Raise Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners

I am quite disappointed that Con has forfeited. Per the agreed-upon rules, a forfeit merits a loss. However, I will leave that at the discretion of the voters, and would invite my opponent to present his arguments in the next round. At this point, I obviously have nothing to rebut and my case remains unchallenged. However, I will take the time to elucidate the points I have made and summarize my arguments in reference to the three criteria I laid out in the last round in fulfillment of my burden of proof. Criteria 1: Utilitarianism This is essentially a case not only for focusing on the "99 percent" instead of merely the top 1 percent. Not only are the vast majority better off if we reduce income inequality, but we maximize propserity generally speaking. For instance, we know of the negative correlation between G.D.P. per capita and wealth inequality, and know that many other countries as well as the U.S. in the 40s, 50s, and 60s have thrived under significantly higher marginal tax rates. The point is, if in fact we can get more revenue by raising taxes -- and by all accounts we can -- then we should. Criteria 2: FairnessThis has much to do with income inequality. The GINI coefficient figures I provided were quite clear: most rich nations have GINI coefficients around .25 to .4, whereas the U.S. has a .5. At the same time, it has one of the lowest tax burdens as a percentage of G.D.P. It simply isn't fair that we promote a policy that, by all empirical approach, exacerbates the inherent inequities in society, especially when we know from what Stiglitz and others points out that it also hinders us economically. Why is it fair that, by virtue of regressive state taxes as well as payroll taxes et al., poor and middle class people end up in many cases paying higher effective tax rates than multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney, or multi-billionares like Warren Buffet? Criteria 3: Economic SenseWe know from plenty of empirical research that tax cuts, particularly those skewed toward the affluent such as the Bush and Reagan cuts, have adverse affects -- i.e., exacerbate -- income and wealth inequality. As affluent people see their incomes rise, their MPC shrinks and their MPS increases, meaning their wealth rises. In the case of poor and middle-income people, they have very little, if any, actual wealth -- perhaps negative net worths due in part to collapsing housing values post-crisis and high private debt burdens for those who were foreclosed upon in the aftermath of the bursting of the housing bubble. The logic is that, because their incomes are low enough that they will consume with nearly every dollar they have earned, increasing their incomes boosts consumption, which props us the broader economy. Therefore, getting money into the hands of people who will spend it is proper policy. The implication is that, if the affluent have more money at their disposal and can keep more of their earnings, they will have both the means and the incentive to invest. In essence, the case is Say's Law, which boils down to needing savings in order to invest. However, the opposite is the case. You need investment in order to have savings, and you need demand in order to have investment. Corporations are hording about $1.5 trillion offshore that they aren't investing because the economy as now is so poor and aggregate demand has contracted. How does this tie into raising taxes? It's quite simple. By all estimates, the ARRA was far too small. Krugman said it should have been about three times larger than it was bearing in mind the magnitude of the output gap: about $1.2 trillion in total when bearing in most lost consumption. If we raise taxes, we can not only combat already in-place austerity and compensate for the fiscal hawkishness of recent years, but can strengthen the current recovery, in the process getting the $1.5 trillion back into the economy.