100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

"The problem here is that although economic stats would increase, rich people usually do not share their money with others, which will leave the poor just as they were before. The rich would become richer, and the rest of the people would be unaffected. More growth and innovation maybe would be more when the government uses the money from the rich to improve the country, rather than random people carrying out personal projects rather than working together like in a research center."I don't know where you get the evidence that the rich don't share their money. Rich people become rich through their own work. With their wealth, they might buy an expensive house and car, which benefits home and car dealers. If they hire gardener or cleaning person, then that person benefits. If they are a major CEO of a large corporation, then the money they make also goes to workers getting paid and shareholders getting rewarded. Consumers benefit from being able to purchase products. Basically, as I have proven in my own historical arguments which you have not refuted, people get rich when taxes is lower on the rich."Aren't you contradicting yourself in this paragraph? You first say naturally the taxes for others would increase/decrease then you said the point is raising taxes SPECIFICALLY on the rich. So, in our scenario, the other tax rates should be considered same except the rich."No because you were the one who first started taking about the poor and middle income people, which is not what this debate was about. It was specifically on the rich. I just said that when taxes on the rich are lower that's when the poor and middle class see their taxes cut too. "I may not know what is enough for the rich, but I certainly know what is enough for the poor. Even 10 percent of rich people's money would be enough for the poor. You still think rich people should be allowed to live extravagant lives, while other people suffer for bread and butter? What use is increasing the capital if there are still poor people on the streets?"You just ruined your whole case because you just advocated taking 10 pecent of the rich's incomes to give to the poor. In other words, you believe the top income tax rate should be 10 percent. "Were the police paid more and worked with increased vigilance at those times? A government could simply take the benefits of tax but not give it back, while in our scenario the governments would work. If corruption is everywhere, it wouldn't matter if taxes weren't raised on the rich, the government would still have lot of money." What are the benefits of taxes? How did you know if the police worked with vigilance or not? Shouldn't you look that up?"Most of the rich people can survive very well even being unemployed, and if I am not wrong, your figures are on the raise of taxes on the entire population."The rich are part of the population and are thus paying more in taxes. We know that, overall, tax increases are bad because they take money away from the economy. The rich have more money, so they end up getting tax more than anyone else and see a lot of their money taken away."So if it is being raised specifically, we can make sure taxes are not raised on the poor, for otherwise this would be about the consequences of raising taxes on all, which is altogether a different issue for me.Also, can you get more global figures rather than only America? I am in India, and I am arguing from my perspective and actions in the country. It would be intriguing to see the unemployment figures of my country, as I am too lazy for researching myself.(DON'T refute this point!!)"If you look at changes in the tax code, people are naturally going to pay more in tax rate increases. Our question is how those tax rate increases effect the rich since they are usually affected the most by tax changes. Usually the rich might see their tax rate change by a lot, let's say an increase of 10%, but when that happens a new income bracket might be set and then everyone might see small increases. The poor might see a small raise like 1 or 2 percent. Yes, there will be people paying the bottom rate, but some who were on that bottom who see their incomes rise will end up paying more. Finally, this debate was specifically about the top income tax rate and capital gains tax rate of the United States, I'm an American afterall.ConclusionI clearly won this debate. My opponent didn't debunk my historical argument, which shows how lowering taxes on the rich helps everyone. The capital gains point and the Laffer curve point were not refuted.