Taxes should be raised on the rich

My CaseC1: Laffer Curve"Thus, logically in the economy today, we would find only businesses that seek to make a profit if this were true, but it isn't. Non-profit organizations/volunteers have absolutely NO profit motive, that is, they make 0 dollars, and they have no income taxes to pay as a result."Were only talking about individuals that do work, specifically the rich who act as businessmen in the economy. The main purpose of business is to maximize profits as much as possible after providing a good or service. We are not talking about a corporate or business tax, but mainly the income and capital gains tax. [1]Income tax and capital gains taxes are used mainly on the people for money. Liberals advocate higher taxes on the rich through income and capital gains. Corporate taxes is strictly different to take profits from a company, so my opponent is now confusing me. C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsMy opponent cites the Wikipedia article of Warren G. Harding as his source for this. I believe Wikipedia is an alright source to use, but simply citing the president who did not even serve for the dominance of the 1920s or instituted the most major of the tax cuts is a bad example of a source. Coolidge was a huge veto president who stopped all farm subsidies proposed by Congress and repealed Harding's farm subsidies. The government was reduced by over 20 percent and the debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. My opponent is wrong here that th debt was entirely payed off. Finally, it was not the farming industry that was the big boom of the Roaring Twenties. According to Shlaes:"In July 1921, there had been 5.7 million Americans out of work; now that figure was 1.8 million. Manufacturing output was up by a third since that time. Iron and steel production had doubled. They might not complete many more tax cuts, but the revenue acts of 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928 represented a strong record." [2]What we can see here is that the huge economic boom was not from agriculture, but from industry. Unemployed Americans went into factories not farms and the expansion of these industries shows. If we look at the percentages of Americans owning specific goods:Cars: 26% to 60%Radios: 0% to 46%Electric Lighting: 35% to 68%Washing Machines: 8% to 24%Vacuum Cleaners: 9% to 30%Flush Toilers: 20% to 51% [3]For more on Coolidge see the video.II. Kennedy Tax CutsMy numbers for the Kennedy tax cuts are specific to the benefits created by them and they found that the unions and death penalty had little effect. The death penalty has actually been found to create deterrence to crime and create less violence which means more economic growth. One of the key factors in investments for new projects was that the capital gains taxes was much lower back then and the Kennedy tax cut fueled investment. On the death penalty: "The early empirical research on the subject by Issac Ehrlich has demonstrated strong deterrent effects by the death penalty, and has responded to most criticism of his work. Meanwhile, other studies have come out to prove the deterrent hypothesis. Some economists noted how the models used in the studies were not robust, but the authors of the studies in question have refuted these analysis’s and noted they actually tried to reduce the deterrent effect by various tests but have found these results simply don’t go away. They are robust and correct." [4]III. Reagan Tax CutsOnce again, my data looks at Reagan's specific tax cuts and how they affected the economy specifically. The income tax on the rich went down from 70% to 28%, so we do know he cut taxes on the rich. The capital gains taxes remained the same until an increase in 1986 which lost revenue. Keep in mind, that by then it took time for any change is Reagan's tax policy to take effect. In 1981 he signed his first cut, but it had little effect until a year later when unemployment had peaked to nearly 11%. When it went into full effect, it went down to nearly 7%. This proof of the effect it had. [6]C3: Income MobilityI have proven subisidies of agriculture did not work, most were either vetoed or eliminated under Coolidge, so this point is easily refuted. In the 1980s, the middle class dropped by 5 points from 53.9% to 49.2%. The income of this 5% was found to specifically move up because they now had more money. Like I said, those owning more than $50,000 received a 5% increase in their group. [5]My RefutationsR1: Higher Taxes do not BenefitDropped.R2: Capital GainsIt said in my source that if the capital gains tax is cut or completely eliminated, we would receive a huge amount of jobs. Thus the source favors me. He really never refuted my Gilder point.R3: HistoryIt has been proven that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression from several studies. I will post a video for those who are interested, but we were only discussing taxes and not the New Deal. During the Great Depression, Hoover and FDR both raised taxes from 25% to over 90%. It was a disaster if you look at the unemployment among jobless non-farm workers. Unemployment was over 20% during the Great Depression and my opponent has admitted it backfired through the second Great Depression in 1938. We then get a Greater Depression from the New Deal and the government in World War 2. Thus, the Great Depression did not end until 1948.The Cole-Ohanian study proved that the New Deal did not work. Instead they should have done a more free market approach:"Our results suggest that New Deal policies are an important contributing factor tothe persistence of the Great Depression. The key depressing element behind these policies firms to collude with paying high wages. Our model indicates that these policies reduced consumption, and investment about 14 percent relative to their competitive balanced growth path levels. Thus, the model accounts for about half of the continuation of the Great Depression between 1934 and 1939." [7]In fact, FDR's attempts at taxation were so awful that he most notably: "FDR raised taxes higher than Hoover did with the Wealth Tax Act (or Revenue Act of 1935) which raised the top rate to a staggering 79%. If anything, it held more politics than it did revenue because only John D. Rockefeller (the richest man in the country at the time) could pay at such a high bracket." [8]R4: Economically AlienatedUnder Reagan, the average income of the poorest fifth of the population increased from $6,494 in 1980 to $6,994 in 1989. The poor did quite well under Reagan. This is also not the only case in which the rich payed more of the tax burden than the poor. [2,5]R5: Gini CoefficientIncome inequality exists in every society and there is nothing wrong with it unless your a socialist.Sources1. Anderson, Arnold. "What Are the Main Purposes of a Business Plan?" Chron.com. Chron, n.d. Web.2. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.3. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.4. http://www.debate.org... 5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.6. http://www.debate.org...7. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.8. Graber, John. "Progressive Myths About the Great Depression." Conservativepolitico.org. The Conservative Politico, 25 July 2013. Web.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...