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

Unfortunately due to time constraints I was not able to spend as much time on this argument as I would have liked my next argument will be much more in depth. I ask HD’s forgiveness for this:o) To address my opponents first point, he mentions that a law’s goodness is not necessarily diminished by its inability to fulfill its intended goal. I would say that this is true, however in this instance I believe that it is prudent because the section of the constitution my opponent cited does not justify using the funds for the suggestions he made. However it could in fact support the stated goal of the bill which is to pay down the debt. Article 1 section VIII of the constitution says:The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; It is important to note that the stated goal of the bill is in fact constitutional. So if its intent is not to fulfill the intended purpose then the bill is pulling a bait and switch that is dishonest at best, and unconstitutional at worst depending on what the funds will be used for. Which is why I believe personally that the goal was stated as it was. Obama knows that a tax increase to pay for new spending is not going to fly.So HD will have to cite the part of the Constitution that enumerates federal gov’t to spend the money in this way, or show how this bill is going to achieve its intended goal. Of course a constitutional amendment could be created in order to be granted this power, but as of now, it’s just not there. (Even though they do it anyway)I would say that to HD’s point on this debate being about the positive and negative effects of the bill. Misleading people is a negative effect. On to the nest point. For the sake of clarity I would like to give a more concise picture of myself and Percy’s income and tax burden. I think the way I wrote initially was a little difficult to follow and left out some numbers. In order to calculate the growth of Percy’s investments I used an interest calculator found at http://www.moneychimp.com... 1000 Weekly Income 52,000 Gross yearly income Income Tax rate 15% Sales Tax Rate 10% One year Income tax on 52,000 = 7,800Net income $44,200 One year sales tax on net = $4,420Total Tax per year = $12,22010 year net income $442,000Over 10 years I pay $122,200 in total taxes (income tax + sales tax x 10) Over 10 years Percy pays 78,000 income tax (income tax x 10) After 10 years at 10% interest Percy earns $774,877.58 in the stock marketAfter 10 years Percy Pays 18% capital gains $139,478After 10 years Percy pays $217,478 total tax((Income tax x 10) + (Capital Gains tax))Given these numbers We can see that on the same base income Percy pays $217,478 at the end of 10 years where as I only paid $122,200 in taxes. The only difference is how we spent our money, we both bought stuff with our money, I happened to buy stuff that depreciated in value, and Percy (the smart one I might add) spent his money on things that appreciated in value. While at the end of 10 years Percy makes more money, he also pays substantially more in taxes almost $100k more than I do. Not only has Percy given more in total dollars in taxes, he has given extra capital to companies that can be used to create jobs, not only directly, but indirectly by building expansions and creating new products that would not have otherwise been created. This is a win win for the gov’t, business and Percy. The gov’t get’s more taxes than they otherwise would have on his base salary. Business get’s money that it couldn’t get through sales alone. Percy by taking this big risk loses out on all the stuff he could have gotten over that time, no video games, no cars, no tv’s and electronics or other cool stuff that he could have gotten with $1000 every week. He essentially made a bet that someone else would be able to do more with his money than he could. He chose to take a big risk (the company/’s he invested in may have failed) that paid off. Increasing the taxes incurred on people who choose to take the risk of investing removes some of the incentive to take that risk. The more you tax it the fewer people are willing to take that risk. This is bad for the economy and bad for businesses who need capital to create the cool stuff we both like. As I mentioned before as a basic rule of economics, anything you tax, you get less of, and anything you subsidize you get more of.