Resolved: The USFG ought to tax the rich more

Introduction Thank you for your argument lannan and Balacafa. We looking forward to addressing them and we hope that this debate can continue to go in such a good direction. The discussion that has taken place so far has been excellent so let’s keep up the good work and continue with the debate. Without further ado, we’ll get started. Observations OBV 1: There is no clear framework set by our opponent’s since they refer to a number of moral principles. Since there is no alternative framework provided then voters ought to vote based on our framework since there is no alternative. Our opponent’s cannot bring an alternative framework as a rebuttal to our framework because an alternative framework is an argument, not a rebuttal. In the rebuttals round our opponent can critique and prove our framework wrong (if they are able to do so), however since no alternative framework is provided voters ought to presume our framework (unless our opponents manage to prove that our framework is worse than no framework). The Laffer Curve Our opponents brought up the interesting argument of the Laffer Curve, but our team is not quite sure about the role it plays in their argument. The Laffer Curve is defined as, “this curve shows the relationship between tax rates set by the government and how much money the government collects based upon the set rate.” [4] Judging by the picture seen in source [4], there is a spectrum of tax rates, starting at 0% and stopping at 100% (which is the maximum amount of possible taxation). According to the graph, the highest point of the graph (T*) is at about a 50% tax rate, more than our proposed tax rates actually are. This highest point represents the maximum amount of government revenue while maintaining a reasonable rate, so that employment does not drop or people do not feel motivated to work purely because of an obscene tax rate. An argument such as this one, in which the highest yield of tax rates is closer to one that the affirmative side is suggesting, is in all honesty quite silly, considering the fact that it plays directly into our main point of contention. “High” tax rates, or what the Laffer Curve considers to be the point of maximum revenue and satisfaction, do not penalize workers for their hours put in at the job; tax rates are all about raising money for the government so that programs can be further developed to aid the citizens in all respects. In the end, high tax rates concentrated on the rich is the means by which to achieve a bottom of society that doesn’t look so far from the top. Historical and Beneficial Tax Raises Our opponents historical examples here are not picked. To neutralize the impact of this contention we simply must provide examples in which taxes raises were beneficial. We aim to take the rebuttal further into turning it round to support our case. It is important to note that our opponent’s mention that JFK lowered tax rates down to 70% however, that is still in favor of our proposed percentages. Our opponent’s suggest that the 70% tax rate was beneficial to the economy so this example actually supports our case rather than theirs. Now I’ll get onto some beneficial historic tax raises. Of course we have the JFK argument which our opponent’s have kindly given us and we also have another historical example. During the American revolution, congress accepted loans from France. Paying off these loans was proven to be a difficult task. However, 20 years after the loans were taken from France (in 1775), they managed to completely pay off these loans (in 1795) [1]. Congress’ first solution was to print more money but this just lead to hyperinflation. Eventually, under the US constitution of 1789 the the new federal government raised taxes on the rich which ended up paying off the debt to France and even extended even further than the aims that they set because it managed to also contribute to some of their other debts to other countries as well due to its success [1]. Even if you are buying Con’s argument over ours you should be aware that a large portion of their argument is bare assertion and is justified using source [5]. If you were to look at source [5] you’d find this word: “ibid”. That is not a source of information. Our opponent’s argument is primarily bare assertion, this is enough to negate the contention alone. Our opponent’s arguments are cancelled out because they haven’t proven anything other than that taxes can be beneficial and bad. Since it is very difficult to observe every single tax raise and drop to calculate which is more beneficial overall this contention is neuralized. But it doesn’t end here. Our opponent’s end up arguing in our favor so the argument that they provided changes the previous neutralization into a contention that ultimately provides us with weight that bares impact upon the resolution. Ethics We agree that the debate should be looked at through the veil of ignorance however our opponents make big leaps in their argument which is important to note. Con asks who would want their taxes to be raised? Since their arguments is subjective we will also provide examples of subjective inclinations as to why somebody would agree with higher taxes. Our opponent’s argument seems very dismissive of details in the resolution, specifically the fact that we are raising taxes on the rich, not everyone. Somebody may want higher taxes on the rich so that the poor do not have to pay as much in taxes (as our plan suggests); so that the people that have enough money to lead good quality lives can ensure the same for those less fortunate; so that the national debt can be payed off; so that we can pay for more equal opportunities (ie. lowering university fees), etc [2]. Social cost principles completely ignores this as a two sided debated. It looks at the negative arguments solely and says that because of these harms we ought to presume Con. This, again, fails to account for all the negatives of Con’s side. I’ll restate the list just as a reiteration, the poor do not have to pay as much in taxes (as our plan suggests); so that the people that have enough money to lead good quality lives can ensure the same for those less fortunate; so that the national debt can be payed off; so that we can pay for more equal opportunities (ie. lowering university fees), etc [2]. Both sides of the debate fail under this principle, so therefore it should not be considered when analyzing the debate. Kant’s Universal Principle begs the question of whether subjectivity is superior to objectivity. Our opponents state that rich people do not like being taxed, therefore they shouldn’t be taxed. Firstly, the claim that the rich don’t like being taxed is unsupported. Secondly, we have to analyze the wider impacts. We’re ultimately weighing happiness vs poverty. Our opponent’s state that we shouldn’t do this because the rich will be unhappy. We state that we should because otherwise poverty will be of greater quantity because the poor do not have to pay taxes and can focus their money on providing for their family. Since our opponent’s provide no alternative framework voters should be viewing this contention under the socialist framework and this is made evident that it should go in our favor. Socialism works towards equality between the rich and the poor. If we allow poverty to be considered inferior to happiness of the rich then the poor are being burdened with poverty which is an immediate violation of the socialist framework proposed [2][3]. Sources [1] https://history.state.gov... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.coleinsurancegroup.com... [4] http://www.investopedia.com...