Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

"If the intention of this debate was to prove that a known cause leads to a known effect, you are simply lacking critical thinking. Critical thinking employs good judgment, context, and competency in making a decision (in this case, whether or not we should have progressive taxation) - especially a decision which huge implications that concerns the economy. Critical thinking takes into account not only efficiency, but equity and morality as well. Is it efficient to kill every murderer that is guilty after being convicted so we dont have to house them in jail? yes. Is it moral? No. Also, it is not up to you to declare who has already won the debate - it is up to the voters." Critical thinking was never supposed to be part of this debate. I am arguing economic growth and government revenue only. Never was equity or morality supposed to be part of this debate at all and that's the bottom line. If I wanted to to debate if raising taxes wasn't moral, I would debate that and NEVER were we debating progressive taxation vs. a flat tax. This is only on taxes and the rich. "Equity: I am talking about income taxes. Who starts a corporation? A person at one point who starts the business. How do they start this business? With an income. The income he uses to start the business is separate from the corporate tax rate. People who are born into rich families inherit a monetary. Also, I see that your shallow reply to my key points show that you don't understand the concept at all." Lets get back to your original argument: "Company "A" is a small business. They make $10,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $9,000. Let's say they reinvest half of the profits (which is what business do) back into their business to expand it. They grow at a rate that $4,500 worth of capital will allow. Now, let's take a look at company "B" a very large business. They make $50,000,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $45,000,000 and reinvest half of the profits (just like the small business does) back into their business to expand it......" Your are clearly here talking about corporate taxes, not income taxes. You go on about monopoly, but that's also strictly business and does not focus on the individual, economic growth, or government revenue. This argument fails because this is not what were taking about. "This one is actually quite simple. You could make the moral argument that you believe it is unfair to tax a large corporation more than a small one, but then you have to take into consideration of fairness to the middle-class, not just to the large corporation. If Joe makes $1,000 a month and pays a flat-tax of 10% and he is left with $900, then where is the fairness in taxing the large corporation the same amount, but keeping $45,000,000? A flat-tax harms the middle to poor class more than anyone, because they still need to buy groceries, food, gas, and other essentials but proportionally, have significantly less income to do it and less taxation means that those in poverty have less tax-funded assistance to help them pay for those essentials." That's your moral argument. Now: "Moral reason: there is a moral implication involved in tax rates. Let me set an extreme example for you: Everyone gets taxed at 99% of their income. Would this be moral? No. Who would be able to survive? The richest 1% would still be able to buy basic necessities but neither the middle or lower class would. This is the same fundamental concept of morality in the income tax rate: Those who earn millions, should pay more in taxes than someone that lives in poverty. To say morality doesn't apply to the income tax rate is simply wrong." Morality was never part of this debate. We're arguing economic growth and government revenue. Obviously with a 99% income tax there would be little economic growth. However, lower taxes does create income mobility and economic growth, I have proven that. Finally, on China and environmental issues these still do little with overall taxes in the United States. I said lowering taxes would be a good idea, but I never said where the tax revenue had to go. Conclusion The voters know what we were exactly supposed to debate and my opponent did not refute my arguments. He also focused in two issues not involved with economic growth and revenue. That's one point against conduct. The other point against conduct falls n the fact that he was not supposed to give opening arguments in the first round. Arguments and conduct to me.