Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

All my arguments have been dropped. I'd like to point that out for the voters. My opponent hasn't taken any time whatsoever to critically consider my arguments. I'll respond to his nevertheless. First, I'll offer my rebuttals to his first argument. I believe the rich, the top 2 percent as you defined, are already doing their part in society with their tax rate of 40%. Many of them are not paying this rate, as I pointed out earlier -- and rates have dropped substantially for the very affluent in recent years. Considering that the top 10% paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010 [1], I would not be complainingMy opponent is obfuscating, and using this as a way to display his one and only source. This is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the top 2%, not the top 10%. Also, even if we were talking about the top 2% -- who, indeed, pay a fairly high percentage of the federal income tax, though not even close to 70% -- we have to bear in mind that payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, property taxes, etc. hurt middle-income and poor people more than they do rich people. State systems are highly regressive, as I pointed out. My opponne thas not responded to that argument. Most of the rich got where they are by hard work. They do not deserve to be taxed more simply because they were more successful in life. The first sentence is a bare-assertion fallacy -- where's your source? Many rich people did get there by hard work, while some got their based on fraud and abuse and cheating the system -- e. g. , Wall Street. The second statement is a distortion and a strawman. You cannot point to a time where I said, "Tax the rich because they've been successful. " Taxes are not punitive. They are the price we pay for a civilized society, as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it. They're part and parcel of the social contract, whereby we all agree to sacrifice a bit of our freedom to collectively invest and provide for people. This statement is also rubbish when we consider that state systems are regressive. You seem to have no problem whatsoever with tax systems that disportionately hit poor people, but cringe at the idea that the rich may need to pay higher rates -- when their rates are lower than they've been historically (another argument you dropped). They do their part as they should. They should not have to pay more just because someone else cannot. That is completely unfair. What's their part? This statement is completely ludicrous and subjective. Many are paying rates lower than they have historically, with many -- Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney as good examples -- paying lower rates than middle-income households. Your second statement is ridiculous. The fact that corporations are getting such large breaks is the exact reason why middle-income and lower-income people have been paying more -- to pick up the tab for the welfare-queen corporations. When Bobby Jindal proposed eliminating the state income tax in Virginia, he wanted to replace it with a regressive sales tax -- thus tossing the burden from the rich to the poor. No, distributing the burden to the already stagnating middle class is unfair. Perpetuating debunked trickle-down lies is unfair. Evading taxes and hiding money in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes is unfair. Paying a lower tax rate than a middle-income people when you're a multiomillionaire or billionaire is unfair. Politicians lstening to the billionaire Koch Brothers when they should be serving the people -- only because the Koch Brothers are exceptionally large donors -- is unfair. Your argument is unfounded. The wealthy already pay the large majority of taxes, why make them pay for all of it? Majority of what taxes? The federal income tax? They earn a majority of the income -- the top 1% owns 20% of total income, relative to 10% in 1980 -- so of course they're going to pay the "majority of taxes" in dollars. Who said anything about making them pay for all of it? That's a complete strawman. Middle-income and poor people pay a diproportionate percentage of their income in regressive payroll and sales taxes et al. After reading your eloquent barrage of information, I hope you do realize that you went off subject sir. The topic was about the rich, individuals, having increased tax rate. You simply cannot compare oranges to apples as you did with individuals to companies. Actually, that's what you did when you mentioned the top 10 percent. Here's what I addressed, all of which you droppped:1. Taxes are already lower than they've been historically, and the income has thrived in times where taxes where high, so there is no sound economic argument for raising taxes.2. Tax cuts do not create jobs. 3. Tax cuts lead to income inequality. 4. Income inequality is hindering the recovery. All of these were on-topic and relevant. That you failed to understand them, and thus did not respond to them, sounds more correct. At a suggested 70% tax rate, by a FRENCH economist, how many of the wealthy Americans would stay in this country? None! Why does it matter at all that Emmanuel Saez is French? Peter Diamond, who co-authored the paper, is American. Even your most insigificant statements are being reduced to rubbish. Also, good job making a completely baseless, unsourced, factually inaccurate statement for which their is no evidence. I'd provided you plenty of data saying otherwise -- data saying the top marginal income tax rate could be significantly higher than it is now, and it turns out, people would still want to continue to produce and procure wealth. The "peak of the Laffer curve," as the piece from Fieldhouse points out, ranges from about 73% to 80% depending on whose research you follow. The point is, there is no evidence for your argument whatsoever, nor have you provided the slightest modicum of sourcing or critical thinking. You have gone off subject many times. From income inequality to company tax breaks, it has nothing to do with increased tax rates on rich American individuals and their families. This is complete rubbish, as I already pointed out. I felt when reading your opening arguments that it sounded like a typical episode of MSNBC Evening News. And reading your arguments sounded like a typical episode of Fox News. Hey, at least my statements included facts and analysis. I wish opponent good luck. Same to you! P. S. April 15th is just around the corner. Cool beans. Conclusion: My opponent does not have a single credible argument on the table. I have eviscerated his arguments point by point and reduced them to utter rubbish.