should be self-explanatory really. 4.7 billion dollars a year can do a LOT of good. Whether it is investing in education in areas were schools are under-funded, giving health-care to those who cannot afford it (and will lose the ability to work if they don't get it), or simply investing in new technologies. I am not for pork-barrel spending, but I'm not for limiting government to almost nothing. Our society has the capacity to be great, but we have to be able to help each other out, and the Buffet Rule will be one of many necessary changes along the road to prosperity.