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

My opponent begins by stating that he will argue three different points against the Buffet Rule. Those being that the Buffet Rule does not achieve its stated goal, that it is not "fair", and third that it cannot achieve its stated goal. I feel it would be prudent to repeat the resolution of the debate to which my opponent agreed to: "The Buffet Rule Should be Implemented by the Federal Government". This would mean that my opponent's 1st and 3rd points are somewhat irrelevant to the debate, or at the very least, could be granted without ceding victory to my opponent. Were we forming a new government, and a law was on the table to outlaw murder yet its stated goal was to prevent rape, the inconsistency of its goal and its outcome does not mean that outlawing murder is a bad idea. While outlawing murder will in no meaningful way prevent rape, the law will still have a positive influence on society. It is valid in the reverse: were I to prove the bill DOES achieve its intended goal, that does not mean Congress should pass it. The stated goal could be quite detrimental to our society. Therefore the points made in this debate should only concern the positive and\or negative effects of the Buffet Rule. In this regard, my opponent's second point is quite relevant. Should the bill be considered unfair, that would not benefit society, especially in the long run. My opponent's arguments begin by concluding that ". . . giving the gov't more money only encourages them to run bigger deficits, and sends the message that spending money we don't have is ok. Remember even my opponent has not suggested paying down any of the deficit with this new money, he suggests new spending on top of the money we are already spending and cannot afford. " Not only is this argument a red herring, but it has the added property of being inaccurate. When he claims I suggest "new spending on top of the money we are already spending and cannot afford", this implies that my position is that we should utilize a one-sided "revenue only" fix. That the only way to solve our deficit is to raise more money and that my support of the Buffet Rule is only one small step in that direction. Correct me if this is inaccurate, but it would seem that it is in fact he that would propose a one-sided fix to our debt situation, only the side is "cuts only". However I believe we should focus on both; we should find areas to raise revenue and also areas where we should cut. In addition to programs I believe should be cut, there are additional programs and revenues I believe should be implemented, and that the final balance of these should result in a profit which allows us to begin paying off our debt. Now whether these new programs are worthy and what old programs should go is a separate debate, and it is in this vein that my opponent's argument is a red herring. Unless my opponent is willing to argue there should not be a Federal Government, then there must be a way to raise revenue, and this is one way I propose we do so. My opponent's next argument is that the Buffet Rule conflates income with capital gains. He gives us the example of someone like himself who takes his salary and spends it, and a fictional character named "Percy" who invests his salary in the stock market. He appears to be missing some numbers. For example, he claims Percy's stocks grow to $409,538.79 "Over that same 10 year period", but doesn't give any other 10 year period numbers. I have no reason to believe that was intentional, the flow of the paragraph leads me to believe it was accidentally omitted. It would seem that his tax burden over ten years would be $61,100. Since Percy doesn't have to pay sales tax in this example, we can add on $39,000 from income tax to the $73,717 number, meaning over ten years he pays $112,717 in taxes. This is almost double what my opponent would pay. However how much profit did Percy make on his investment? My opponent's 10 year value would be $159,900; the total amount of money he has made that has not been taken out in taxes. Percy made $409,538 on the stock market, and minus the taxes he paid on that, he values at $335,821. That comes out to . . . more than double what my opponent made. He is not, as my opponent claims, paying "his 'fair share, and then some'". Remember, value is subjective. To Mr. Buffet, my opponent's yearly salary is something he could drop out of his pocket unnoticed. Likewise, for someone living in a 3rd world country, their yearly salary could be dropped out of my opponent's pocket unnoticed. This illustrates why we have a progressive tax structure or at least why we should. What if the government required exactly $173,817 in order to operate just the basic needs of military? How would my opponent distribute that burden? Equally among the two? Each would owe $86,908, which means my opponent which, if I did my math correctly, has a per paycheck (+ sales tax) burden of $334. That's paying more than a hundred dollars more than before, meaning $200 more a month. Percy, however, now gets $322,629 instead of his original $296,821. Which of these individuals do you think will notice the difference more? This is all somewhat irrelevant to the Buffet Rule, as the Buffet Rule would not affect the outcome of the example. Percy would have to get lucky enough for his stocks to soar and value a total of $1,000,000 when he sold. That would mean he'd only get $700,000 back (assuming he gave none to charity) while my opponent still pays his $61,000 over ten years. Must I really go into how much my opponent would have to give up on his $22,000 salary in order to raise the near $361,100 between the two? Perhaps my opponent would advocate a flat tax rate instead of amount, but what would be that rate? In order for someone with a ten year salary of $260,000 and another individual making $1,000,000 in stock market profit to give $361,100 in taxes while paying the same rate, they'd each share a 28.659% tax rate. This would mean almost doubling the low income individual's rate so that the millionaire could receive a 2% break. Keep in mind that revenue must be raised somehow. How much we raise, what we should spend it on, these are separate issues. Arguing that we shouldn't be taking that amount of money from citizens is irrelevant. Instead, the debate is whether the Buffet Rule is an appropriate way to procure revenue, whether the proportions themselves are fair. Also keep in mind that my opponent has not entirely outlined what he feels would be a "fair" tax structure, and that I'm only assuming he supports everyone paying the same amount\rate. I would appreciate it if my opponent would put forward what he feels is a fair tax structure. Lastly, my opponent argues that capital gains needs to be a lower percentage in order to encourage people to invest in businesses that grow our economy. I'd like to as my opponent what he thinks will happen to the money if tax breaks are given to the poor rather than to the rich. What would he do if he found an extra $50 in his paycheck every week? Would he argue that individuals in his tax bracket would mostly keep that $50 under their bed cushions? I think it would be reasonable to assume that, given their economic condition, they would be likely to spend it. Where would the money then go? To businesses perhaps? Then those businesses can use the profits to invest their money and create more jobs, perhaps? Instead of giving money directly to the businesses, letting people who have little-to-no discretionary income have a bit extra at the end of the month means businesses get the money anyway but the poor actually get something in return. Stock portfolio's increase as well since businesses have more customers and do better overall. Everybody wins, but the super rich only win "big" instead of winning "slightly bigger".