BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laffer Curve

Increases in taxation (whether overall or of a segment of the population, in this case the rich) does not necessarily lead to greater tax returns for the state. This is because the results in changes in tax depends not only on the obvious arithmetic of what the change should result in but also depends on the actual economic effects of the tax change. This fits in very closely with the previous two points about a reduction of investment and flight of the rich overseas. The economic effect depends on the effect of the tax change on incentives to work, invest, and innovate which as mentioned above will be damaged by a dramatic increase in taxes for the rich. Therefore raising the tax rate lowers the tax base. The laffer curve is shaped like a U on its side. Obviously at a tax rate of 0% the government will raise no taxes. However once the tax rate is 100% the government will also collect no taxes because the government would be taking everything there is no incentive to work at all as the government is taking everything. At some point in the middle is the ideal point where the government gets most tax revenue because it has struck the perfect balance of incentives to work thereby increasing the tax base and actually taking the money. However the laffer curve does not tell us where this point is as this is infinitely changeable depending upon the tax system, culture, the economic climate etc. However we can be pretty certain that a ‘dramatic increase’ called for by the defenders of the proposal would put taxes of the rich into the ‘prohibitive range’ where tax revenue actually decreases with an increase in the rate. Adam Smith compares the government raising taxes in such a situation to: “a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.” There have been several examples of the laffer curve in action, particularly notable are the tax cuts by Kennedy in the USA in the 1960s. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. In the four years after the cut tax revenue adjusted for inflation grew 8.6% per year compared to the 2.1% it had been growing at before. Not only did tax revenue increase despite the tax cut it increased at a much faster rate.[[Arthur B. Laffer, The Laffer Curve, Past, Present, and Future, The Heritage Foundation, 1st June 2004, http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm#pgfId-1118367%5D%5D
On Laffer Curve

Arguing that one economist is wrong by quoting one more economist will get us nowhere; it is like saying that the Pope is wrong and God does not exist because Richard Dawkings says he does not! There needs to be evidence to back it up. While pointing out that 65% might be the optimal amount you are admitting that the Laffer curve does exist. This leaves us with a debate about how much the rich should be taxed on their income. Where did Pecorino get that figure of 65%? Unfortunately I can’t find the report but I would imagine the USA. It seems very likely that this would be a figure that would change from culture to culture, though who knows what cultures would support higher and what lower. Although you argue that we are demanding trickledown economics; the poor can take the crumbs left by the rich you might note that nowhere in our argument did we mention the theory of trickle down precisely because it creates massive inequality to rely on it alone. That we advocate not taxing the rich a ‘dramatic increase’ over what they are currently paying on their income tax does not mean that we are against taxes on the rich. Simply put there is a need to be more creative and find ways of taxing the rich that does not affect the rate of investments, or will force the rich to flee abroad. In other words we advocate taxes that would be regarded by the rich as fair, that they would be willing to pay. The most obvious is the ‘death tax’ that rich people seem to hate but is considerably fairer than income tax as any inheritance that is passed on is unearned wealth whereas in most cases people have earned their income. To be a bit more creative why not fund national healthcare by taxing the rich extortionate amounts on their private healthcare, if the cost of their treatment could pay for several poor people to have subsidised healthcare will the rich complain if they are still getting the best available, the chances are they will still be willing to pay for it. To a great extent public transport in the form of trains and planes are already paid for by the rich paying a lot for first class allowing the 2nd class or economy class tickets to be subsidised. The other possibility is imposing immense taxes on the things the rich want that are status symbols and are therefore willing to pay more for, and may even be happy to pay more as the more expensive they are the more of an aspiration they are and so the harder they are willing to work to get them; goods like luxury cars and designer clothes, services like expensive meals, and particularly their housing. So no I reject your premise that this is an ethical and philosophical argument as well as an economic one. “Do we want societies that exploit the less well off?” You can’t seriously think that we would say yes we do want exploitation? However the premise that a relatively low tax rate on the rich equals exploitation of the less well off is wrong. The creation of a welfare system and a high rate of tax on the rich are not intrinsically linked. Britain has a good welfare system and only taxes the rich 40% on income (with this maybe going up to 50% on those earning over £100k).
on lack of innovation and investment

As mentioned above we do not support trickledown economics. That being said it is difficult to say that low rates of taxation on the rich were a total failure. From Reagan entering office in 1983 to the end of Clintons administration US GDP expanded 80%; 3.6% per year, making for a growth of GDP per person of 54%. Industrial production went up 78% in an era when all the manufacturing was supposedly going abroad. And total employment went up by 35 million.[[Peter B. Sperry, The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy, The Heritage Foundation, 1st March 2001, http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cf%5D%5D Surprisingly despite the cuts in social security spending made by Reagan the US poverty rate fell by 1% during his presidency. This then rose by 1.8% under George HW Bush and fell again by 3.5% under Clinton.[[Elgie McFayden Jr., Contemporary United States Presidents: Impact on American Poverty, 4th January 2008, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1200182%5D%5D This means overall the poverty rate fell during the same period. So while overall Reaganomics have done nothing to change poverty either way they have made the economy as a whole richer, this seems worthwhile to me. A dramatic rise in tax rates on the rich is not a creative idea, it has both been tried and failed before (UK 1970s) and is the usual response to high wages or some people being unable to keep up in the capitalist world. To be creative we need to move away from the idea that statist policies can solve poverty and reduce inequalities. Microfinance has been one of the most successful ways of reducing poverty over the last decade. Microfinance essentially brings capitalism to the poorest. It is they themselves who know how to get out of poverty not the bureaucrats in the state machinery. Essentially microfinance provides loans to those who otherwise would not have access to capital. “Unless the poor can borrow, they are likely to remain trapped in poverty. The people who have been able to borrow have often seen their incomes rise and their future transformed. And, overwhelmingly, they have repaid their loans.”[[http://www.ifad.org/media/pack/microfinance.htm]] Obviously not everything goes the right way, if someone fails to use their loan wisely they are potentially in an even worse situation than they started. In Bangladesh some 21 per cent of Mr Yunus’ (the founder of microfinance) Grameen Bank’s microcredit programme members raise themselves from poverty within four years of joining the bank.[[Paritosh Srivastava, Microcredit Reducing Poverty and Empowering Communities, UN Chronicle Online, http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue3/0305p45.html%5D%5D The market can work even for the poorest people so long as there is some credit made available.
Redistributing wealth to balance the inequality of income disparity

Status quo: big income disparity: Income disparity between the rich and poor, which harasses most government in the world, is getting bigger and bigger. According to an official report that in China 0.4% rich people get control of 70% of wealth. In the U.S. the top one fifth of the population possesses almost two thirds of social wealth. Looking at the world as a whole, there is a tendency that the rich family is getting richer and richer while the number of the poor family keeps growing based on a report by UN. While in many countries, social problems are emerging due to enlarging income disparity, a large number of governments all over the world are handicapped because of the financial stricture, facing the financial slump started last year. Increase the income tax rate of the rich is a choice to solve those problems. Harms of income disparity: Income disparity is the warm bed for problems and social unrest. Evidence shows that poor people in vulnerable countries are more likely to resort to violence or terrorism. Sociologists argue that in poor household, members of the family are five times more likely to commit crime. Among those suicide bombers in vulnerable countries, where income disparity is huge, a large proportion (about 81.3%) of them has the experience to live in property. Crimes and violence is the major threat of social stability. Wealth redistribution is the way to solve the problem: Since income disparity is the source of many social problem, wealth redistribution, which means to balance the inequality if income among people in the society, could be helpful to restore social stability. For example, in countries where the number of the Gini coefficient (economic parameter used to measure income disparity in a country of region, the bigger the number is, the income disparity is much more serious) is small, people enjoy better stable and secure living environment. According to UN Human Development Report, the Gini coefficient in Columbia is 0.572; in Zimbabwe is 0.568; in Denmark 0.244; in Sweden 0.250. Respectively, the criminal rate in Columbia and Zimbabwe is roughly sixth times as high as in Denmark and Sweden. From this example, it is clearly to see that in a society where income disparity is not too serious, people enjoy better life. Wealth distribution could shorten the income disparity, thus helpful to solve problems of the disparity. Progressive income tax policy is the remedy: In order to maintain stability, an dramatic increase of the income tax rate by the rich will have an effect of redistribution of wealth, because the income of rich people takes a large proportion of GDP. By increasing tax of one rich people, averagely twenty low-income people could get relevant financial support. Thus redistribution of income could be carried out.
More tax on the rich = more possibility for evasion or backlash by the rich!

Any system designed to be for all groups of society (classes or whatever) has to have the legitimacy of all groups. If there is sufficient reason for people to think they're being unfairly treated then they will resort to the ancient principle of thinking an unjust law or tax rate is no legitimate and adopt a "screw you guys, I'm not paying and I'll do my best to avoid paying” attitude. Or alternatively, progressive people who may be rich but contribute a lot more will do what former Democrat-leaning actors union member, turned Conservative Republican President of the United States, Ronald Reagan did and go on a Goldwater Republican-style backlash against the whole system which brings things back to square one in terms of income disparity and social welfare. Admittedly the US is a different country from the People's Republic of China but you guys have still got people like basketball star Yao Ming (and I'm not trying to questions the man's character) but increase the taxes and you might inspire the same patriotic loyalty from other people in contributing to society or paying their taxes. In short if people don't think that the system is legitimate for them then they'll try and make the system legitimate for them which may not be necessarily in favour of poor people. After all commerce is one of the foundations of legitimacy according to Adam Smith ‘commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals’.[[Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Andrew Skinner ed., (Harmondsworth, 1982), p.508.]]
Income tax is not the best way to redistribute wealth or pay for public goods.

A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income (I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did) it does not discourage work or investment (the "Laffer curve" issue). Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord (which are capital improvements, not extra Land). Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.
On Laffer Curve

Your reliance on the Laffer curve as proof that tax increases don't necessarily increase is unsounded, see Wikipedia on Laffer curve and quote Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, who said, 'the Laffer curve idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenue turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981' in the Harvard International Revue. Actually, Pecorino argued in 1992 that taxes at the level of a peak of 65% would lower revenue so therefore when we argue a dramatic increase to below that level we are economically sound and your controversial and a little passé worries are unfounded. This is a KEY point. the trickledown economics ideas championed by Reagan are out-of-date and did NOT work, witness the income disparities an any developed and developing economy and the huge numbers with no affordable health care. what the opposition’s plan is there as even with outsourcing, if they outsource to countries with poor health care their workers won't last very long because of ill health and the costs of continuing to relocate would be prohibitive. I think the opposition should also be aware that it's not just an economic debate however, it's an ethical and philosophical one as well. Do we want societies that exploit the less well off? We in China have that now and are striving towards an equally well off society and that is part financed by raising tax revenues. The system here is relatively new and so far there are still many that don't pay tax as they don't earn enough but the idea is there. That it is everyone’s job to help the less well off. That it is the rich person's job to contribute towards the creation of a welfare system for ALL precisely BECAUSE they can afford to do this and will be ENRICHED because of this. Is not a loss of wealth, it is a reallocation of affordable resources. It is not a disincentive as you said, it can't be as there is NO such word, it isn't a disincentive either as nobody on this side of the house is talking about taxing the rich to death, we can raise taxes dramatically and they can still afford and we can cap their contributions based on the principles you raised with the Laffer curve idea, that we do not raise them so much that we cripple the economy.
on lack of innovation and investment

The opposition is entrenched in the old thinking that says the rich can get rich and the poor can get a job and they should get a bike to help them. Is Norman Tebbit's grandchildren on the opposition team, or something? the trickledown economics ideas championed by Reagan are out-of-date and did NOT work, witness the income disparities an any developed and developing economy and the huge numbers with no affordable health care. what the opposition’s plan is there as even with outsourcing, if they outsource to countries with poor health care their workers won't last very long because of ill health and the costs of continuing to relocate would be prohibitive. For the 21st century we are calling on a dramatic increase in tax at a time when government needs revenue to invest in those measures we have already spoken about at length. The opposition has given us nothing creative and has tried to steer away from any measure that goes towards any creation of an equally better off society but simply look to defend systems that created nothing more than so many worse off who they want to continue to ignore. Oh well, I'm glad that we can avoid such a system. I hope we can. Let me repeat, the greed is good era is over. We need creative alternatives. Those that have nothing new to say are better off sitting down and saying nothing at all.
Balancing governmental deficits for common good of society

It is a mistake to think that increasing taxes on the rich increases the net amount of taxable revenue brought into the state. New Jersey in the 1960s had no state income tax and no state sales tax, was a rapidly growing and running budget surpluses. This has now reversed: its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the US yet it suffers from perpetual deficits.[[Arthur B. Laffer, The Laffer Curve, Past, Present, and Future, The Heritage Foundation, 1st June 2004, http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm#pgfId-1118367%5D%5D Rich people have very good accountants and will always come up with ways to avoid what they consider to be an unfair burden. One obvious thing that happens is rich people move out of a country where they are being heavily taxed and into a country where the tax regime is less burdensome. The latest example of this comes from the footballer Andre Arshavin who has said he wants to move from the UK to Spain because the UK has just increased it's top rate of income tax to 50%. This was an increase of only 10% over the previous high rate - so can't be considered 'dramatic' - yet it is high enough to cause this one very rich individual to consider taking his money elsewhere. And not only would the taxman lose all the taxable income he pays, but football fans across the country would also lose out on watching a very gifted individual ply his trade. Rich people care about protecting their money and have the desire and the ability to continue to do so if tax rates are hiked up. However, rich people are not inherently unfair. They will pay a fair rate of tax, they will contribute to the society in which they live and they will benefit the rest of us provided the tax rate is not set so high as to force them to avoid it.
The rich will leave

Progressive taxes are a disincentive for people to stay in a country, they will simply head to a country where taxes are lower. The combination of low tax for business and high salaried executives has been a particularly strong combination in attracting people to the banking industry in the UK. The rich are the most mobile group of people. If taxes on the poor are increased they have little choice but to pay, or else sooner or later be caught by the taxman. They are unlikely to leave, as they lack the knowledge, expertise or money to go elsewhere. However the rich can. They can also afford to cut their taxes through creative accounting. Within the US from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.[[Stephen Moore, Soak the Rich, Lose the rich, The Wall Street Journal, 18th May 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html%5D%5D This does not just occur within countries but also internationally. Even in Britain where the tax rate for the rich is not particularly high by European standards, and new labour is "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"[[Roger Cohen, The filthy rich are different from you and me, International Herald Tribune, 1st July 2007, http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2007/07/01/opinion/02cohen.html?_r=1%5D%5D there are a lot of rich people who commute to tax havens. Rich Britons such as retailer Philip Green and the Easyjet founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou along with hundreds of directors and bankers give their address as Monaco. Due to a tax loophole non-residents can spend 90 days a year in Britain, plus the day of travel out and the day of travel back. This means they can fly in to Britain on Monday morning, work four days, fly out on Thursday night, and do this for most weeks in the year without breaking the rules. If the loophole was closed these rich people would leave entirely, as it is increasingly easy to run a business from outside the country using the internet and mobile phones.[[David Leigh, The tax haven that today's super rich City commuters call home, The Guardian, 10th July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jul/10/frontpagenews.uknews%5D%5D Hitting the rich with tax increases will also hit the poor and middle classes more than it does the rich themselves. The rich have often become rich by being financially savvy and are likely to cut back expenditure to balance their budgets. This is likely to result in them sacking their maids, butlers, gardeners, pool cleaners, personal assistants, chauffeurs etc. It makes much more difference to the person fired because the millionaire is trying to balance the books to compensate for the increase in taxes than it does to the millionaire him/herself.[[Grant Carbone, Taxing the rich hurts the middle class, The Huffington Post, 4th November 2008, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grant-cardone/taxing-the-rich-hurts-the_b_140895.html%5D%5D