100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

Well, lets see what I can do. "If it is saved, it becomes bank deposits and expands loan capacity for entrepreneurs who want to borrow more money in order to grow. If it is invested, it increases the pool of capital and lowers the cost of capital. Thus lower marginal tax rates increase capital formation (as would a cut in capital gains investments). The result is more growth and innovation and rising living standards." [1] The problem here is that although economic stats would increase, rich people usually do not share their money with others, which will leave the poor just as they were before. The rich would become richer, and the rest of the people would be unaffected. More growth and innovation maybe would be more when the government uses the money from the rich to improve the country, rather than random people carrying out personal projects rather than working together like in a research center. This debate is obviously about what happens when taxes are raised on the rich, but what we have to acknowledge is that when taxes are raised on the rich, most get their taxes raised anyway. For example, Reagan's 1981 tax cut bill brought the top rate from 70% to 50%. Naturally, people who were paying less than the top rate saw their taxes decreased. If we take a tax hike for example, say Hoover's 1932 increase from 25% to 63%, we will notice most had their taxes increased in general. It is just the way the tax code works. I think my opponent, although well meaning, is missing the point which is specifically if taxes should be raised on the rich or not, which I am against. When taxes go up, we expect people to pay more including the rich. Aren't you contradicting yourself in this paragraph? You first say naturally the taxes for others would increase/decrease then you said the point is raising taxes SPECIFICALLY on the rich. So, in our scenario, the other tax rates should be considered same except the rich. The problem here is that my opponent has to prove that they have more money than they need. How does my opponent know what is enough for the rich? Yes, they like to live extravagant lives, but when big money is saved and spent, it benefits the economy. Obviously buying things is good, but saving is great too: I may not know what is enough for the rich, but I certainly know what is enough for the poor. Even 10 percent of rich people's money would be enough for the poor. You still think rich people should be allowed to live extravagant lives, while other people suffer for bread and butter? What use is increasing the capital if there are still poor people on the streets? "It would also help root out black money. As the taxes would be raised, tax officials would get paid more, and they would be more alert for collecting taxes from all rich people. Chances of finding black money may increase." Any evidence of this, because the rich got away with a lot during the 91% tax rates of the Truman and Eisenhower years. Usually the larger the taxes, the bigger more tempting the loopholes are. If taxes are too high, the wealthy just leave and take their capital with them. Were the police paid more and worked with increased vigilance at those times? A government could simply take the benefits of tax but not give it back, while in our scenario the governments would work. If corruption is everywhere, it wouldn't matter if taxes weren't raised on the rich, the government would still have lot of money. In addition to your argument of public projects, this to me feels New Deal-esque and the New Deal resulted in the worst economic recovery in American history. Consider that Hoover raised the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% and then Franklin Roosevelt raised it up to 79% during the peaceful time of his presidency. The result is the weakest economic recovery in history. Compare our unemployment rate with Canada's during that time: Most of the rich people can survive very well even being unemployed, and if I am not wrong, your figures are on the raise of taxes on the entire population. But as you said : I think my opponent, although well meaning, is missing the point which is specifically if taxes should be raised on the rich or not, which I am against. So if it is being raised specifically, we can make sure taxes are not raised on the poor, for otherwise this would be about the consequences of raising taxes on all, which is altogether a different issue for me. Also, can you get more global figures rather than only America? I am in India, and I am arguing from my perspective and actions in the country. It would be intriguing to see the unemployment figures of my country, as I am too lazy for researching myself.(DON'T refute this point!!)