The Rich Should Take a Hike

Thanks for accepting! Hope you don't crush me. So, I am going to argue that the rich should take a hike.C1: Fiscal Responsibility has Beneficial Results Stronger Economic Results The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have found that raising taxes on the wealthy would not be harmful, and would be beneficial. They recommended that it be included in a balanced effort to reduce the deficit, and the effects of the tax increase would be minimal, if any towards small businesses, investment, and the work and labor of the wealthy. [3] This is because, with lower deficits, there is greater fiscal responsibility, and greater stabililty in the economy.Entrepreneurship is possibly increased slightly with higher taxes on the wealthy, or no change at all, with the idea that there is less income volatility being a hypothesis in the economic community. [4]The Congressional Research Service concluded additionally that capital gains tax increases are likely to have a positive overall impact on national saving and investment, because of the public savings as a results of deficit reduction. [5]The vast majority of small businesses are not taxed at the high income brackets. In fact, only 2.5% actually are in the high income tax brackets. [3]Increase RevenuePaul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in Economics, has shown that the Laffer Curve is in the near 70% range, so the idea that revenue would fall is absurd. Other prominant economists have found the same conclusion, the Laffer Curve peaks at about 70%. Since the mathematics involved is very esoteric, I will leave sources to prove it. [1] [2]Better FutureThe nonpartisan CBO also stated that by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, it would be beneficial for long term economic growth, [7] and Peter Orszag has stated that since the debt must be eventually paid for, the Bush tax cuts hurt everybody, except the top 1%. [6] The economy is driven by consumption for the vast part, so by improving the economic condition of the middle class job creators, it leads to improved job creation. We must thus pursue a better future.The Graph Below Helps Show my Point: With higher investments in our middle class and people, with funding by the wealthy who themselves are well off, growth improves higher at higher rates (to an extent).C2: No Economic Benefits With Tax Cuts for WealthyModestly higher top tax rates are strongly correlated with stronger economic growth. [8] I have already proved how this can be true, because with higher confidence, and with government facilitating prosperity by giving everybody a fair shot at success (job retraining programs, education, etc.), and with greater fiscal responsiblitiy and investment, the economy improves with greater consumption, the middle class being the real job creators. The CBO said the least efficient way of helping the economy was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. [11] THIS correlates with my other proofs and theories as well! [9] That tax cuts and low taxes for the wealthy are not economically desirable!Tax cuts for the wealthy in particular are not good for the economy, because they are not used to create new jobs, and are most importantly the funds could be put to better use to help improve the economy, such as investing in our future instead of burdening our children. [11]Plus, the Progressive Budget Plan, which would increase taxes on the wealthy among other measures, would balance the budget by 2021, and shows that it is important if you seek true deficit reduction. [11]The CBPP has said that tax cuts on the long term usually only have modest economic benefits, and this is if they are fully paid for. This fully matches the analysis of the CBO that showed the Bush tax cuts being harmful because they weren't paid for, and also matches my argument that the Bush tax cuts have been bad, and the rich should take a hike. [12]C3: They Can Afford ItThe top 400 taxpayers could: So, when you consider this, and the other economic detriments of tax cuts, why not ask for modest tax increases! Seriously!?!?And over the last 30 years, the top 1% have seen their income rise by over 300%, while the lowest class has seen their income rise by a modest 16% in comparison. [9] They can obviously afford to give up more of their salary.Conclusion:We can conclude that higher modest taxes on the wealthy improves the economy, not just based on the evidence and the correlation, [12] but on the theory. When fiscal responsiblity is improved, confidence increases, leading to higher economic performance. Government can thus in turn facilitate a better, broader prosperity by giving all Americans a fair shot at the American Dream. So, it not only fulfills our values that make our nation, but it is economically sound. By also helping ensure opportunity, and a level playing field, and smart investments in our future, it is the common sense approach, that has worked in the past. By using America's tax dollars, the wealthy also have a moral responsibility to give back.Bill Gates Sr., the father of the richest guy in the world, pointed out why a progressive tax was the better option (than not having it). He said that,"Bill Gates didn't invent the Internet. [He] just used it -- to make billions. 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 did not make his money along. He used taxpayer infrastructure, [which included] the banking system, Federal Reserve, 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." [13]Based on how extremely well the wealthy have done over the past 30 years, it is the moral thing to do, to help all Americans have a shot at success. Especially when all the other Americans made them get to success. Tax cuts are economically disastrous, and are inefficient, and very immoral. Thus, the rich should take a hike.Sources: [1] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.motherjones.com...[3] http://www.cbpp.org...[5] Jane G. Gravelle, “Small Business and the Expiration of the 2001 Tax Rate Reductions: Economic Issues,” Congressional Research Service, January 6, 2011. [6] Thomas L. Hungerford, “An Analysis of the “Buffett Rule,” Congressional Research Service, October 7, 2011.[7] http://finance.yahoo.com...[8] http://www.cbo.gov...[9] http://www.americanprogress.org...[10] http://www.americanprogress.org...[11] http://www.nytimes.com...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] Lakoff, George. Don't Think Of An Elephant!. 1st ed. Chelsea Green, 2004. p. 25-26. Print. ^ Investments in our Future and People Really Do Pay Off