Obama's plan to tax the rich would do little to solve the debt problem.

President Obama says that Republicans are protecting millionaires and billionaires from increased taxes. He further implies that increasing such taxes could have a substantial impact towards balancing the budget. He has proposed a "Buffet Plan" whereby the rich would have to pay a minimum of 30% tax on income. This debate is about whether this plan would generate enough revenue to significantly reduce the ongoing deficits in the United States. Symbolic or social reasons are not a subject of this debate; it's all about the money.The "rich" are people declaring an income of one million dollars or more on their Federal income tax returns.President Obama's position that taxing the rich will make great strides towards resolving the deficits: "“Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or do we want to keep investing in everything else?” he said at an event in Las Vegas. “We can’t do both.” [P1. http://www.rawstory.com...... ] The implication is that if the rich are taxed then we can continue "investing in everything else." The strong implication is that the tax increase would completely solve the deficit problem.We can dismiss the idea of a 100% solution as political exaggeration. I think the tax would be a substantial contribution if reasonably expected to reduce deficits by at least 25% in the next ten years, independent of spending cuts. My opponent may argue that some lesser percentage is significant. Arguments that even tiny reductions are somehow significant are disallowed. Ultimately readers will decide if the plan would go a substantial way towards solving the debt problem.The "debt problem" is continuing expenditures by the US Federal government in excess of revenues. The importance of taxing the rich will probably be a focus of the presidential campaign this year. This is chance for DDO to get a head start on understanding the issue. I'm looking forward to a good debate.Debate RulesDo not accept this debate unless you are an experienced debater, say having won at least five debates on having joined the site with substantial experience, and are prepared to cite data in support of your position.Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR. 1. The first round of the debate is for acceptance and for clarification of terms and conditions only. I will provide the specific Pro contentions in R2. Make a comment before accepting if you want a rule change.DR 2. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. No arguments in comments.DR 3. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links in comments.DR 4. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 5. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 6. The debaters urge that the arguments be judged based upon the preponderance of evidence. DR 7. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 8. Sources shall be numbered in such a way that they can be uniquely referenced by number.