"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to briefly apologize for a few minor math errors I made in my previous argument. some of the numbers I gave were off by a small margin. I do not believe the errors made a significant difference, however, and I'll leave it up to my opponent as to whether he wants to argue otherwise. My opponent attempts to counter each of my original three propositions, and unlike last time I will rebut his responses in the order they were given. First, he calls into question my reading of the Constitution, stating that the end of Article 1, Section 8 mandates that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". He is correct that the Constitution reads precisely as he quotes it, and he is in no way quote mining. Despite that, his interpretation of this phrase would seem to be inaccurate. Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a staunch conservative in his day, writes in his comprehensive work Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States about precisely this phrase (in fact, Story wrote about nearly every phrase in the Constitution). The relevant information appears in Chapter 12, § 954: "It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist" [1] Contrary to my opponent's assertion, the Constitution does not mandate that each individual citizen be taxed equally. My opponent also references, but does not go into, the possibility that income taxes are actually unconstitutional. In response to this, I will quote the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." I should note that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 16th Amendment does in fact give Congress the power to tax income [2]. My opponent also comments that "If they [the Framers] had intended the federal gov’t to run schools, or offer healthcare or create a department of agriculture, it would have written it in there….they did not." This would only be true if the Framers had intended the Constitution and by extension the Federal Government to remain static and for no new departments to be created. This is shown not to be the case by the fact that Congress added the Department of the Navy (later merged with the Department of Defense) towards the middle of George Washington's second term, and it was John Adams that appointed the first Secretary to that department. Why did the Framers agree to this if they felt it was not something that was supposed to occur? The answer is that while the Framers did not intend for a Department of Agriculture to exist, they did not intend for one NOT to exist either. They left that option, or at least the option to create a new department, up to future leaders and generations. Does my opponent wish to argue that the Founder's believed themselves to have foresight enough to know there would never be a need for such a thing? That they wanted the Federal Government to be incapable of adapting to new situations down the road? Of course they did not intend for their to be a Department of Transportation, because one was not needed at the time. Next I will take issue with my opponents statement " . . . the idea that we can take money from one class and give it to another is the same problem as with the idea of slavery. Namely that we can take one group and force them to give up the fruits of their labor for the benefit of others." To compare taxes with slavery is to compare trade with theft, and is made no better by adding the caveat that it is taking from one group for the benefit of the other. As I stated in my previous argument, the government can't do that, nor does it to my knowledge. What it does do is provide for the general welfare, as in the action it takes is intended to have a positive benefit on the society as a whole. We don't provide education only for the benefit of the children, but we do so because a better educated society is a better society over all. The money you spend in taxes on education goes to preventing those children from growing up to mug you on the street (among other things). My opponent then brings up subsidies. I am honestly unclear as to why he does this. The Buffet Rule has nothing to do with how we spend the money, only how it is raised. There are many ways to spend money that does not involve subsidies, so even if my opponent was right, this does nothing to further his argument. He also extends this to education, saying that subsidizing schools has led to more under-performing schools. He gives no sources for this claim. I would appreciate it if my opponent would provide some evidence linking all Federal money with a decrease in performance, either in that school or in others. Without this, his point is rather hollow. My opponent was gracious enough to provide what he feels is a promising and fair tax structure. I thank him for quickly responding to my request, now we can discuss it over the next few rounds if necessary. My opponent would suggest removing all income taxes and replacing it with a "consumption tax". My understanding of this would be very similar to a sales tax, only without the usual exemptions on food and clothing. There are many problems with this, but for the moment I will only go over two. First, my opponent is incorrect in stating that the consumption tax isn't really progressive, but rather it is aregressive tax. The higher your income, the less percentage of your income you actually spend on consuming. A consumption tax would in reality put a higher tax burden on the poor and middle class. William Gale of the non-partisan Brookings Institution calculates that a switch to a consumption tax model would require a national sales tax rate of almost 60% [3]. Even if we slashed our budget in half, that would mean poor families would be getting taxed at nearly 30%, much higher than the current rate they pay. Second, it would immediately devalue all current long-term investments. Imagine you are about to retire. You've spent your entire life saving up, paying taxes on your income, and taxes from other sources. You've put away just enough to have a comfortable retirement. Then rolls in the consumption tax, and suddenly your money is now worth 30% less (if we're being verygenerous). My opponent's plan would utterly ruin individuals who have already saved up money over their lives. Any attempts to counter-act this by giving exemptions to the elderly or any other applicable case would be enormously complicated and very expensive. So to summarize, the Federal Government and the Buffet Rule is not outside the bounds of the Constitution, and my opponent's plan would be devastating to the poor, the middle class, and the elderly. The only group it wouldn't hurt would be the rich, of whom would benefit quite nicely. However, implementing the Buffet Rule would be fair, and would not have the harmful affect my opponent's plan would suffer from. [1] Story, Joseph L., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. (1833) § 954, Retrieved from: http://www.lonang.com... [2] BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) 240 U.S. 1 Retreived from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [3] Gale, William G. National Retail Sales Tax. Brookings Institution. Sept. 2004, p.2 Retreived from: http://www.brookings.edu...