The United States should abolish the Capital Gains Tax.

The order will be my opponents case then mine. Starting with framework, recognize that we're solving into their frame also. While their framework only recognizes benefits, we solve for both harms and benefits. Prefer our because we're linking into both ours and theirs. Start off with their first sub-point about Venture Capitol: 5 response to this, -First: They lack a warrant As Huang from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that there is no direct link between aggregate economic performance and capital gains tax rates. He furthers that in the last 50 years, there has been no statistically significant correlation between CGT rates and GDP growth. Their analysis is either warrantless or purely speculative. -Second: Cutting the tax rate is a bad way to boost the economy The Federal Tax Policy Center explains that because these tax cuts will benefit the rich. This is problematic, though, because the rich are much more likely to save rather than spend their money " limiting any economic growth stimulus. They further that the best way to grow the economy is to funnel money to people who spend it more such as low-income households. If anything, cutting the CGT is counter-productive. -Third: Turn, as cutting the CGT will hurt economic growth The IMF concludes that any increases in income inequality will hurt a nation"s potential for growth. They explain that improving equality also improves efficiency " leading to more sustainable long-term growth. -Fourth: De-link them. Savings does not rise with a tax cut. The Century Foundation explains that there has never been a quantifiable link between a lower CGT and higher savings. In fact, when the CGT rate decreased by 13% from 1987-2003, household savings actually steadily fell. -Fifth: De-link again as Tax Cuts has no effect on high-risk investment The National Venture Capital Association reports that only 10% of people that invested in venture capital funds were individuals or families who might owe capital gains taxes. Now onto their investment abroad: Many problems with this, -First: The overall economic impact of reducing investment is small. William Gale of the Brooking Institute explains that capital gains cuts would raise saving and investment, but not by much. Capital gains taxes are a small part of all taxes on saving and investment, much investment would be unaffected because it is financed with debt or supplied by pension funds, non-profit institutions, and foreigners who do not pay capital gains taxes in the first place. As a result, conventional estimates suggest that cutting the top gains rate to 20 percent would raise private investment by less than 0.1 percent of GDP. Even that modest gain could be erased if the tax cut increases the deficit, causing interest rates to rise. -Second: Cutting capital gains taxes won"t induce growth. As Dean Baker of the New York Times explains that Demand for increased investment is low.We do have a problem of a weak labor market, with employment rates for prime age workers (ages 25-54) still well below their pre-recession levels, but this is a problem of inadequate demand in the economy. There is little reason to believe that if we generated more demand through larger government deficits or smaller trade deficits we would not have more jobs. -Third: In the 1980s, for instance, Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes on investment income -- and the economy did very, very well. George W. Bush's capital gains cuts, however, did not lead to such a strong economy. Tax expert Len Burman has graphed capital gains rates and economic growth and found no relationship at all. Then on Creating more jobs: -First: Turn, because the different distribution of the $1bn will affect the economy and jobs. If the money finds its way to those on low incomes, there will inevitably be higher aggregate spending, more jobs and quitesimply a stronger economy. And if the income distribution continues to be skewed to those on low incomes, there will be a lift in the growth potential of the economy. Un-employment would be structurally lower and there would be a self-supporting cycle of stronger activity as a result. Now on my case. Going on my sole contention, Extend my whole Unpopularity sub-point because 52% of Americans believe the capital gains tax is not high enough, and are against tax cuts for the rich. Make the Affirmative show you how this will pass. Now onto my Midterms subpoint, extend all arguments because the precedent-setting unpopularity of the recent GOP tax bill is likely to cause a landslide victory for Democrats in midterms. Once again, it doesn't look like it will pass. Now the political conflict leads to multiple impacts of gridlock: First, is with more gridlock, we see more missed deadlines and more mistakes like this being perpetuated.With more gridlock comes less policies, and less policies means fewer issues being dealt with in a timely manner. The slower our Congress moves, the less long and short-term issues that they can deal with, which means less beneficial policies like healthcare, social security, education, emergency services, etc. Although the affirmative advocates for abolishment of the capital gains tax, we only see the tax being re-implemented after the Democrats win the midterms. The impact of this bureaucracy is a more complicated tax code and increased congressional gridlock. Therefore, I am proud to negate.