Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

I put my opponent's first argument into Google Translate, and here's what I came up with: ehh boi, et me start off by shakin me wopper n' sayin' i ain't yur teepicul drek irushmun. now we irush ain't got nuttin" genst rich and nuttin' for, but aint' these the ladeehs who need supportien? en iruland me bois love a good brawl and thee reech fol always pey for oor beer n' milk. yu simpley dont understaund me countree and yu try tu slap ur ideas in ma face like i slap me giant whoppper in ya wifes feace. That's not much of an argument, nor is there anything that I can rebut necessarily. I'm not "slapping my ideas" in anyone's face. We're simply debating the topic, as the purpose of this site is. Anyway, here are my arguments:1. There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts are good for the economy. The Congressional Research Service looked into this and analyzed tax rates since 1945 (1). Here was their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. They concluded, after looking at 65 years of rates, that tax cuts do not increase productivity, savings, or investment, but do increase income inequality, which by and of itself poses a substantial threat to the economy. 2. The Laffer Curve is plausible, but there is no evidence that we are at the peak of the Laffer curve and in danger of shrinking revenue or growth. The Economy Policy Institue had this to say about how high the rate could go (2):Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013. This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.Furthermore, they commented in the same stae on the impact of tax rates since WWII, and came to the same conclusion as the Congressional Research Service:Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth—private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity—nor on overall economic growth rates.3. Corporations are getting huge breaks (3). Citizens for Tax Justice conducted a study and found, among other things, that one third of corporations they studied paid a tax rate lower than 10 percent; that, out of the 288 companies they studied, 55 enjoyed enjoyed several years of no taxes -- 203 no tax years in total -- and 111 companies, including GE, Boeing, and Exxon Mobile, paid negative tax rates; and the average corporate income tax is 19.4% only. Furthermore, there is no evidence that corporate tax rates generate growth. According to the EPI, again, not only is the corporate income tax not high by historic standards, but there is no evidence that cutting it would generate growth (4).4. We have a federal deficit we need to address, and an economy to stimulate, and simply need the money. We can get more money by raising taxes, and we know the ramifications of doing so range from negligible to zilch. So let's do it. 1. http://www.foreffectivegov.org...2. http://www.epi.org...3. http://www.ctj.org...;4. http://www.epi.org...;