Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

I appreciate your response - but I believe it is incorrect."Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich" is the title of the debate."Raised" is the keyword here. "Raised" as in, not a flat tax. The tax system we have now, is a progressive one. If you wanted to specify your debate question further, you should have worded the debate as: "should taxes be raised on the rich further than what they currently pay in [which is progressive] income tax?"I am using critical thinking in my approach to answer the question this whole debate is about: whether "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" - as opposed to "not raised": not raised would mean a flat-tax. The method in answering this debate question is not about efficiency "(economic growth and government revenue [are increased by non-raised taxes])", but whether we should go that route in answering whether or not to have a raised (as opposed to a flat) tax on the rich. The method in answering whether or not "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" requires concern to not only economic efficiency, but morality and equity as well.My stance in summary1. in answering the question of this debate, which is "taxes should be 'raised' on the rich" I am making an argument for a progressive tax rate (where the rich get taxed more) as opposed to a flat-tax (where everyone gets taxed equally regardless of socioeconomic status). If you refute that this debate was not about that, the burden rests on your lack of specificity in the question. This is not a matter of semantics, but of ambiguity (if it was unintentional) thus, my arguments to the question are valid and completely relevant in answering the question.2. We should have a progressive ("raised") tax rate on the rich, as opposed to a flat tax rate where everyone is taxed the same.3. The reason we should not keep a flat-tax rate on the lower, middle, and upper class, is because it would create even more inequality (as shown below) -leading to lower social mobility - (which is already a widening gap even though you said it wasn't - see picture below), and it trades economic efficiency for both morality and equity. I believe that efficiency, equity, and morality should all be deciding factors on whether or not taxes should be "raised" on the rich.http://jobenomicsblog.com... Proof that inequality leads to lower social mobility: "Several studies have found the ability of children from poor or middle-class families to rise to upper income — known as "upward relative intergenerational mobility" — is lower in the US than in other developed countries— and at least two economists have found lower mobility linked to income inequality [1].4. China followed the same capitalistic ideals of having an "economically efficient" vs an "economically developed" country, which has led to its current problems of morality and equity.Moral problem of solely focusing on economic efficiency: A. Decline in quality of life: - workers rights: none or little pay, no regard to external costs to the environment (china has 7 of the worlds 10 most polluted cities in the world resulting from it's immense economic growth)- complete disregard for the environment. China has 7 of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world [2] and produces the most CO2 emissions in the world[3]- rising income inequality gap - one of the highest in the world and rising. This lowers social mobility for the lower and middle class. The "Gini Coefficient" which is used to measure income inequality, is estimated to be at 0.60. "A report by the Chinese Household Finance Survey Center of Chengdu's Southwestern University of Finance and Economics said in Dec. 2012 that the coefficient was 0.61 for 2010, much higher than the global average of 0.44. [4]"- The Chinese government has intentionally overlooked these problems, as would we, if "economic growth" - AKA "GDP targets" was the only goal. Now they are facing serious problems [5].Equity problem of solely focusing on economic efficiency:- It will lead to an even higher income gap between the richest and middle class - lowering social mobility, or in other words, the ability to rise up into a different socioeconomic status- It leaves less funding for tax-supported public goods such as: education, environmental preservation, police, national defense, social programs, and more.- those living in poverty will be taxed the same percentage-wise as a billionaire.5. Income tax is relevant because it determines how much money can be used to buy business capital.You say that I am talking about corporate tax, but I am talking about a flat income tax across all classes negatively affecting the business dynamics in America because the rich would have far more money than they would today to achieve market dominance. Let's say a middle-class man and a rich man plan to start a business. In order to start a business, you need money to start it. If taxes are at 10% on someone who earns $1,000,000 a month, regardless if he acquired that money after corporate taxation or not, he is significantly more able to begin and expand a business than someone who is taxed at 10% earning $5,000 a month. The difference in income by having a non-raised (flat) tax on the rich, will only exacerbate this problem and lead to monopolistic domination of a particular market because the person who would be competing against him in the business world would not have enough capital to start his business. This happens currently - look at Walgreens vs. Rite Aid, look at Sony vs. Microsoft, look at Coke vs. Pepsi. They dominate in the pharmaceutical, console, and soft drink markets respectively. This kind of market dominance will be much worse if the rich are taxed at a low-flat income tax rate because they would have significantly more money to attain business capital. I have listed the reasons why monopolistic dominance in a market is bad: ". . .they are incentivized to produce low-quality, overpriced, products - with a disincentive to invest in research and development for discovering new technology to enhance the product, but only to lower the cost of producing it."In response to your last sentence: The issue were were to debate is "Taxes should be raised on the rich" and that is the argument that I am addressing. You ask this question in your debate but then say: But only based on variable "A" without taking relevant variables "B" and "C" into account. The variable "A" is efficiency, "B" is morality, and "C" is equity. The debate is over the question asked and I addressed it with relevancy. I could argue that you should have conduct points taken away also for reasons I won't say but have pointed out earlier, but that would be poor conduct to do so - so I will not. I also addressed possible issues of my formatting by apologizing in my opening sentence because this is my first debate ever on this website. You decided to proceed with the debate the way it was, and it was accepted. I am glad to have been a part of this debate and look forward to possibly debating you in the future, hopefully in good spirit.Voters - you decide! SOURCES:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://news.discovery.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.wantchinatimes.com...[5] http://www.gulf-times.com...