The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire.

Scope of DebatePro's opening statement, "My opponent will argue that we should make the current tax rates permanent or even a more drastic solution in that direction if he/she sees fit. "It's clear by pro's statement, that my burden of proof does not include providing a better alternative. I felt it necessary to call the voters attention to that issue, in case they were reading pro's comments the same way I did. If I misunderstood pro's intent, with those comments, then I sincerely apologize. I agree with my opponent that ALL factors must be considered, when deciding this issue. The effect it will have, on the OVERALL economy, must be considered. As I pointed out, in round 2, pro made the following statement, "I do understand that these tax increases would in fact hurt our overall economic situation". .. . OK, so we agree on that. "Overall", used as an adjective, would mean, "including everything, comprehensive, regarded as a whole" (1). So if he concedes that it will hurt our OVERALL economic situation, then what is the benefit of raising these taxes? ? His argument for a possible benefit, basically, boils down to three issues.1. We need to raise taxes, on the top 2%, because of our growing debt. I agree that the debt needs to be addressed. The problem is, as I showed earlier, there is no assurance that the 70 billion raised, by this proposed increase, is actually going to go towards the debt. That extra revenue could very easily go toward a high speed rail line, to help fund Libyan rebels, another stimulus package, or any number of new ventures. It is my contention that, if we are going to volunteer someone else's money, to be taken away by the government, and the debt is going to be used as part of pro's justification for taking that money, then it needs to be shown that it's going to be used for the stated purpose. Beyond making the assertion, pro does not even attempt to argue that it will be used for the debt. Rather he chooses to try to dispute my argument by focusing on my lack of faith, in our leaders, to use that extra revenue in a fiscally responsible manner. I am addressing that at various points, throughout my closing. As pro is claiming debt, as a reason that we need to raise taxes, he needs to show, at least "some reason to believe" that the extra revenue will be used for that purpose. Otherwise, it's not a valid reason to increase taxes. Since he can't do that, it can't be assumed as fact, and can't be used as a good reason for raising taxes.2. If we don't raise taxes on the rich, the rest will suffer cuts, to their entitlements. Pro says, "Now let’s compare an alternative area to cut from to balance this. Medicare anyone? How about Social Security? "Throughout the debate, and again here, rather than looking at other ways to save, pro goes directly to the programs that should be the last, to be affected. Our budget is massive, and I would argue that there are many places where we could save, before getting to those key programs, that would either eliminate the need to cut, or significantly reduce the impact on, those key programs. If we are at a point where those key programs are first to be targeted for cuts, then why are we INCREASING the budget for NASA, by 1.2 billion per year, for the next five years? ? (2) What's more important, taking care of people who have contributed to these funds their entire lives, or exploring space? ? This, once again, speaks to the issue of responsibility in spending, and along with other points I've made, gives justification for my lack of faith in our leaders' fiscal responsibility. I've also raised the issue of that 70 billion having minimal overall effect, with regard to saving these key programs. This fact was not contested by pro.3. They can afford it. Pro states, "So if we decide to take in $70 billion less (by not renewing these tax cuts) then we have to cut $70 billion more. " The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001, and this money has not been in the federal budget for years. So what is the basis for the claim that renewing these tax cuts, will cause us to have to cut 70 billion MORE? ? I think pro's statement highlights one of the biggest fundamental disagreements, between the two sides. The only way that statement even makes sense, is if you start with the assumption that you are entitled to that money, and are doing those people a favor by letting them have it. It's almost as if the other side has the opinion that, as long as there are successful people, there will always be a constant stream of revenue, that we can increase at our leisure. I would argue, however, that those people made themselves successful. They got the education, worked for the experience, and put in the sacrifice necessary to get where they are. Therefore, their income belongs to THEM, and we need to have a darn good reason before we lay claim to it. Pro would have you believe that we're talking about just the Buffets, Trumps, and Hiltons, of the world being affected, but that would be misleading. The top 2% would include individuals making 200,000 or more, and a family of four at 250,000. Whether they can afford it or not, shouldn't even matter unless one side is arguing for, what amounts to, income redistribution. Do we, as a nation, want to take yet another step, in that direction? ?Pro states, " What I find funny is that Con in this debate appears to be taking the no compromise position that put us in this situation in the first place, while simultaneously arguing that the government is irresponsible. " I strongly disagree with this statement. Though I did register my displeasure, with our leaders' spending habits, I also gave pro a way of assuring my cooperation. In round 1, I stated, "If there are some fundamental changes made, I wouldn't even argue against an, across the board, tax increase". Just point me to something they have done that even attempts to fix, what we all know is the main problem, overspending. Give me something to hang my hat on, and I'll compromise. Pro was unable to do that. In absence of that, we shouldn't be ok with raising taxes on the people who create jobs, in this country, just so we can say that we're doing something. Lip service has gotten us nowhere, I don't think it unreasonable to ask to see some action. Key issues, in this debate, that pro has not effectively countered, in no particular order of importance:1. This money belongs to them, and they have a right to keep it, unless pro can show sufficient reason for taking it.2. Pro can't even show that the money will be used for the reasons that he is claiming.3. History shows that those in charge of the money, once it's taken from the taxpayer, are fiscally irresponsible, and pro has shown nothing to lead us to believe that the irresponsibility won't continue, leading to the need for FURTHER tax increases. In spite of debt, expenditures have not decreased.4. The proposed increase will be of very minimal benefit to the poor, or to key programs.5. There are many things that can be done, aside from this tax increase, to save money before immediately targeting key programs for cuts.6. Top earners already pay almost 60% of taxes. One-third of all taxpayers don't even pay any taxes. Half of that one third receives "refunds" anyway, causing a government expenditure, in addition to other government assistance they may already be receiving.7. Those affected by this increase, are the ones who create the majority of jobs.8. Raising taxes on those making over 200,000, risks a slow down in job creation. 9. The risk of job loss, and the negative impact of that result, far outweigh the benefit that this increase will provide. For these reasons, I ask for a vote for con. I thank pro a very interesting debate, and wish him the best of luck in future debates. (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) . http://www.gpoaccess.gov...