The welfare and progressive tax systems are less preferable than...

"We have very legit evidence and it says, "you're wrong". " Still waiting for this evidence. Unfortunatley, you haven't posted evidence early enough for me to contend. Should you source bomb in the last round, I would be unable to contend it (seeing as the debate would be over). So, the audience should ignore this claim. "My point wasn't that this person made bad decisions, just that he wasn't worth anything close to what he was paid. " You've changed your point. You had said that he had "help[ed] run a company into the ground. " In response to this new argument, he was worth the amount that he was paid, because Ford improved under Mulally (. http://www.ajc.com...) and improved Ford to the point where it didn't need a bailout from the government . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . Again, you picked a very poor example. Ford went from a $12 billion deficit to a point where it didn't need a bailout. Surely, the CEO was worth more than the money he was paid. --------------------- "When offering such pay packages they aren't being paid for their labor they are being paid for their decisions. " Their decisions are worth more than they are. Their labor is highly valued intellectual labor. Companies invest millions in good CEOs because they produce more wealth for the company than they are worth. -------------- "Well, if they were taxed at 90% then the person would *STILL* take the job that offered 2 million over 1.9 million. " And I repeat that it is unethical to do so. A person makes themselves more valuable; therefore, they do not owe this surplus to society. ------------------- "Isn't it quite telling that you needed to go back to the 19th century to find your example? " I actually picked him because he hold the world record, not because they're hard to find. ----------------- "Your claim that people are paid crazy huge amounts of money and are worth it is notably silly. " Read directly from the Wealth of Nations: "Unless [workers] yield [the employer] this profit, therefore, they do not repay him what they may very properly be said to really have cost him. " (Book 1, Chapter 7) Your claim that they are not worth it is notably silly. --------------------- "Few of those individuals make anything close to millions. " But they are in the top income bracket. --------------------- "The US has had a progressive tax system for decades. The gap between rich and poor has exploded. " Exactly the point I've argued. "Giving the rich a massive tax cut isn't going to help this or change this. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. " Well, let's see what I already have argued here: "I also remind the audience that having a flat tax ultimately helps the middle class as the business owners have more money with which to attract employees and expand business. With more demand for labor, benefits and wages increase. " ----------------------------------- "I repeatedly noted I was talking about the superrich. The kind of rich you need to be born into" These "kind of rich" are not effected by wealth, as there is a notable difference in the ownership of the deceased's property and yearly wage. -------------- "If expanding their business was in their best interest it is *still* typically in their best interests. Getting massive tax cuts doesn't seem to be the tipping point in expanding a business. " It has throughout history (Kennedy and Reagan). When business has more funds, they have more to spend (on labor, land, etc. ), and money not spent goes into savings accounts which lowers interest rates for other businesses or the money is invested into otehr businesses. Under no case is the wealth of a business hid under the rug. --------------- "Oh, because clearly you can pull in the same amount of money by charging everybody less taxes. Massive tax cut for the superrich and rich, and a magically the middle class and poor don't have to pick up the slack because. .. you say so? " Because history and economics say so. I sourced an example and a link to other examples. -------------- "What happened? " "The economy kept expanding? " Wrong. Tax revenues increased by 33%, while the GNP only increased 4.5%. Lowering taxes and making taxes less progressive helps the economy. . http://www.house.gov... ------------- "No. The people earning the top brackets often own the companies. Wages don't change anything. You'd be taxing profits not wages. " You don't think all taxes are passed on to another person? When a company makes less money, it cuts itself down. (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 7) -------------- ">>They're actually worth more than every penny. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been employed. Basic wage economics applies to everyone that is employed. We aren't talking about WAGES! We are talking about bidding wars for top talent. The amount of the pay doesn't matter just so long as it's more than others were offering. " Yes, we are talking about wages. Bidding wars for talent will never exceed the true value of the job being employed. Period. Otherwise, a worker would not be hired (leading to a net loss). --------- "If your daddy left you millions you are much much more likely to have significantly more than that than somebody who's family had no money. This added amount of money is income rather than inheritance, but it takes money to make money and those with the money, make the money. " The solution to this catastrophe (OMG! ) would be to instate an estate tax, not a progressive tax. ---------- "Typically the superrich aren't even intellectual laborers. They do not earn money commiserate with skill. " After 3 rounds, you do not talk specifics. You do not provide sources. Well, you are utterly wrong. I don't know who taught you economics (you are a junior, so you haven't been taught it I guess), but the people who earn a high yearly income can not earn that icnome merely by having it. They must produce worth, otherwise they make no wage. ------------- "How about Reagan who cut taxes on the superwealthy? What happened, we got plunged into a spiraling deficit that we never recovered from" Jimmy Carter had a deficit every year. Reagan simply inherited this deficit. his policies did not create the deficit. . http://assets.opencrs.com... ------------- ">>This is certainly preferable to a bracket system, but a flat tax leads to general prosperity. Actually it would a bracketed system at every dollar. " I know what a logistic curve is. "Flat tax does not lead to prosperity. There's actual data here. Tax cuts to the rich do not trickle. " My opponent has claimed for 3 rounds that he has data, but has not presented any. Therefore, there is no data. --->Tax cuts to all trickle and increase tax revenue. I have claimed this, defended this, and sourced this. My opponent has claimed the opposite, but has not sourced this, and has not backed it up with economic logic. The reason why my opponent has not sourced the economic propserity caused by making a tax more progressive: the economy weakens when a tax becomes more progressive. "The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. " . http://www.heritage.org... The economy then boomed (hence, the roaring twenties). -------------------------------- CONCLUSION: The false unsourced economic claims of my opponent are false. Taxing people extreme amounts only limits their potential to reinvest their wealth in the economy. A negative flat tax is not only economically fair (because what one produces is proportional to what one earns), but also beneficial to the economy as a whole. For these reasons, you should vote PRO. ----------------- It was a great debate, Tat. I really enjoyed it.