Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased

This is ridiculous. It's a concession. That's what this debate is on! You have to disprove trickle-down economics.Incomes in the bottom and middle have been falling while incomes at the top have been skyrocketing in recent years.http://cbo.gov...Not true.And you still fail to respond to the fact that several of your sources had literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.Wikipedia is only "unreliable" as a source if you are using it for interpretive statistics. Descriptive statistics is simple fact, it can't be warped no matter how biased you are, so your attack on my using Wikipedia is a sad attempt at salvaging sources points, when you know that several of your sources are horribly irrelevant.Paul Krugman disagrees with you and Stiglitz (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com......).Congratulations. Stiglitz agrees with me. This is why appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, because you can almost always appeal to an authority that speaks for either side, so it is meaningless.Furthermore, this was a small page where Krugman pointed out that he is relatively uncertain of his views, not confident enough to write a thesis. If we are just quoting other people now, I think these people's comments in the comments below that page should suffice:"I have used a spreadsheet to track the difference in income earned by each group of tax filers according to the difference in AGI share each group received in 1980 compared to 2007.The bottom 50% of filers lost 5.42% of AGI equal to $6,761 each in 2007. The 25% of filers just above the bottom 50% lost 6.59% of AGI equal to $16,441 each in 2007. The next 15% higher income group filers lost 3.91% of AGI equal to $16,259 each in 2007. The next 5% lost 0.51% of AGI equal to $6,362 each in 2007.This covers 95% of the tax filers. They averaged $10,787 less income in 2007 than they would have had if they had received the same share of AGI that they did in 1980.A person with a dollar he is willing to spend is a profit opportunity for some business. How many businesses have the top 2% of income earners for customers. How many businesses have the bottom 98% of income earners for customers.The profit opportunities have piled up in very few hands and most businesses cannot seek out those possible profits.I beleive Dr. Stiglitz is right and Paul Krugman is wrong."and"I see a problem with Krugman's argument that savings is global. Since the 1980's those outside the US have been doing our saving for us, for their security and marketing reasons. Although savings appears low for US citizens, in the global economy as a whole, there is a savings glut, so no surprise that a global depression results.A second problem is that rich people in the USA may choose to buy assets such as mansions and yachts, and also corporate stocks, another form of asset therefore not savings, which form a large portion of the wealth of wealthy in the USA. Corporations are themselves international and may have assets and valuable networks in other countries, with their savings, if any, serving more as a defensive buffer.Inequality is different. If you look at the world as a whole, the average may show decreasing inequality (often not considering local alternatives) and from an invalid averaging effect and tendency to discount or ignore non-monetary losses. Within each nation or region there is a small group 1% to 0.01% that becomes super wealthy from trading derivatives of capital and labor across countries, but meanwhile their locals may become temporarily richer but ultimately poorer in health, freedom, and access to natural resources such as water and clean air under the crushing weight of the invisible foot of capitalism, ever more unmitigated by the race to the bottom created by free capital mobility and lack of world standards."Furthermore, I don't understand what your obsession is with Krugman, since he is a Neo-Keynesian, when you are not, as you have stated, and he is a liberal... If you are going to quote Krugman to win an argument, I could quote his Keynesianism and just as easily win that argument.You pointed out that one of my sources speaks about regressive taxes in some states. So? That's not our debate. I want to cut taxes across the board. Regressive taxes in almost all states, as a matter of fact. But you are clearly evading. Here are examples of what you said earlier:"Obviously I will like to see tax cuts, but the current system is very much progressive."And now we agree it's regressive, right? Using your own source."This claim is absolutely ludicrous. This shows that you're not looking through the source correctly."And you've been shown to be wrong, since your source clearly states these things. You are the one who isn't reading sources correctly."You keep mentioning regressive taxation but you've been proven wrong."And now you've been proven wrong in your claims that the current system is progressive. So it is your job now to go back and legitimately answer my arguments that depended on the fact of regressive taxation, since before you dismissed them in this way. You've responded legitimately to almost none of my initial arguments, since your claims of progressive taxation have been shown to be false.Prove to me that a majority of economists believe this. 83% believe that deficits harm the economy (http://www.realclearmarkets.com......)What do deficits have to do with this? The percentage you cited was for "LARGE federal deficits" first of all. Keynes advocated for running a consistently small deficit.That is the entire point of the debate. You have to prove Keynesian economics.And now, as part of your evasion strategy, you somehow shift the burden of proof to me. As I've stated, I have a plethora of points in my original argument that you dismissed simply based on the fact that they assumed regressive taxation. You have been proven wrong. I am the one who still has legitimate arguments on the table, and you need to argue against them legitimately, having it in mind that I am correct in saying that the majority of tax systems in the U.S now are regressive.Furthermore, proving Keynesian economics is not the entire point of the debate. Keynesian economics is a side debate to the one in question. Keynesian economics has no stance on inequality or the "1 percent". It is largely just a system of how to maintain a stable capitalist economy when inevitable downturns happen. Keynesian economics is not even remotely central to my arguments, it only had to do with one of them, which I stated we can let go if you disagree with fundamental Keynesianism.Also, here are effective tax rates up until 2014 (http://www.cbo.gov......). It says the rich pay about 33.6% in taxes, or did in 2013. The other link says that state and local taxes add about 6%. What is enough?Those tables are "based on income". That is, these tables are primarily income taxation. The income tax is progressive, true. But when you factor in all of the other taxes and the way by which the wealthy get most of their money, which is by capital investments, which only get taxed 15% long term, they end up being taxed very little.Do you just dismiss the truth now of your own source that you used earlier that very clearly says that 10 states require bottom 20% to pay 6 times as much as the wealthy? And the majority of the other states are also regressive, though less so.