On the Following Fair Taxation System(s).

My opponent has some glaring inconsistencies in his argument, so I shall try to be concise. First, "taxing the rich and poor equitably" is fairly clear to me. Equitable does not simply mean fairly, but rather "characterized by EQUALITY or fairness" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Indeed, the root EQU- from equitable and equal is no coincidence. Thus, an equitable tax system must tax the rich and poor by the same method or rule. The easiest way to do this is a flat percentage of some sort. Second, my opponent mischaracterizes my proposals as an argument against the status quo, even though the opening argument specifically states: "The proposition on offer is that the following taxation system(s) are fair. The proposition is NOT that they should be adopted by the United States." His argument on this point is a complete red herring. a) Con asserts that I did not answer the argument that protected industries become non-competitive even though I explicitly demonstrated a model by which the automobile industry would remain competitive even if protected. Much of his argument against this point stems from a misreading of the initial proposition. Foreign companies would still have incentive to place manufacturing in the US - there would be no import tax on manufacturing. How is one to import a factory? Factories are built on location.... Additionally, my opponent makes a grievous mistake in stating that protected industries have no incentive to be internationally competitive. In order to enter the international market, they MUST be competitive. This is why Ford sells cars in Europe with better CO2 and fuel efficiency than it does in the US (http://www.autobloggreen.com...). b) My opponent still misses the point of import tariffs in this model. Suppose the international price of sugar is 4 cents a pound. However, on imported sugar, the return to the domestic economy is only 1 cent per pound. Also suppose that the price of domestically produced sugar is 4 cents per pound, but that 3 cents per pound benefits the domestic economy. Thus, an import tariff on sugar to boost the domestic benefit of IMPORTED SUGAR to 3 cents per pound makes economic sense if the nation is trying to boost domestic economy. c) My opponents argument that tariffs essentially cause inflation is indeed worth consideration. However, in the long term, this would give motivation for innovation in the domestic market. Also, my opponent is not considering this point in conjunction with the first, consumption, based model. Items of this nature that cannot be produced competitively locally (soap is a good example) may be taxed at a lower rate or not at all, according to the first tax model in the opening argument. *************************** I do indeed assert that exportation of raw materials and importation of finished goods makes no economic sense. My opponent states that profit-motivated companies practice this, and that Canada should never import aluminum. However, let us inject some common sense here... If Canada is a NET producer of aluminum, then the value of the aluminum they export exceeds the value of the aluminum they import. In the case of the exportation of raw materials, it is often the case that the value of the exported material is LESS than the value of the imported material. And this IS the case with the US, as evidenced by our growing trade deficit with China. Con has also contended that I hold that the US is practitioner of this exportation model. If the value of the silicon that is exported is less than the value of the electronics made with that silicon that is imported, then the US IS practicing this model. Con's last paragraph on this matter makes no sense. He states that the model of "provid[ing] raw materials to the mother country, who then exported manufactured goods back to the colony." is not the model that I proposed, but then states that it "was the model for the US back in colonial days." There is an egregious disconnect here somewhere, and I'm not sure I even understand the paragraph. I believe we can conclude from "That was the model for the US back in colonial days." That the US was historically a practitioner of this economic model AND that it was a model for colonies. As for a current example, South Africa exports 76.19 billion, yet imports 81.89 billion (CIA World Factbook). With just the United States, they export steelmaking and ferrous alloy-making materials, non-ferrous metals, and iron and steel. However, from the US, they import various cars, planes, machinery, and even machinery to help excavate raw materials (http://internationaltrade.suite101.com...). Sounds like this model to me. I would suggest that my opponent read "The White Man's Burden" and "The End of Poverty" concerning the economic situation in Africa. ***************************** I have refuted my opponent's claims, even though many of them stem from a misunderstanding of the application of import tariffs. I have also answered his claims about colonial economic models, and refuted his claims concerning Africa and trade deficits in general. AFFIRMED.