The Rich Should Take a Hike

Thanks Thett.This debate is NOT on the validity of an income tax. This debate is whether the rich should take a tax hike. I have fulfilled that BoP by filling my side with arguments ranging from but not limited to how it creates deficit reduction and a pathway for equal access to opportunity and economic mobility.I will carry your points for simplicity, the rebuttal points and such.R1: Gained RevenueI like how you put "Contra cites an article made when he was an infant". Just thought I should say that.Revenue gained through tax hikes wouldn't necessarily be wasteful. Programs that promote equal access to opporttunity create a level playing field. Truth is that people don't start at the same point. Many schools suck, family structures may not exist, communities may be ravaged, etc. Certain job training programs are effective. One job training program trained disadvantaged workers, and workers saw an average increase of 32% in wages. [1] As I pointed out in R3, nations that have greater economic mobility have equal access to opportunity (high quality K12 education, free college, strong safety nets, etc.). And these imperitives are financed through higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy.R2: Laffer Curve/ Use of RevenueMy opponent seems to be trying to drag the debate from my points. As I have said before, the revenue would be used towards equal access to opportunity, deficit reduction, and infrastructure (latter less mentioned though).R3: 90% Tax RateIt was not a fallacy. It was a historical perspective. When gov't was able to institute generous social programs such as the GI Bill, the economy flourished, because it gave American veterans the ability to start a new life. I agree that it is somewhat off topic, but fundamentally it shows that gov't intervention with higher tax rates is not fundamentally bad, and government can (and should) spend that money well, on the same types of programs that helped the economy them and does in sections of the nations now. On equal access to opportunity.R4: Tax CutsI didn't drop this argument. I responded, and said that extending the Bush tax cuts would over the next decade be harmful to economic growth. And, when you look at the real effects of the tax cuts, they sucked. Wages declined 8.1%, [2], and empirical evidence from the Brookings Institution estimated that the top 10% received 81.8% of the tax cuts, especially because of capital gains taxes. [3]My opponent proceeds to claim my argument is inacurrate. This is false. On page 33, it does cover the numbers I was talking about. A turn argument, the best economic situation if the Bush tax cuts were fully extended for all was still have a negative impact of -1.1%, or at worst -1.6%. [4] And my opponent's source, there is no evidence. It is just a casual political jab post by a commentator who is part of the conservative network of think tanks. And the Heritage Foundation is funded almost exlusively by multinational corporations. Who funds the CBO? Taxpayers. R5: Government is BadThis point is not important to the debate itself. It should be ignored.R6: MoralsIf the rich got wildly wealthy, they have an obligation to pay back to society, so others can become rich like they did. And having equal access to opportunity is not the same as Europe. Europe has extensive social welfare policies, far beyond what I advocate. For example, in France, the maternal leave lasts up to one year, and they get a free maid. They are very lavish. [5]Conclusion:The wealthy, who have as I have proved gained a disproportionate gain of income because of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts FAILED miserably to create new economic growth. If we extended them, I showed empirical evidence of how it would negatively effect the recovery. Instead, the wealthy can pay more in taxes, so that we can finance equal access to opportunity through means tested programs as I have proved. We can also drive down the deficit. There is no compelling evidence on my opponent's side, just more rhetoric bashing government, even though I proved how it could, and has performed good jobs on occasions, such as after WW2. I proved how my arguments could unfold, and the great success after WW2 with the same idea in place.Fundamentally, we must improve our future, and if the Bush tax cuts are extended, it would have a negative effect.There is simply no evidence on my opponent's side. Hilariously, the prime financers of the Heritage Foundation are Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, and other multinational corporations such as GE. Regardless, wealthy contributors (private dontations included) have signficiant influence on the Heritage Foundation's reports. [6] My opponent calls this evidence "strong" while calling nonpartisan evidence "weak". Reality doesn't have a liberal bias when it fails to support fallacies.We must give everybody equal access to opportunity, improve our growth, morals, debt situation, and give everybody a fair shot at the American Dream as Obama famously repeats.After a plethora of evidence against the Bush tax cuts, it is simple. I have met my BoP. To fundamentally help America;The rich should take a hike.Vote Pro ^^ Can't they share just a little?!?Sources: [1] http://coalition4evidence.org...[2] http://www.tax.com...[3] Edmund L. Andrews, "GOP Lawmakers Agree to Extend Tax Cuts," New York Times, May 10, 2006.[4] http://www.cbo.gov...[5] AP Government and Politics 2009. Pearson Education, AP Edition.[6] http://www.sourcewatch.org... **Thanks for the debate Thett! You were a worthy adversary.