Taxing the rich will benefit our economy

IntroductionIt's my pleasure to debate this subject with you. I will be arguing that although cutting taxes itself on the Wealthiest Americans would worsen the economy, the usage of those funds by the government would have a more positive effect on the economy than letting the rich keep their taxes. Here are some assumptions before going forward.Assumptions-The "super rich" are the people making over $250,000 a year, who are currently (under the Bush tax cuts ) taxed at 35%, which Obama has proposed to raise to 39% [1] [2]. - Economic stagnation is partially caused by business uncertainty over federal deficit [3].First ArgumentThe primary problem with the current economic situation is the high unemployment figures and lack of investment. Tax cuts for the rich do not encourage them to invest in their businesses. When a business person decides whether to hire a new employee, it is a simple calculation as to whether that new employee will produce more wealth through productivity than the employee costs in wages. So if the economy is bad, a business person is not going to invest in a new employee with their higher tax return, they are going to save it- which does nothing for hiring unemployed workers and therefore nothing for the economy. Economic growth and hiring is facilitated by demand. Say a business man runs a restaurant. With a bad economy and nobody in the community wealthy enough to eat out, he is not going to hire a new employee regardless of his tax rates because it will be a net loss for him. He'll take his 3% tax cut and keep it in the bank, where it does not see the economy. But, if economic conditions improve and more individuals have disposable income, more people will eat out at the restaurant, increasing the businessman's revenues, and thus hiring a new employee would be a net gain for his company. Therefore, the rich do not create jobs through increased supply, but the middle-class consumer enables the business man to hire through demand. Moreover, the lower and middle classes in America spend over 100% (accumulating debt) of their yearly income, whereas more wealthy Americans tend to save more, and thus spend less income into the economy [4]. So, if the US government raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans by 3 or 4%, and exclusively spent that revenue on public works, infrastructure, middle class tax cuts and public employees, the recipients of that revenue would be more likely to spend that money back into the economy (since lower and middle classes spend more than upper classes), thus creating demand, and thus inventivizing the wealthy in America to invest in new employees, which benefits the rich, poor, and everyone in between. I'll expand on this next roundSecond ArgumentThis one is pretty simple. Polls and studies overwhelmingly show that the US debt and deficit are preventing businessmen and the wealthy from investing (see assumption 2 and source 3). The present tax cuts on the rich have, since their signings in 2001 and 2003, prevented 3.9 trillion dollars to be collected by the treasury, which added considerably to the deficit and debt, and every year the tax cuts are in place adds 200-300 million to the deficit [5]. The GOP talking point that the growth caused by the tax cuts actually increases revenues has never occurred once in US history. And with the Bush tax cuts being the single greatest contributor to the deficit since 2001, it is reasonable to assume that the lowering of tax rates on the rich have weakened the economy over despair over the deficit, and by raising taxes and thus decreasing the deficit, the economy of the US would actually see growth through certainty. I'll expand more, and good luck! [1] http://www.taxfoundation.org... [2] http://money.cnn.com... [3] http://www.oregonlive.com... [4] http://tutor2u.net...[5] http://www.csmonitor.com...