"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

My opponent has asked for forgiveness for his lat post not being as in depth as he would have liked it to be, due to time restraints. However he has broken no rules, social taboos, or injured me or a third party in any way, therefore I do not believe there is anything to apologize for. Rather, I thank him for the time he was able put in.I will address what arguments he did make in his previous response though, to the best of my ability.As far Con's first points in his previous response, I already pointed to the Superme Court decisions which allows the Federal Government to spend money in the ways I suggested. My opponent may disagree with the decision, but the decision is legally binding nonetheless. In addition, the bill is not misleading, as it is not citing my intentions. Let me reiterate my point, I don't believe in cutting government to the bone, I believe we should be procuring enough revenue to pay down the debt, while paying for additional social programs to help our society. Also, I believe there are a good number of already existing programs that need to go. The Buffet Rule, in addition to spending cuts, can pay off the deficit while allowing other revenue to pay for the aforementioned programs. Unless my opponent believes the intentions laid out in the Buffet Rule is a straitforward declaration that the Federal Government will not institutue any new programs in any other bills, his argument falls flat.Next, my opponent goes over his Percy example. Suffice to say, in his own example Percy makes slightly more than double what his companion does, and is taxed slightly less than double what his companion does. Percy is only paying 0.4% more than his companion on taxes, but is making a considerable amount more than that. My opponent has agreed that a progressive tax structure is fair and reasonable, and yet this is far from a truely progressive tax structure. Therefore my opponent's numbers would confirm my original point rather than his. I would also like to point out that the numbers he gives would be exactly indentical before and after the implementation of the Buffet Rule, so the numbers where Percey is making over a million dollars would even make the results out to be much more in my favor.You see, the only difference is not how they spent their money, as my opponent would suggest. The difference is how much was made. My opponet seems to think that selling things off that have appreciated in value does not count as income or should not be taxed, but this is simply not the case. If I buy a gallon of water for $1.00, and then a drought come up raising the value of that gallon to $5.00, is the fact that it appreciated in value mean it is exempt from taxation when I sell it? Or that only the original $1.00 I paid for it should be taxed? I see no rational for this.My opponent finishes his rebuttal by claiming that it is wrong to deincentivize risk takers, and that the buffet rule would do that. I find this quite difficult to believe. What you would have to believe in order to accept Con's argument, is this thought process: "Well, l think I could make a a lot of money doing this, but now I won't make quite as much money due to taxes. I guess I shouldn't make that money then." We're only talking about people that profit one million dollars a year. I see no reason that they would shy away from investment opportunities because, when they make money, they won't make quite as much of it. In fact, economist Joel Slemrd would agree with me [1]. I'm sure my opponent can cite an economist or two that would agree with him, and we could go on and on with dueling economists, but without a definitive answer his rebuttal of deinsentivising investment does not hold.In addition, as I've stated before, we do require revenue. My opponent has made it quite clear that at least we need revenue to pay down the debt. So, how do we get this revenue. Well, if we needed . . say . . 700 billion dollars . . . as I pointed out we could either raise taxes on the top 2% a small amount, or take half of EVERYTHING the poor owns. Clearly, we should not be relying on the poor to get revenue, as it is simply not practical. So far, my opponent has only advocated a consumption tax that I've shown to be a rather damaging idea for the poor and senior citizens, and that the Buffet Rule be a fair tax on millionaires, allowing for relief to go to the poor and middle class. I do not believe my opponent has raised any significant challenges to my position.[1] http://www.challengemagazine.com...;