The Rich Should Take a Hike

Rebuttals"He is right that it will reduce the deficit at first, but given the inefficiencies in our government the increased revenue would probably just be wasted anyway."In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration conducted various and very detail oriented study to determine the waste in the Federal Budget. Waste accounted for only about 2% of total spending. [1] The thought that waste would eliminate all the increased revenue is a laughable excuse."Deficits and Public Saving"It was implied that the revenue collected would be directed towards reducing deficits, creating more fiscal responsibility. With lower deficits, it would save more money, and inevitably concluded that with all the public savings (less deficits), it would exceed any losses in private savings, which would be low. [2] There has been not much of a connection between savings and the after tax returns, but the huge reduction in deficits would clearly outperform the changes the come from the adjustment in tax rates, which usually do not affect behavior among the wealthy by a large degree. [2]"Laffer Curve? WTF?"The Laffer Curve, as most of us know, states that there is an optimal rate at which more revenue is collected at a certain rate than at different rates. The top tax rate under Clinton was 39.6%. Revenue was collected at an average of slightly higher than 20% of GDP. Under Bush, this fell to around 18%, at the highest rates. The Laffer Curve therefore showed us that yes more revenue is collected at the Clinton era rate, and thus a hike of taxes on the rich to the Clinton levels would indeed raise more revenue. The source is for clarification. [3]"The fact is that the GDP rose IN SPITE OF the ridiculous tax rate, rather than because of it."First, my opponent ignores several aspects. First, many of the good economic conditions came because of vital government investments in our nation's economy to facilitate prosperity. After WW2, the GI Bill allowed millions of returning veterans to go to college, get a home, and/ or start a business. Furthermore, the GI Bill allowed more than 7.5 million veterans receive college and/or vocational training, and homeownership rose to a rate of 60%. [4] As we can tell from these effects, government investments that are responsible, bring prosperity. The massive utilization of resources for WW2 demonstrated clearly that government can create prosperity, and that a Welfare state was not harmful to the population, as the following decade of the 1950's with lower income inequality and greater access in the economic ladder contributed to one of the greatest eras of economic strength our economy has seen.Saying that growth happened in spite of high tax rates is absurd. The conditions for growth to occur would of had to have been extremely helped by another variable in the economic environment. As we saw after WW2, this was massive employment, and low income inequality. Therefore, higher taxes, which were directed for equal opportunity initiatives (GI Bill and other measures) DID create a stronger economy, refuting my opponent's argument here."Tax Cuts HEPLED!"Developed nations on the whole tax more than other countries. This does not necessarily mean that high taxes = prosperity, but it correlates strongly. My opponent says that low taxes are the key to prosperity, but nations with higher tax rates on the whole do better economically, look at Scandanavia. The key results from a Welfare state, are positive, since the high taxes, when used smartly, such as in education, help the economy. My opponent goes on to find some "benefits" of the Bush tax cuts. What Thett fails to point out is the article itself. The author of the article was a Bush insider who as part of the Bush administration promoted the tax cuts, and now is one of the heads of a Solar energy corporation. The article itself is complacently biased, one line: "Liberals want higher taxes because they love big government". Contrasting, the empirical evidence from the CBO showed that fundamentally, extending the Bush tax cuts would hurt the economy by 1.3% by the end of the decade. [5] My evidence is fundamentally strong with a much stronger base. "Government is harmful to Prosperity"This kind of antigovernment rhetoric is false.In Europe, many welfare states have free college. Job retraining programs allow for equal access to opportunity. Government can thus promote and facilitate prosperity. One such program was a local job retraining program that trained disadvantaged workers higher working skills. The results? A 32% increase in earnings for each of the workers. [6]This is not alone. In Europe, programs that provide equal access to opportunity, as a result provide greater economic mobility. [7] How do they do this? A level playing field with equal opportunity initiatives. Free college, improved childhood K-12 education, and investing in communities as they do in Europe have resulted in greater economic mobility. Since revenue would increase with the rich taking a hike, we could do the same, and the government could facilitate prosperity. I already showed how the CBO has explicitly said the Bush tax cuts were poor, and my opponent's source was weak. It is strongly shown that the rich should take a hike so the government can facilitate prosperity, and all have a fair shot. "It should be no surprise that a thinktank run by the government would argue that the government needs more money, and as with all his other arguments he doesn’t explain WHY its true."My opponent has clearly contradicted themself by saying the independent, nonpartisan CBO is more biased than an article, which is written by a CORPORATE HEAD and a biased outlook, with no sources to support his argument, unless Koch Industries counts. C1: Providing Services The Private Sector can provide services of course. But government has some roles that are fundamental to the nation. I will be brief, but one role of gov't:- Equal Access to Opportunity As I earlier proved, the government can have a fundamental role in increasing economic mobility, as high education standards in Europe have proved. With wide differences in families, schools, environments, and communities, government should level the playing field to make sure all have a fair shot at the American Dream.C2: Moral ImperitiveI'm short on characters. I'll be brief. "There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He used taxpayer infrastructure, [which included] the banking system, Federal Reserve, education system, etc. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! They owe the taxpayers of this country back a great deal and should be paying it back."Those aren't my words. Those are Bill Gates' words. It is the moral thing for the wealthy to pay back some of their wealth to the nation that helped get them where they arrived. Conclusion:Government can facilitate prosperity, by increasing equal access to opportunity. Europe does this, and they have greater economic mobility. With the wealthy having just some tax hikes, which they can afford, it would help the economy, be moral, and help the American middle class and the poor. A Legitimate Thought-Provoking Question: Out of room.Sources: [1] Joseph Nye, et al, Why People Don’t Trust Government (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 62 [2] Thomas L. Hungerford, “An Analysis of the “Buffett Rule,” Congressional Research Service, October 7, 2011.[3] http://www.deptofnumbers.com...[4] http://articles.boston.com...[5] http://www.cbo.gov...[6] http://coalition4evidence.org...[7] http://www.nytimes.com...