Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised.

Rebuttals"First, we have evidence that higher tax rates in general have a negative impact on growth. An overview of this literature is available the sources. We also have evidence that higher tax rates are responsible for the relative decline in hours worked in Europe relative to the USA, which has contributed to Europe being less productive"My opponent here is simply making sweeping generalizations about taxes in general. First of all, I agree that over taxing the middle and lower class is a bad idea. This debate is about the upper class, specifically, the top 1%. Simply stating that In general, taxes might reduce economic productivity does not clash properly with the resolution at hand.Secondly, my opponent points to Europe as an example, but fails to realize that wealth disparity is not nearly as severe as it is in the US. In Europe, the countries with the most productive economies (Germany, Scandinavian countries, etc.) all have very low GINI coefficients (usually about .25). (1)Thirdly, my opponent totally fails to articulate the how and why of his point. He shows no logical evidence to prove that taxing the rich will result in net drawbacks. This renders his argument as little more than an appeal to authority."Second, we have the evidence that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth. An example of some of this evidence is in the sources."Again, my opponent totally fails to articulate how progressive taxes hurt economic growth. His point is not logically proved, and his idea is not articulated. Furthermore, the paper he cites has been written only by a mere college student from the college of new jersey. " Finally, we have the evidence on how the behavior of rich people changes when taxes are changed. The evidence suggests that the behavioral responses are significant"Again, I don't see the point. Their behaviour changes significantly? How so? Why? Is it bad?My opponent really isn't making an argument."Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that higher tax rates reduce economic growth in general, more progressive tax rates reduce economic growth, and rich individuals have quite large behavioral responses to changes in taxation."Then how do you explain countries that are currently thriving with very high tax rates? Countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Germany all have very high tax rates and their economies are growing incredibly fast. In 2010, the German GDP grew 4.1%. Norway's GDP grew 3.1% in 2012 and in 2010 Swedish GDP grew a whopping 6.6%! (2)Compare this to the US average of 2.2%, and you can see that these countries are growing much faster than us with higher tax rates, and these countries are even burdened by the failing European Union."Entrepreunership" Entrepreneurship* My opponent claims that entrepreneurship is a driving force of the economy, and cites a source. If you investigate his source, it leads only to the abstract of a paper. My opponent is simply making wild claims and citing sources that are loosely related in an attempt to make his argument credible. And he still fails to articulate his point.As far as my opponents 200,000$ argument goes, well this is totally off topic. If you are making 200,000 annually, then you are not in the top 1%. It's almost laughable that my opponent would even think this. First of all, the top 1% doesn't really have an income in the traditional sense. That is to say, the income tax does relatively little to their actual income. Taxing the 1% relates moreso to higher capital gains taxes, higher property taxes, and higher estate taxes. The real average "income" of the top 1% is over $700,000 (1). Even at an astounding 80% tax rate (an exaggerated rate) this earner would still have $140,000, which is still over 3 times the average income of the bottom 99% (1)."Taxes on the Rich are Already Rather High"This point doesn't clash with the resolution. There is no objective number that determines when a tax is "rather high" or not. Obviously, a 90% tax rate is really high, and a 10% rate is really low, but until you approach these extreme values, it's a bit difficult to objectively determine exactly how high is rather high. Considering, though that during the 50s and 60s, when the US economy was absolutely thriving, the tax on the top 1% was over 70%, I'd say that current taxes on the top 1% just aren't high enough, and I proved this in my Round 1 argument. Furthermore, the wealthy are notorious for evading taxes. The top 1% use numerous methods to avoid taxation (4). This is illegal. Raising the taxes on the top 1% would mean cracking down on criminal tax evasion."A Moral Question""Confiscated" my opponent says, as if to imply that somehow the government is a king john, and the top 1% are the poor over-taxed peasants, and the republican party is Robin Hood. This seems to imply that your taxes simply disappear when you give them to the government. Have you heard of public roads? Police protection? Military? Social Security? Fire Departments?Believe it or not, these things are both important, and require money. Sorry charlie, but you don't get a bloated military budget without taxes. You don't get free use of roads and public education without taxes.At this in my opponents argument, he has exited the realm of rationality, and is merely asserting his own personal moraliity blindly. This argument is totally invalidSummaryMy opponent provides ZERO compelling arguments. Therefore, VOTE PRO!Sources1. http://data.worldbank.org... 2. http://data.worldbank.org... 3. http://www.forbes.com...;4. http://www.accounting-degree.org...;