Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised.

PROS CASE(A) Wealth Disparity, and Economic GrowthThe first and foremost point of my argument will deal with wealth disparity in America. In economics, the most common method of gauging the relative disparity present in a country is measured with a system of standardizations known as GINI Coefficients. A GINI coefficient of 0 represents perfect equality (socialism) and a GINI coefficient of 100 represents perfect inequality (totalitarianism). Obviously, both ends of the scale ought to be avoided. Both ends of that scale represent economies where workers cannot thrive, and there is no incentive to work hard or to innovate. The GINI coefficient of the US is just under 50 (1) (2). This may seem like an optimal zone at first glance, but this is not the case. A coefficient of 50 is too high, and restricts economic growth. Empirical evidence shows that countries achieve optimal economic growth when their GINI coefficient lies between 25 and 40 (3). If a country has its disparity in this "Goldilocks" zone (because it is just right) they experience optimal GDP growth. Examine the following chart (4). As you can see here, there is a distince downward trend in GDP growth as the GINI coefficient approaches 50. (To clarify, the chart uses the 0-1 scale for coefficients. To change to the 1-100 scale, simply multiply the coefficient by 100. )Raising taxes on the top 1% of America significantly reduces the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. We know this, because the GINI coefficient of the US has been on the rise since Reagan era tax cuts were implemented. This is demonstrated in the following chart. Up until the election of Reagan in '81, the GINI coefficient remained at a relatively stable level that was just inside the goldilocks zone. With taxes on the welathiest americans slashed, the GINI coefficient has risen rapidly, and will continue to rise, unless taxes are raised on the rich. Ultimately, everyone benefits from moving the disparity to the "golidlocks zone", as maximum GDP growth results in maximum wealth for the nation as a whole. Subpoint I: Median Income Growth, and GDP. Another reason for increased taxes on the wealthy, is to ensure that median income growth can grow at a rate similar to to the growth of GDP per capita. Median income establishes who has the spending power, and influences change in disparity. Consider the following chart (5) As you can see, the major tax cuts rendered by President Reagan on the wealthiest Americans resulted in a dramatic gap between GDP growth per capita, and Median income Per Capta. Not only does this increase the disparity (which I proved retards economic growth) but it also shifts the spending power from the many, to the few. (B) Spending PowerMy next major point as to why we should raise taxes on the top 1% of wealthy Americans deals with spending power. Spending power deals primarily with the concentration of wealth. With low taxes on the wealthy, Disparity rises. A result of this is a shift in the spending power from the middle class, to the upper class. The problem here, is that this results in the centralization of power. Shifting the spending power from the middle class to the rich creates a top-heacy economy, that lends itsself to abuse. The wealthy are able to abuse the system more and more as they become wealthier and wealthier. Their voices are much louder in politics than the voices of everyday Americans. They have the funds to keep the government in their pockets. The United States ranks 19th on the national corruption index (6). That is simply unacceptable. We as American citizens should always do everything in our power to minimize government corruption. America should be number 1 on that index. Furthermore, shifting the spending power to the middle class not only decentralizes power, but it also helps boost the economy. GDP is directly affected by consumer spending. Which class supplies the greatest amound of consumer spending? The middle class. What class is strengthened by higher taxes on the wealthy? The middle class. (7) (8)(C) Keynesian WelfareMy final points deals with Keynesian welfare. No this isn't the welfare where you just hand someone a check. Keynesian welfare deals with the construction and supply of public services. Raising the taxes on the top 1% allows the government to spend significantly more on the construction and maintenence of services such as public transportation (that includes roads) and public education, both of which help improve the availability of human capital, and therefore improving the economy. Keynsian economics got us out of one depression (1929) it can get us out of another. SUMMARYI have proved here that raising taxes on "the 1%" will result in greater economic growth and the decentralization of spending power in the economy. Sources1. . http://data.worldbank.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://www.economist.com...4. . http://www.decisionsonevidence.com...5. . http://economistsview.typepad.com...6. . http://www.transparency.org...;7. . http://www.marketplace.org...;8. . http://robertreich.org...;