Taxes should be raised on the rich

"Those two videos were an attempt to add in more material while getting passed the character limit. They certainly do not fall under the character limit, I ask they be dismissed due to violation of the rules."No they weren't. I added them for use of showing how President Coolidge vetoed most progressive legislation including those farm subsidy bills. I am going to assume that my opponent means I hacked debate.org by making the character limit longer in order to add videos, but I don't know how to hack anything so that was not my intention.The Great Depression video was there to explain how more economic intervention such as tax increases dramatically hurt an economy. Again it fell in 10,000 characters, so I do not understand what my opponent is citing. Perhaps he can cite the code of conduct for a better understanding in the comments or pm it to me.My CaseC1: Laffer CurveSimply relying on charities and non-profit organizations in an economic recession, or in an economy in general, is a very bad idea. Businesses will always be there and they need profit. The more profit they have then the more they can expand their businesses. The same with capital gains taxes to expand ideas and entreprenuers. My opponent seems to be arguing to get rid of private businesses who seek maximum profit for charity. That does not work. My opponent did note what Arthur Laffer has said, but my opponent has not give an alternative form besides the Laffer curve to look at when discussing tax revenue and economics growth. Had he mentioned another kind of curve or idea then we might have something. Since he has not, we only have the Laffer curve to follow. I have won this argument.C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsAs I stated before from Shales' book and that video, most farm subisides were cancelled and did not have a huge effect in the 1920s because they did not exist for most of the era we are discussing. They only existed in the early part of the 1920s and were stopped or vetoed when Coolidge entered office in 1923. Because of the fact that the subsidies were not responsbile for the economic boom that dominated most of the 1920s, they are not a benefit. The lower tax rate under Calvin Coolidge actually got the rich to pay more in taxes. Those making over $100,000 shared 29.9% of the total payed income taxes. In 1929 when Coolidge left office they payed 62.2%. This is before Hoover's tax increases. What we can see here is that there is a huge correlation between lower tax rates making the rich pay more. Higher tax rates make the rich pay less of the percentage. [1]I showed economic variables before and after the tax cuts. What we saw was that there was more growth after the tax cuts because businesses could expand more. I will briefly refute Clinton with the 1994 midterms: “We took a special interest in 1946 and 1994 when a first- term Democratic president lost both houses of Congress to the opposing party,” Birinyi analysts Cleve Rueckert and Daniel Erdelyi wrote in the report. “In both cases the market was down in the two months prior to the election, and was up over the ensuing three months.” [2] When the Democrats lost Congress in 1994, the stock market grew at a rapid pace. In late 1993 the GDP growth rate was 2.1%. After the midterms it was 5.4%. We can clearly see that the supply-side Republicans saved the economy by simply winning Congress in 1994. [3]II. Kennedy Tax CutMy opponent looks at only some cases of abolishing the death penalty. Let's look at the specific my time my opponent was talking about instead of simply a few states at later times. According to Johansen:"The number of executions plummeted from 47 in 1962 to 2 in 1967 to zero in 1968. The homicide rate, which had been holding steady around 50 throughout the 50's, started up in 1965, just two years after executions began their plummet. The biggest increase in one year came in 1967, the same year that the last person was executed." [4]Here's a graph to back that up: http://www.debate.org...When the death penalty was put back in place crime fell by a wide margin.Now on the unions. Unions have been found to help their workers but hurt consumers and people searching for jobs. They block the market from hiring new people and effectively tax investors forcing businesses to pass the expenses of higher wages to consumer through higher prices. They completely cause a negative effect. [5]III. Reagan Tax CutsMy opponent looks into a depression occuring sometime around 1987 and 1988. Unemployment remained under 6% for the rest of Reagan's presidency after the recession (http://www.debate.org...). It was clear here that there was massive economic growth. Stocks boomed under Reagan as well (http://www.debate.org...). We can see here that there was clear economic growth from Reagan's tax cuts. Inflation dropped heavily under Reagan from 11.8% to 4.7% [7]I have already refuted Clinton's "growth" which was caused by capital gains tax cuts and the 1994 "Republican Revolution".C3: Income MobilityI have already refuted this point by proving that the poorest fifth of the American made more money $6,494 to $6,994 in a period from 1980 to 1989. The poor did make more money, the reason it is small is because most poor people don't work and live off government welfare systems, so obviously they would not be effected by any tax cut, but they still did better under Reagan than Carter did. [6]My RefutationsR1: Taxes Benefit the EconomyMy opponent made this argument through the Eisenhower years, but he has not brought Ike back up so this must be dropped. He instead changed his own argument to a different period. This argument was dropped.R2: Capital Gains TaxesAccording to the article: "Sinai says he favors raising taxes on one kind of capital gain, carried interest, to treat it as ordinary income. But the bigger picture is that lower taxes on capital are good for workers, a group that includes protesters and their siblings. They will have to decide whether they care more about punishing the rich or about increasing the number of jobs on offer to their friends. It’s a tough call. My guess is, as the temperature drops, the protesters will take jobs over rage." [8] R3: New DealUnemployment drops inevitably the recession. We want to know what makes it drop faster, higher tax rates or lower ones. In this case this case lower tax rates were needed because it was proven they could work. Instead, FDR had a huge tax hike which would lessen economic growth and weaken the recovery as proven the Ohanian study.R5: Gini CoefficentLook up because I refuted this point earlier with wages and inflation.My opponent talked about income inequality in his R7, but that is discussed higher too.ConclusionI have proven tax cuts on the rich help everyone by dramatically increasing economic growth and saving the economy. They create jobs and increase income mobility. Vote Con!1Historygeniusslapped!Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. Gammeltoft, Nikolaj. "Democrats Losing Senate Would Probably Give Boost to S&P 500, Birinyi Says." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 17 Sept. 2010. Web.3. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.4. Johansen, Jay. "Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime?" Johnasens.us. N.p., n.d. Web.5. Sherk, James. "How Unions Work." Heritage.org. Heritage Foundation, 21 May 2009. Web.6. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.7. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...8. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.