Taxes should be raised on the rich

Those two videos were an attempt to add in more material while getting passed the character limit. They certainly do not fall under the character limit, I ask they be dismissed due to violation of the rules. Re1: The Laffer Curve I was arguing the fact that because of volunteering initiatives and non-profit organizations, we can see that your Laffer curve should be rejected. It fails to take into account all actors of the economy, and in this case my opponent dropped the fact that even Laffer himself later noted it should not be the only basis for justifying raising or lowering taxes. I did note volunteering on an individual basis in my previous arguments. Re2: The Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts Didn't Cause the “Roaring Twenties” First of all, I stated that paying off some of the debt is good economically. Secondly, Coolidge himself forced the top 2% of income earners during his time to pay any income taxes at all, which also furthers my point as we're disguising increasing taxes on the wealthy, and thirdly, my opponent misunderstood my argument, I was speaking about Harding's subsidies, and his investments in technology which paid off, same as Coolidge which caused the roaring twenties in the first place, not tax cuts. Finally, when cutting taxes, the depression kicked in at the end of the 20's, my article notes that the sugar high was met with the crash of Wall street and the world enters the depression. Coolidge in fact had such a lack of regulation on the economy, it was almost invincible. As the following article shows, there is absolutely no economic correlation between tax cuts and spurred economic activities: http://www.forbes.com... In fact, it shows that under the Clinton administration the tech boom also took place. The difference is that we got into a recession (not nearly as bad as a depression, especially with higher tax rates Clinton pushed), and no tech investments or economic activities ceased or slowed because of taxes as per my other articles I noted as well. Re3: Unions and CP Abolishes Do Have Good Economic Consequences Under JFK, Not Tax Cuts CP (Capital punishment) does not in fact have a deterrence as agreed upon by a majority of criminologists http://www.amnesty.org... . California got rid of their CP same as New Jersey and New York, and all saved huge sums of money. Shortage of lawyers, and appeals costs more otherwise the rule of law is sacrificed, and reallocating it would have saved the feds tons of money: http://articles.chicagotribune.com... Furthermore, as the World Bank notes, Unions are excellent for economic growth as opposed to non-union countries. http://web.worldbank.org... they also cause more productivity, especially when they have lesser turnover-rates, causing economic activities to increase. Under JFK, unions increased dramatically, and under Coolidge, they plummeted. It is more likely that the money and economic activities as a result of these two consequences (and JFK's heavy investments in tech to land us on the moon) that furthered his economic activities. Re4: Reagan Tax Cuts Indeed Gave a “Sugar High” But When Compared to Clinton's Tax Raise on the Rich, Reagan's Policies Fail in Comparison My opponent completely dropped the fact that Reagan was notorious throughout the 1980's for hiking taxes instead of dropping them. He dropped taxes for the wealthy overall, but hiked taxes several times, and still has the highest single-handed tax hike of all time. Finally, what follows with tax cuts on the wealthy again? Depressions. Again in 1987-88 another depression hit, going into the early 1990's. http://en.wikipedia.org... Compare this to the fact that Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and the fact that he led us into the longest economic “boom” in US history, we see that taxes do work, and this is the worst possible case for my opponent to try and defend. http://en.wikipedia.org... Even if we grant that Reagan's policies “took time to work” as my opponent maintains, that 7% surely increased when depressions hit, showing his policies didn't work, along with inflation increasing to 5%. Re5: the “Middle Class” May Have Started Making More Money ....But... The policies I was referring too were the Harding subsidies which would have artificially inflated wages, not Coolidge's. Furthermore,Your argument is that if there is any lower rung people move to a higher rung, then upward mobility is not an issue. But that's not income mobility. Income mobility is the measure of how much your parent's economic status predicts your economic status. The facts actually show that upward mobility in the US is less than other nations. Alan Kruger, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers showed that in 1985 when Reagan's policies can be fully felt, his “Great Gatsby Curve” showed that US inequality skyrocketed. It was harder under those tax cuts to increase your income based on your parent's already social-economic status. Why is this important? Because giving a tax cut to a rich man has a minimal impact, he's already made his money, but do the same to a poor man, and we have whole other consequences (the likes of which are being debated by Republicans and Democrats.) http://joewo.com... My opponent falsely claims I dropped his argument that tax cuts harm the economy. I rebuttal-ed with two more contentions, that they help the economically alienated, and are needed for income mobility in the previous rounds via the Gini coefficient, which is good economics. My opponent claims his source advocated for lower taxes. But this is untrue, it just mentioned that Hong Kong uses a 0% income tax rate, but the economist in question advocated for capital gains taxes to be on par with ordinary income, which is what my argument rests on with the Warren Buffet argument, to which he completely dropped. I never dropped his Gilder point either, if economic activity increases it stands to reason more businesses are opening up and people are spending money (which is required for economic activity in the first place) Finally, FDR's policies were removed shortly after WW2, so the long term impacts cannot be measured. One thing we do universally agree upon: it did cause unemployment to drop, with exception to the 1937-38 mini-rescession, which as I had shown was the result of the Treasuries actions, not FDR's. Even if it was bad policy, my opponent cannot deny the Treasuries acts were to blame, not FDR's policies. Re6: (see above gini coefficent argument, a lack of income mobility shows those policies failed the poor, and the result of increasing wages were due to inflation which was 5%.) Re7: One can advocate for more income mobility and not be a socialist. This is an uncalled for ad hominem. I want less income inequality, I stated nothing about heavily redistrubuting funds. My opponent dropped my Warren Buffet arguments, and the arguments of Clinton's policies resulting in better economics as a result of higher taxes. He plagurized, and committed causational fallacies and an ad hominem. He dropped my gini coefficent arguments as well! I have met my BOP, and refuted all of my opponents arguments. Tax increases of the rich to the same as ordinary income ought to be enacted for better economic policies and consequences, and income mobility. My opponent fails to understand correlation is not causation, and that the investments in farming, tech, and unions caused better economics along with higher taxes, not the other way around which caused "sugar-highs" and massive crashes. Thank you for this debate.