100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

Refutations"And the figures in your article show effects of raising taxes on ALL rather than the rich. What I propose is that taxes should be increased on the rich, and as an extension, decreased on the middle class and poor."Two important points:1) What article are you talking about?2) This debate is obviously about what happens when taxes are raised on the rich, but what we have to acknowledge is that when taxes are raised on the rich, most get their taxes raised anyway. For example, Reagan's 1981 tax cut bill brought the top rate from 70% to 50%. Naturally, people who were paying less than the top rate saw their taxes decreased. If we take a tax hike for example, say Hoover's 1932 increase from 25% to 63%, we will notice most had their taxes increased in general. It is just the way the tax code works.I think my opponent, although well meaning, is missing the point which is specifically if taxes should be raised on the rich or not, which I am against. When taxes go up, we expect people to pay more including the rich. "There may be few rich people in this world, but even the combined wealth of everyone else wouldn't match. People that are present in the film/acting industry, business, politics, famous artists and the like have much more money than they need. It would only be fair if taxes were raised on these lucky individuals, considering that the money actually gets used for the goodwill of the people. Let it be our imaginary government."The problem here is that my opponent has to prove that they have more money than they need. How does my opponent know what is enough for the rich? Yes, they like to live extravagant lives, but when big money is saved and spent, it benefits the economy. Obviously buying things is good, but saving is great too:"If it is saved, it becomes bank deposits and expands loan capacity for entrepreneurs who want to borrow more money in order to grow. If it is invested, it increases the pool of capital and lowers the cost of capital. Thus lower marginal tax rates increase capital formation (as would a cut in capital gains investments). The result is more growth and innovation and rising living standards." [1]Next:"It would also help root out black money. As the taxes would be raised, tax officials would get paid more, and they would be more alert for collecting taxes from all rich people. Chances of finding black money may increase."Any evidence of this, because the rich got away with a lot during the 91% tax rates of the Truman and Eisenhower years. Usually the larger the taxes, the bigger more tempting the loopholes are. If taxes are too high, the wealthy just leave and take their capital with them. [2]"Lastly, the high social status and power possessed by the rich shall finally be threatened. The middle-class may even benefit with the increase of taxes on the rich. And fortunately, no more wastage of money shall be tolerated by rich people who don't bother about others and just comforting themselves."In addition to your argument of public projects, this to me feels New Deal-esque and the New Deal resulted in the worst economic recovery in American history. Consider that Hoover raised the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% and then Franklin Roosevelt raised it up to 79% during the peaceful time of his presidency. The result is the weakest economic recovery in history. Compare our unemployment rate with Canada's during that time: I await my opponent's refutations of my arguments, but I think my case help's refute his because during the 1980s more Americans moved up the income ladder with lower tax rates.Sources1. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.2. http://tomwoods.com...;