Tax cuts are based on a politically unsound philosophy, which has never worked in history.

Let me begin by stating that this has been the toughest and by far the most enjoyable round I have yet had in my short time debating on DDO. There are certain aspects of my argumentation and economics used thus far that seem to confuse my opponent. I must take some of the blame, however, as I am learning more with each post. Before I get to some key voting issues that I think are the most important of the round, let me first clear up some things. 1. The Arithmetic In this argument, my opponent is being hypocritical. After I first posited taxation as being simple arithmetic, Con argued that it is not and proposed more complicated theories. I rebutted by debunking Con's theories with more detailed numbers showing that the arithmetic is, in fact, simple (more on that in a moment). Then, Con argued that Pro was contradicting itself by positing more complicated numbers. In fact, I was showing that, for all the complication, the arithmetic was still, inexorably, simple. Look: [Tax $1,000]-[Spend $1,000]=Even. [Tax $500]-[Spend $1,000]=-$500. This simple arithmetic can be found in increasingly complex numbers throughout history, in the examples I brought up before. Furthermore, I did not argue in my first case that it was politically impossible to cut spending, it would be foolish to assume as such. What I did argue, however, was that cutting spending had never occurred in accordance with tax cuts. That is something my opponent has yet to contradict. And as we both seem to agree to the Laffer curve, without an historical example of the coupling of tax cuts and spending cuts, Con's argument falls. 2. The Kennedy Cuts As I brought up in my last post, the change in revenue in rote dollars itself is irrelevant; that is, revenue goes up regardless due to inflation and population growth. Rather, revenue effect as a percent change in GDP is more telling*, which is why I used percentage in my previous post. Per the chart I referenced, government revenue decreased by a full percentage point GDP, solid evidence that tax cuts, in that instance, failed. It simply doesn't matter that revenues increased one year to the next as that is a natural occurrence with virtually no effect from government policy. 3. The Laffer Argument I never said I disagree with the Laffer curve. Rather, I argued that Con's use of the Laffer curve is irrelevant and disagrees with the context in which he was arguing. 4. "...increased taxes stimulate the economy." (Con) I would like my opponent to find any mention from anything I have written thus far that supports the idea that governments spend money more effectively than the free market. My argument, concordantly, was that cutting taxes does not stimulate the economy, not that raising taxes does. 5. The 1920s. My exemption from arguing about the 20s was due to the lack of evidence amongst Con's cited sources. Moreover, none of the top 20 Google results supplied GDP information that could be used to calculate the percent + or - government revenue. 6. Switzerland. Since the specifics of the deals described in the article cannot be obtained, this point is irrelevant. 7. Virginia. Actually, according to that article, the surplus was due in large part to federal stimulus money. Revenue still dropped, even with tax cuts. This is a point for Pro. 8. Worldwide. Nothing in that article speaks of tax cuts. Key Voting Issues from the round: a) In historical examples (with sufficient GDP data), tax cuts always reduce federal - and, thanks to Con, even state - revenue. b) The Clinton tax hikes corresponded with a 41 percent revenue growth, far surpassing the 19 under Reagan. c) My opponent's sources have shown time and again to misuse statistics, invalidating the vast majority of Con's cases. Once again, I thank my opponent for an entertaining and enriching round. May the best arguments win. *Jerry Tempalski, "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills " OTA Working Paper 81, Office of Tax Analysis, US Treasury Department, July, 2003. http://www.ustreas.gov...