overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will only make the USA worse economically

To start, I apologize for I will be unable to debate the final round but do not concede. I simply carry this and the round before it to the last. Now to the debate at hand: "Con argues taxing the rich more doesn't help the lower class. it does, because they dont have to pay the taxes to support the programs being run. and, some of the programs directly benefit them such as food stamps etc. con argues taxing the rich more will just cause them to jack up prices. however, due to competition, they will more likely just have to bite the bullet and not make as much profit. the businesses are all taxed the same, so it's not like they have any option to get into a better situation and in turn cause less competition and an abitlity for some of the rich to raise prices." Let me expound on the problem the tax on the more rich represents. -Higher tax rates on investment raise the cost of capital investment, and higher tax rates on labor income reduce the incentive to work and supply labor in the U.S. economy. Over the long run, the decline in private-sector investment would reduce the capital stock, leading to slower output and labor supply in the U.S. economy. - Gross private-sector investment would decline by an average of $126 billion (4.1 percent) per year, reducing real capital stock in the U.S. economy by an average of $229 billion (1.2 percent) per year. The reduction in private-sector investment and capital services over the long run would reduce the labor supply at different economic margins: Private-sector employment in the U.S. economy would fall by an average 1.1 million jobs (1 percent) per year, and Americans would work 2 billion fewer hours relative to baseline levels. - The President believes his tax proposal will increase federal revenue by an average of $160 billion per year. The results of the dynamic simulation indicate that the President"s proposal would achieve only about $68 billion per year"less than one-half of the President"s projection. The dynamic result is due to a smaller tax base commensurate with the smaller economy. For example, fewer hours worked and lower real wages result in less federal income and payroll tax receipts. -Specifically, economic growth would slow in 2013 under the Obama tax plan compared with current policy, shaving an average of $105 billion (0.8 percent) in 2013 and nearly twice that amount on average over 10 years. The reduced output and productive capacity in the U.S. economy are reflected in a much weaker labor market in which an average of 1.1 million fewer workers would have jobs each year under the Obama tax plan. (http://www.heritage.org...) Now to move on from that: "con argues the government spends money inefficiently. i dont disagree. perhaps we shouldnt spend so much through tax and spend. but the main point is that our system is unequal, and things could be spread out more fairly one way or hte other. the only reason i'm even entertaining con's points about taxes is because he brought them up, to be sure there's plenty of other points to be made about how we shouldnt focus more on capitalism. does con content himself that if we focus more on capitalism that the rich would just get richer?" To respond to the first part, thank you for agreeing. The poor money management of Federal funds is ridiculous. As for the next part, we actually should focus on capitalism. Not to say it is bad, but it would actually help the economy. Then the last comment, yes, I do concede that focusing on capitalism makes rich richer but it would also make the poor richer, and middle class richer, and upper bourgeois richer. Next: " and woujldnt it be better if there was more money in the hands of people lower on the economic scale? that would cause stimulus to the economy. if the rich get richer, it will detract money from those who would be most useful with it. we are driven by a demand economy, not supply. the rich have plenty of money, if there's need for an innovation or somehow to make a buck, there's plenty of people and money to do it. it's not like they need a hand." This was actually tried before and is called stimulus spending. The idea is to give people money so they spend it and it gets the economy moving. The main problem here, though, is that most people did one of two things. They saved it in banks, stocks, bonds, etc. or they spent it on expensive items such as tv's, computers, and such. This did little to stimulate anything. Lastly: " remember, im not arguing that we shouldnt have any capitalism, just that we shouldnt focus too much more on it than we already are. it's a good system at keeping prices attainable for people. and, we probably have some of the best innovations and productivity in the country." I actually think this is going the other way now. We are becoming more and more socialist and less and less capitalist. Welfare is huge now days. There is no possible way for someone to go hungry if they can find a way to a government social center. Some people abuse it instead and use it when they don't have to just because they can. We have had Obama in office throwing out bills to a democratic majority congress who were passing them. Now, however, it is slowing down exponentially because of more Republican congressman. Thank you for the debate topic and have a good one!