The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire.

I do not advocate for raising taxes for the purpose of giving government more money to spend. As we all know the US faces a massive annual deficit of 1.5 trillion and a national debt of over 14 trillion. "I understand pro's point here, the problem is this. We don't know what the extra money, raised by the tax increase, will be used for. To my knowledge, there is no agreement that the extra money will be applied to the debt. We would like to think that it would go toward the debt, but we just don't know for sure because no one has said where it will be used. If we raise the tax rate, on the top 2%, that will bring in about 70 billion a year. That's nothing to sneeze at, but by the same token, it won't make a dent in the overall debt, and we'll still be running that 1.5 trillion dollar per year budget deficit. The other problem is that the group effected by the cuts, is the group that creates jobs. Taking that money from them will just take it out of the economy. It won't be there for them to invest, and when investment in companies goes down, unemployment goes up, or at best, job creation slows. So, in the end, it's best to let them keep their money, and put it back in to the economy. That's where it is doing the most good. "However, the issues we face are not going to simply wait till we decide to have faith in our leaders. I also refute the general premise that “we know” our leaders will not act responsibly. " I understand what you're saying here, but we're not going to change the culture in Washington, by increasing taxes. That 70 billion isn't going to change anything. Throwing more money at a problem, isn't always the answer, if it were we'd have the best education system in the world. If anything that just enables the problem. They're like addicts, and the more we give them the more they'll use. With all the problems that we've had, they still can't get together and come up with ways to reduce the annual budget deficit. Until we get that annual budget tamed, nothing is going to get significantly better. The federal government is just giving money away. In the 2011 budget, there is almost 700 billion dollars being given out in grant money, just given away never to be repayed, and many of those grants are regular, given out yearly. That amount doesn't even include the statutory block grants given to states. The amount of grant money given out should be decreasing, because of our problems, but it's not, it's up from 2010. This is an example of what I mean about wanting to see some signs of sanity, with the budget, and that's enough to show me that our leaders are not going to act responsibly. After the 2010 election, you would think they would be inspired to do something significant, but apparently they didn't get the message. They're still bickering. The only thing significant being discussed right now is raising the debt ceiling even higher. That doesn't sound responsible to me. Pro's Rebuttals1. I'm not trying to argue that the lower classes won't be affected. As I said earlier, responsibility in other areas will make the effect on the lower classes "more palatable". I wasn't arguing for those particular cuts, just trying to give an example of how creativity can raise significant money. With such a high percentage of our money going to programs that effect the lower and middle classes, it's not surprising that those are the classes that are going to be impacted. As it relates to raising taxes on the top 2%, though, that amount is not going help them significantly, and could end up hurting them, in the long run. If those tax increases, on the wealthy, slow job growth, or raise unemployment, the lower classes are going to be impacted far more significantly. Another issue to look at is charitable contributions that help the lower class. The more we take away from the rich, the less they're going to give voluntarily. The risks far outweigh the benefit, because of that, I think raising taxes on that group, right now, is a bad idea.2. Do we have reason to believe that "taxing the job creators", has a POSITIVE impact on employment rates? ? Many would find that surprising. I'm sorry that my opponent finds that offensive, but the simple fact is that rich people create jobs. The top 2%, those affected by the increase in question, are those making 250,000 or more. I won't argue with SOME, but below that figure, there isn't a whole lot of job creation going on. I agree that there are many people who can't start a business because of capital, but taking the 70 billion, that we're talking about, out of the economy isn't going to help that situation, at all. "Yes I understand that business owners investments are continual and yes taking money out of their hands will affect their ability to start new ones. I do understand that these tax increases would in fact hurt our overall economic situation, but anytime you take money out of the economy that will be the end result weather by increasing taxes or cutting spending. " Here pro agrees that increasing taxes on the rich will have a negative effect on jobs, and will hurt our overall economy. If that's the case, then why would we want to go ahead and raise those taxes? ?3. It makes sense that those paying the most taxes, have the most wealth, I don't believe that fact to be unfair. "The issue with this disparity is that contrary to a belief shared by many, it is by no means proportional to how hard an individual works. How can one justify a CEO earning nearly $20 million while those at the bottom of their company earn $10 hr? Can a person truly be worth that much? "We're way off topic here, but as long as I have space, I don't mind. I agree with the sentiment here, it doesn't seem fair, but bottom line is that in capitalism, it's not about how hard the people work, it's about what the market says they're worth. Most any of us can step in and do the $10/hr jobs, as they don't usually require special skills. But how many of us qualify for, and can step in and successfully be a CEO? ? Is he/she really worth that much? ? It depends on supply and demand. If there is demand in a highly specialized position, those that qualify are going to be paid more, it's that simple. Those people have worked to gain the qualifications necessary for that position, so shouldn't they be rewarded for it? ? I don't believe that we should say that a person can only make so much money, and the rest has to go to the government for redistribution to the rest of the population. The same principle applies to athletes. Very few people can hit or throw a 95 mph pitch, if there's a demand for fans to see ball games, those guys are going to make big bucks. I disagree that they do nothing to make the major leagues what it is. They are the history makers, they are the ones who bring fans to the stadiums, it's their names that are on the jerseys. Yes, many came before them, that built the history, but they are the one's continuing it for future generations. You also have to look at the fact that their ability to play, and continue to earn, could end at any minute, with an injury. ". .. but it is the government’s responsibility to do what is best for the greater good. " My opponent and I both agree that this tax increase will have a negative effect on jobs, and hurt the overall economy, so is that what's best for the greater good? ? I don't believe it is, in fact, if what we agree on is true, then the tax increase will be detrimental to the greater good. Pro talks about protecting the middle class but I would argue that protecting jobs is the best thing for the middle class. Raising taxes only puts jobs at risk, and the benefit is not great enough to justify that risk. Pro is asking for an alternative solution, but with all due respect, that's not the debate. My only responsibility here, is to show why we should extend all the Bush tax cuts. I would ask that voters vote within the scope of the debate. I look forward to the next round.