The Rich Should Take a Hike

Let it first be recognized:I. Presuming the tax revenue is good, decisions that increase it short term at the expense of long term growth should be avoided. That is, since a government with control of 10% of a 15 trillion dollar economy would have more revenue than a government with control of 11% of a 14 trillion dollar economy. As such, we need to look to what leads to greater, sustainable growth. II. The resolution specifies the wealthy in particular. My opponent has, as of yet, given no logical reason that tax increases should be limited to the wealthy. His entire case, with the exception of his uncommonly silly contention 3, gives reasons to increase taxation for all, not just the wealthy. From this it follows that he’s failed to affirm the resolution. III. Unwarranted impacts should be ignored. The more one gets into debate, the more one realizes that there is evidence for literally everything (case in point: here is a card advocating the existence of a Nazi colony on the Moon: http://greyfalcon.us... ). Most, if not all of my opponents impacts stem from correlation causation fallacies or bare assertions on the part of their authors. Until he explains logically why, for example, stealing more money from the wealthy leads to higher savings rates (Card 5), you ignore it. Since my opponent refused to show the logic behind this in the comments section, you can presume that he refuses to do so because he knows it’s illogical. Let’s turn to his arguments now. First, I question the validity of income taxation at all. My opponent must first justify why the federal government should get a cut from everyone’s income, until he morally and economically justifies this he loses the debate by default. The resolution is not about if we should have an income tax, but if income taxation is recognized as an evil than more income taxation (hence more evil) is something to be avoided. Governments produce nothing save for substandard protection and tyranny, and as such ought not be funded by the incomes of private producers. Further, raising taxes on the wealthy alone is discriminatory. Stronger economy His first contention is a misnomer, it is not “fiscal responsibility” to increase taxes to meet every deficit in funding—a fiscally responsible family does not steal money whenever they are in need, they acquire it from other means. My opponent presumes that it’s just ok to steal the incomes of private producers, and moreover he’s failed to argue any impact. His first contention is again a misnomer because it is not praise of high taxes, but rather a series of defensive arguments. My Opponent laughably argues that greater “fiscal responsibility” (AKA greater wealth depletion and theft) would make the economy more stable. He is right that it will reduce the deficit at first, but given the inefficiencies in our government the increased revenue would probably just be wasted anyway. Unless he proves that the money from the tax increases would be used to pay off the debt, he gains no advantage. Turn his DBO card, as it argues that increased taxation would increase “national saving and investment, because of the public savings”. It’s extremely doubtful that there would be any public savings at all considering that the federal government does very little but spend-it is conceded that public waste (“investment”) would increase, of course it would. The federal government is incapable of saving. He has failed to weigh this in any broader economic sense-that is, he hasn’t explained why public sector investment is preferable to private sector investment; his hypothesis posits that there would be no investment from the private sector, an obvious flaw. He argues that “only” 2.5% of “small businesses” would face increased taxation-turn: 2.5% of them would. I fail to see why it’s bad for “small businesses” to face increased taxation, but good for large business to suffer in such a way, and he has failed to explain it. Laffer curve/”better future” My Opponent didn’t explain what the Laffer curve is, and how it’s relevant to the debate. I can tell you that a new episode of Modern family came out yesterday, and there’s a 70% chance it was funny, but unless I explain how it is relevant to the debate it doesn’t matter. This is a broader critique on my opponent’s style of argumentation, he cites sources without explaining the data or logic behind them. Why on Earth does it matter what Peter Orszag thinks, for instance? He’s already lost the debate because his sole offense lies in arguments outside of the site. This is not a debate between Paul Krugman and myself, it’s a debate between Contra and I. He can use sources to back up arguments, but he can’t use them as arguments themselves. My opponent commits a HUGE correlation-causation fallacy with his graph; he ignores the economic conditions that were occurring during the levels of taxation. For example, we all know that the 90 taxation rate occurred during and after WWII[1], so it should be no surprise that the GDP grew during the post-war boom. The fact is that the GDP rose IN SPITE OF the ridiculous tax rate, rather than because of it. Further, the federal government back then was much more efficient than the one of today. It defeated the Japanese and Nazi war machines in 4 years for example while our modern federal government could not conquer Iraq in 8 years. He even concedes that a 90% taxation rate is absurd and unjust, yet has failed to draw a threshold. What amount of income is it just to steal? Anyone who honestly believes that a 90% income tax is economically desirable needs to be laughed out of the world of debate-communism has failed everywhere. No economic benefits This is empirically false, Heritage Foundation reports that after the Bush tax cuts[2]: “GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%. The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.” This makes sense, considering that if ones money is all stolen from the government, they have less money to invest. My opponent had quite the mountain to climb in order to disprove a fact of common sense such as this. He argues that the government should facilitate prosperity. I agree, and the way to do it is not to steal money from producers to redistribute it to non-producers or warfare. This is how an economy gets destroyed. He ASSERTS that the saved tax money isn’t used to create jobs. 1. No link stating that government would create jobs, 2. No warrant, how on Earth does he or anyone else know how wealthy individuals prefer to spend their money, and 3. So what? It is their money and they are under no obligation to use it for others. I honestly could not care less what the CBO says. It should be no surprise that a thinktank run by the government would argue that the government needs more money, and as with all his other arguments he doesn’t explain WHY its true. This would be the equivalent of me citing the Bible to prove God exists, logical warrants outside of the source need to be present. They can afford it My opponent rants about income inequality and how if we stole the wealth (wealth not income-his source is wealthiest households) of others we could pay back some of the damage from our own irresponsibility. No thanks. Conclusion: My Opponents case revolves almost entirely around correlation causation and appeals to authority. It contains virtually no empirical evidence or analysis. He has failed to meet his burden, so you can only vote Con. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://blog.heritage.org...