Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased

Rebuttal:Higher tax rates... contributed to Europe being less productive [2].Your first paragraph is a bare assertion.Your other two points are not relevant to the issue. Higher tax rates in general decrease growth, it is true. But this debate isn't about raising taxes in general. I, in fact, would lower the taxes for lower brackets. You need to provide evidence that higher taxation on the wealthy actually decreases growth itself.Second, we have the evidence that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth. An example of some of this evidence is in the sources [3]. True, usually it does harm economic growth somewhat. But two things. First, it matters how the country is spending the extra money gained from taxing the wealthy more. If that goes into military or ineffective welfare programs, there is not reverse compensation for the slight negative effect progressive taxation. Also, your source says the following in its conclusion:"The implications for fiscal policy seem obvious but are not. The effect of income inequality on economic growth must also be studied in order to make a conclusive argument for or against progressive taxation. If the effect of income inequality on economic growth is greater than that of progressive taxation and progressive taxation does indeed reduce income inequality significantly, progressive taxation may be a sound fiscal policy"There is more at stake than the simple negative effect progressive taxation has, and your source even recognizes this, and yet you ignore this as well. You never address the problem of inequality. I spoke about many positives brought about by progressive taxation, if the government spends/redistributes the money well.Finally, we have the evidence on how the behavior of rich people changes when taxes are changed. The evidence suggests that the behavioral responses are significant [4].This also is true, that the wealthy react negatively to higher taxes. But if we are to examine psychological factors, far more pressing is workers' alienation. Efficiency wage theory is one of the central tenets of modern economics, simply stating that if workers feel they are being treated unfairly, they lack motivation to do their job well and productivity drops [1]. The massive income of their superiors and the small degree to which it is ultimately taxed has a psychological effect on workers. The wealthy's negative response to more progressive taxation would certainly not outweigh the psychological effect that workers feeling like they are treated unfairly does. Greater taxation on the wealthy would alleviate much of this.Entrepreneurship is one of the central drivers of economic growth [5].... Not surprisingly, there is strong evidence that progressive taxation has a negative effect on entrepreneurship [6].Firstly, your sources are ludicrous. The first is a few paragraphs by an organization that plans to raise entrepreneurship, and I don't even understand what the other has to do with the issue. Perhaps you mis-linked? Regardless, I would ask voters to take into account this irrelevant sourcing. Since you provide no relevant sourcing, I don't feel I need to here either. You think the truly great American innovators have been motivated by monetary incentives? The only people who are motivated by monetary incentives are those in the financial sector, who DON'T benefit our society, but engage in predatory lending in other practices, such as those that led to the 2008 economic crisis.High tax rates discourage productive behavior such as investing, working, and taking risks and encourages unproductive behavior such as tax avoidance.No evidence for the first few claims, as I stated. Just because money gets taken away doesn't mean that people suddenly don't want to try to be wealthy. Wealthy people will still have more wealth than they can possibly handle, slight raises in the top brackets of income won't change their motivation to earn money.As far as tax avoidance, this can be solved by simplifying the tax codes. Progressive taxation and high taxes have little to do with this. If we simplify the ridiculously complex tax codes that we have now and eliminate loopholes, tax avoidance won't be an issue. A big reason why loopholes even exist is the work of the wealthy to ensure that they keep all of their wealth. And the logic you are using could be applied to law. Should we not have strict laws for fear of people breaking them?The CBO estimates that, in 2013, the top 1% paid... with some higher and some lower. With all due respect, I am not sure if you are serious any more with your sources. You made claims about taxes in 2013 with data that only goes to 2005, and your eight source points out that in 10 states the bottom 20% pay 6 times as much as the wealthy. There isn't anything else to say, either you are trolling or you are messing something up with your links. The super-wealthy pay far less than the poor.The practical problems with raising taxes on the rich have already been discussed, at length here. I also believe there is a moral element to this debate. Do we really want to live in a society where nearly half (or over half) of somebody's income is confiscated by the government?And I addressed in my opening argument how America is not this land of opportunity and enterprise. Until there is reasonable socioeconomic mobility for people with poor backgrounds, don't act like the wealthy are the victims of unjustness.Frankly, I find such "moral" appeals insulting, when so many impoverished families work 70 hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck, working far more and therefore deserving far more than people who were spoonfed opportunities from birth having come from wealthy families. THOSE are the people who are at the crux of the issue of economic morality, not people who have more wealth than they know what to do with.Counter-Rebuttal:Your Rebuttal was mostly a series of attacks that strawman my argument and don't put my statements in context. Also, attacks on my sources when yours were utterly nonsensical and totally unrelated.First, Pro has violated the rules by issuing a rebuttal and addressing my sources in his opening argument. Voters, please take this into account.I didn't address your source, I pointed it out because it was a relevant source for my argument. Calm down.Where are your sources... very much progressive. You cited no such rate, your link had nothing to do with your claim.This claim is absolutely ludicrous. This shows that you're not looking through the source correctly. I ask that you quote and cite the piece you're referring to directly.This is actually getting funny. Page 8 of 135 in your eighth source says the following: "Ten states — Washington, Florida, South Dakota, Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Alabama — are particularly regressive. These “Terrible Ten” states ask their poorest residents — those in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale — to pay up to six times as much of their income in taxes as they ask the wealthy to pay."Where is your evidence for this second remark? Correlation does not equal causatio, but you haven't even provided that. Cite this. Otherwise, it's baseless. I explain the validity of the claim right after it, if you would care to read supporting remarks before you attack my claims.First of all, the rich pay a lot more in taxes than the poor. I've already pointed this out. Second, we are not discussing bailouts, so you've got off topic on this one. I don't support bailouts.Same as above. This has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.And I've pointed out your false sourcing.Fair enough on the bailouts. You're wrong that it was off-topic, but we can let it go if you don't agree with bailouts. I suppose you don't agree with the Keynesian approach? I could get into that, but that would be a whole other debate. I have enough other arguments so that I don't think this specific point matters too much.Absolutely, which is why even John Maynard Keynes would advocate counter-cyclical tax cuts. Raising taxes amid a recession, as even Barack Obama acknowledges, is antithetical to growth. It destroys jobs and removes incentives for investment.Keynes also supports economic stimuli, and so do the majority of modern economists, both Left and Right. How do we afford stimuli? Further taxation on the wealthy. As mentioned earlier, progressive taxation only hurts if the money obtained is not reasonably redistributed back into the economy.You keep mentioning regressive taxation but you've been proven wrong. Also you keep mentioning bailouts. Please at least try to stay on topic.And your sources have been proven ridiculous, while I did provide a source for regressive taxation, yours in fact.Correlation does not mean causation. Prove that inequality hurts spending and leads to depressions. Even Paul Krugman disiagrees with you. If we are appealing to authority, then look up Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist who wrote the brilliant Price of Inequality, and its plethora of negative effects.Your source for this in Wikipedia. Also, you're forgetting that in the 1950s, the US wasn't competing globally. Now it has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. At least my source is relevant. Quoting random PDF files is meaningless if they have nothing to do with the topic, as you are fond of doing.No evidence. In fact it would destroy jobs and increase the deficit. No evidence. In fact it wouldn't. Trickle down economics has been disproved so much I shouldn't even have to argue it.No, all you would do is destroy jobs by raising taxes. No, I wouldn't.Source:[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...