The Rich Should Take a Hike

Thanks for a quick response.Observation:My opponent has already lost the debate. Recall how in my second round I gave my opponent the burden of having to justify an income tax. He did not dispute the burden (therefore conceding to it), but did not attempt to meet it at all. Since his own debate structure specifies only rebuttals, not new argumentation, in Rd. 4, he cannot meet this burden and thus has lost. I'll be grouping a lot of my opponents arguments together, along the way pointing out critical responses of mine that he's dropped.Wasted revenueMy opponent cites a document made when he was an infant to prove that government spending is not wasteful, however it offers a different perception of "waste" as the point I was making did. My definition of waste would be a government provided service that could better be provided by the private sector, whereas the Clinton administration would define waste as completely useless expenditure benefiting no one at all. Given that distinction, the fact that even big-government Clinton admitted that 2% of his budget was waste is profoundly disturbing, particularly in light of the fact that Clinton served in easy, war free times. Fact is, government spending is inherently wasteful since economic calculation can only occur if goods and services are priced on a free market. Since government assets are rarely for sale, indeed use of them is often compulsory, quality and value will inevitably decline as happens in all monopolies. Laffer curve My Opponent ignores my first observation. Obviously tax revenue would increase with higher rates, but he hasn't shown any long term solvency. That is, the long term economic effects of robbing producers of more of their income is obviously going to be bad. The government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Seriously, he hasn't even told you what this new revenue is going to be used for. I'll repeat until he proves that the revenue will likely be used beneficially he gains no advantage.90% tax rateMy opponent spouts off more of the oh so common pro government rhetoric, arguing that the post-WWII economic boom was the result of state planning. Unfortunately, while that is completely and hilariously false, that's also completely irrelevant. Lets look to what the debate is actual about, which is how much income should be stolen from the wealthy, not government intervention in the economy. If we want to take his graph seriously, then his advocacy must be for a 75-80% tax rate, since that is when most growth supposedly happened. Hopefully my opponent will concede to committing a fallacy here, and if not he's now obligated to defend an absurdly high tax rate causing someone to lose 80% of their income to support programs they didn't ask for. Tax cuts are goodHe commits a fallacy here, comparing wealthy European nations that looted the wealth of the rest of the world for centuries and industrialized first with third world nations who's culture and economies were destroyed by European imperialism and still have not recovered. These countries have a long legacy of wealth, and because of policies like the ones my opponent wants, the wealth they've acquired after generations is depleted and they're in massive amounts of debt and in risk of an immediate economic meltdown. To be clear, this is a turn. We don't want to be like Europe. I showed empirical evidence about what happened during the Bush tax cuts, along with the logic that a government can't manage an economy, and my opponent drops it all. He loses the debate right here again. Literally his only response is an Ad hom against the author, who I now agree is probably pretty biased. However the author can be incredibly biased and still be correct. Given that my opponent has dropped this evidence completely, I'll extend it cleanly across the flow and urge a vote for the negative. My opponent gives the CBO card, which is a flawed source because it's governmental. This may sound hypocritical given my above defense, however it's different because my card contains empirical evidence of historical events/data, which I showed, compared to his which is mere speculation. Moreover, if you actually read the CBO card, there are hardly any numbers in it. It just literally just says that raising taxes is good, and does not say what my opponent says it does. Seriously, open up his card 5 and search for "1.3%". It is not there. He loses the source points for misrepresenting a source. Government is bad My opponent argues for big government...again, this is not what the debate is about. Unless he wants communism, we need a private sector so the government cannot control all assets. Counter plan: Even if we buy his arguments that governments are good (which I'm too lazy to dispute considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate) we can save money by reducing wasteful military spending instead of harming the economy via crushing tax levys.Morals Contra just gives a ridiculous quote here how the wealthy somehow "owe" society since they utilized public assets. Followed to its full conclusion, it applies equally to the middle class and the poor who utilize public utilities as well. Even if you buy this, it doesn't affirm the resolution because the resolved specifies the wealthy alone. But even so, the wealthy ALREADY PAID TAXES. The top 1%, as a matter of fact, pay over a third of a federal income taxes[2], while the bottom 50% pay only 2%. My opponents argument justifies taxing the poor more than the rich because they don't pay their "fair share".....My opponents conclusion says he wants a state like Europe. Seriously? Anyone can turn on the news and see the economic destruction that is coming from their failed welfare states. Vote pro for economic failure.Conclusion: My opponent has lost the debate on multiple accounts. He doesn't meet my burdens, and he drops the empirical evidence disproving his resolution. The fact is that the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. As much as populists want to demonize them with their rhetoric, our economy could not function without the wealthy (nor without the middle class and the poor).. Raising taxes on them alone is discriminatory. My opponents only justification for this is that they can afford it, but that's meaningless because he gives you no bright line as to what "afford" means. The poverty line is around $10,000, so theoretically the government could take everyones income above the poverty line and they would be able to "afford" it. That's absurd.My opponents debating and research skills are impressive for his age, but in the end his populist rhetoric falls when applied to scrutiny. There is no justifiable vote other than for Con in this round.Citations:1. Rd 2., Source 2.2. http://ntu.org...