Taxes should be raised on the rich

Let's do this! I will make my own case first and then do refutations. My CaseC1: Laffer CurveOne of the most important factors in an economy is the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. The important thing to understand is two scenarios in which the tax rate is either at 0% or 100%. In both cases the government is getting no money by either no taxes or a rate so high no one would possibly work because of how much money they would not be making. As the rate rises from 0% the government gets money and as it lowers from 100% more people come back to work. The important thing to understand is that at some point the government would lose revenue rather than make it with higher rates and that is why lower rates should be implented. When tax rates are high, rich people stop investing their money and find tax shelters for it, but when its lower they continue to invest and expand their businesses. [1,2]C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsUnder Woodrow Wilson, the top tax rate rose to a high of 77% and the country went into recession in 1921. Warren G. Harding became the next president of the United States and lowered the rate to 50% followed by Calvin Coolidge after his death, who lowered the top rate to 25%. This was followed by huge economic growth and a massive budget surplus. During this same period, Real GDP growth expanded from 2.0% before the cut to 3.4% after. The unemployment rate fell from 6.5% to 3.1%. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. This actually got the rich to pay more in taxes than they did with a higher rate. Production increased dramatically. [1]Even more specifically with the Coolidge cuts: "Nor is it surprising that, with increased economic activity following the shift of vast sums of unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent. " [4]II. Kennedy Tax CutThe tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway. The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations. [1,3]III. Reagan Tax CutsWe all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures. Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly. C3: Income MobilityWhen the tax rates have been lowered we have seen huge income mobility among people. In a sense, it spreads wealth around and increase income mobility better than any social program could. This means that lower taxes is better in helping the poor because businesses are able to provide more jobs and increase wages. Income mobility is in the best interest of the people. During the Harding-Coolidge years: "The facts are plain: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable that number fell drastically, to just 21 people by 1921. Then, after a series of tax rate cuts during the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more rose again to 207 by 1925. Under these conditions, it should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue after tax rates were cut. " [4]During the Reagan years:"The percentage of families earning more than $50,000 in 1990 dollars rose by 5 points from 30.9 percent to nearly 35.9 percent. During the 1980s, millions of middle-class Americans disappeared into the ranks of the affluent. " [5]During the Reagan years, there were fewer than 5,000 people who had an income of $1 million or above. When he left 35,000 people did. This shows that there was huge income mobility at the time. [5]My CaseR1: Higher Taxes do not BenefitMy opponent and his report claim that when taxes were higher, economic growth was greated. This is simply not true. The rate was 90% under Eisenhower and the economy grew at 2.3%. During the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies when the tax rate was 70% the economy grew at 4.9%. This is far greater than under Eisenhower. Under Reagan, the economy grew at 3.2% with his low tax rates. In fact, every president beat Eisenhower with his 90% rate in economic growth except George H. W. Bush. [6]It is clear that the economy grew strongly when the top tax rate was cut. R2: Capital GainsAccording to Shlaes:"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year. " [7]The capital gains tax hinders the expansion of business and entrepreneurship which is necessary for every free market capitalist economy to expand, but taxes has hindered them. George Gilder writes about the history of the tax that:"Government tax policies have done their best to deter innovation and promote mergers, creating a capital blight in which smaller companies that were attempting to expand suffered most throughout the 1970s. " [8]R3: HistoryI have proven through the Laffer curve that tax revenue increased dramatically from when it was under higher rates and the economy expanded much faster. Why? Because people took their money out of tax shelters and invested or saved it allowing for economic growth and more revenue. The stock market grew stronger under Coolidge and Reagan than it did under Ike. Coolidge saw over 260% of Dow Jones growth and Reagan saw over 130%. Ike saw 120% growth, but remember that no one was paying their true income in the 1950s as they tried to hide their money. [9]FDR saw larger growth than Reagan's, but this was mostly because of World War 2 growth. Unemployment fell and real GDP increased, but only because of the war. Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. . http://www.debate.org...3. United States. Congressional Budget Office. U. S. Congress. A Review of the Accuracy of the Treasury Revenue Forecasts, 1963-1978. Washington D. C. : 1981. Print.4. Sowell, Thomas. ""Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich". " Hoover Institution, 2012. Web.5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.6. Niskanen, William A. , and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record. " Cato. org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.7. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes. " Bloomberg. com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.8. Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D. C. : Regnery, 2012. Print.9. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term. " MSN. com. MSN Money, 5 Nov. 2012. Web.