Question: Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.

Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Here's a better idea: Corporate tax rate: 0%, that way buisnesses will have more money to invest in creating more jobs. Instead tax those who receive checks from that corporation, derived from those profits.

Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved? National corporate tax rate: 30% Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed. 1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed. 20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.) Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned. This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business. This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more. This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered What you state is easily dismissible. Instead of arguing the economic benefits, you argue political drawbacks. As of 2013, the United States has lead the world in Corporate Tax percentage, which is set at 39%. Our tax rate has not changed in a matter of 2 years, with regard to corporate tax. [1] On a ratio with our GDP, Corporate Taxes amount to 2% of our 18 trillion GDP, which amounts to $360 billion. While we pronounce ourselves to be the most Capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation on both our businesses and general income. Incorporation in Canada, which is famous for it's high taxes and government spending in relation to population, is easier and cheaper than incorporation in the United States. Our corporate tax is not only a burden but it is also a deterrent to future companies. I myself am working for a company made by American citizens but incorporated in Canada, due to their lower tax rate and fees. The main debate on Capitalism is that we get to keep our profits, if accumulated legally. The profits of companies are accumulated legally, and they deserve to keep those profits, regardless of moral implication. The main argument that many opponents of a lowered Corporate Tax create is that we cannot afford to lower it, which we most certainly can. Instead of professing about an increase in tax or a stability, we should decrease spending on par with a decrease in taxes. An overall incentive to incorporate in the United States will not only create an excess of jobs, but it will bring in an incredible amount of money. It is much more beneficial to tax 15% to 100 people, rather than taxing 39% to 50 people, as eventually, that number will decrease. Our current ideology is that instead of lowering taxes and fees, we will raise them as to create further burdens on the corporations that remain. Rand Paul, a ideologically Libertarian Republican presidential candidate stated that we have an excess of $2 trillion overseas, that we could bring into the United States if we lowered the Corporate Tax. "My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector." The public has no say as to whom may or may not invest into the private sector. It is not up to the collective decision of a public entity to dictate how and who invests into which specific private market. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have public stocks, which enable all willing parties to hold stocks in that specific company. The private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college. You seem to believe that taxes are collected and then distributed randomly. Each tax pays of each part of the government or public platform. This debate does not center over the complete abolishment of Corporate Tax, but instead centers around lowering this specific tax. Due to safety in investing in the United States, paired with a significantly lower Corporate Tax, we could bring in a great amount of companies as well as private sector jobs, and eventually make even more money in taxes than before. Sources: [1]http://taxfoundation.org...

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector’s need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate’s primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu...

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. I will try to keep my argument as simple as possible – so let me start with an illustration (example): Scenario #1: Corporation ABC is budgeted a "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. The tax rate is effectively 35% (which is, basically, what it is now). So, the tax is $350,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $650,000. Scenario #2: Like Scenario #1 Corporation ABC is budgeted "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. However, the tax rate NOW is effectively 50% (which is, roughly what it was from the 1950's – 1980's). So, NOW the tax is $500,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $500,000. My simple argument is that the CEO of ABC corporation is more motivated to invest the "pre-tax" profits of $1,000,000 in expanding the company (hiring people, research, leases, etc. ) when it will only cost $500k in net profit (50% tax rate), as opposed to the $650k it would cost in net profit with a tax rate of 35%. Think about it… would you like to get something worth a million dollars and have to pay $650k for it, or only $500k? Pretty easy answer…. huh? When taxes are high, CEO's are even MORE motivated to avoid them. The easiest, and most productive means to avoid them is through business expansion. In a study title, "Having their cake and eating it too", which was published just two weeks ago by the "Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives", the researchers claimed that: "This study examines historical data on business investment and cash flow from 1961 through 2010, and, using econometric techniques, finds no evidence in the historical data that lower taxes have directly stimulated more investment. " They go on further to find that, "As a means of stimulating growth, employment, and even private business spending, the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive. " Another way of looking at it is ‘the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more the government is enticing CEO's to reinvest in their companies to avoid paying that tax'. As far as the rest of your argument goes, concerning international economies and comparable tax rates, I believe that those are irrelevant matters concerning my contention, and the basis for this debate. . http://www.policyalternatives.ca... . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... . http://www.calgaryherald.com...

Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas. The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately. There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally. There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn. Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction. Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for instigating this debate! My opponent has provided a single flawed (as I will show) argument to support the contention. Moreover he has not bothered to back his argument with any data what so ever. The contention is that the corporation has a certain amount of money left over after transaction of all business. They can either choose to book profit or reinvest. A higher tax rate will give them the incentive to reinvest. However a higher tax rate will mean there is less money available after the business is conducted! My opponent has assumed that this money will remain same whether the tax rate is increased or decreased. Less available money will mean that in general both profit as well as reinvestment will decrease! The reasons for the less money include. 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy. If we compare effective tax rates [1][2] and GDP growth rate [3] for various countries, we see that in general countries with lower tax rates have performed surprisingly well. For example - Singapore is having a 11.5% tax is having a GDP growth of 14.5 % which is 3rd highest in the world! On other hand most of the highly taxed economies (US, Canada, Russia, France, Germany ) with 30% + taxes are stuck at 2 to 3% growth rate. However let me warn that GDP growth depends on many factors so exceptions are possible. However as we go through the data, the general trend is quite obvious. I look forward to the next round! [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://www.cdhowe.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Job Creation/Stability An increase in jobs is a fundamental part of getting out of a recession. Consumer spending needs to be increased in order to see tangible growth in the economy and consumer spending can not be increased as long as consumers remain unemployed. The most efficient way to create jobs is to decrease corporate taxes that create incentives to create new jobs. For example, the state of Michigan enacted policy that substantially decreased corporate taxes on companies that created new jobs in high-growth sectors such as green and bio technology.[[www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/Econ_job_223200_7.pdf]] The purpose of business is to profit and through corporate tax cuts, business will have the ability to profit easier while creating jobs. Employed consumers spend the necessary money to stimulate and grow the economy. This is proven in the example of Ireland, which adopted a 12.5% corporate tax in 1988 while having the second-lowest per capita income in Europe and now has the second-highest income in Europe.[[http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html]] Recently, the French government posted figures of 0.3% growth in GDP for the second quarter of 2009, an indicator it is coming out of the recession. Across the euro zone, only Germany matched this growth. This was unexpected by experts and while it does not mean the recession is over for France, it is encouraging. One of the key forces behind this was an increase in consumption. Consumption increased by 0.3% this quarter. This increase was the aim of the government when reducing VAT as part of its strategy to combat the recession. For companies such as restaurants and cafes, VAT was slashed from 19% to 5.5%, which industry bodies predicted successfully would lead to an increase in consumption. [[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4446507,00.html]] [[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXJawG8lN9DDRVZ8N5-VSsc4_-Dw]] Government spending can also create jobs but the question is are these jobs suitable for getting out of a recession? The answer is a resounding no. Let's examine one of the largest attempts by government to create jobs, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration which allocated $3.3 billion dollars for public jobs to stimulate employment[[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/pwa.htm]]. The jobs created by it usually lasted only months allowing only short term employment and the unemployment rate remained above 9%[[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011064 ]]. Many of the jobs consisted of building public structures and murals such as a mountain theater that were not done to grow the economy further but to grow political capital. After the expenditures stopped, so did the jobs. Only private industry can provide the long term stability and job creation through new and improved investments which are vital economic necessities to get out of a recession. By providing corporate tax cuts to incentive this, governments will not fall in a pit of spending that only provides sparks and stifling the private industry that could make blazing positive changes in the economy.

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Thank you very much for your rebuttal and taking the time to debate this subject. Let me begin by addressing your contention that my scenario's are incorrect. You stated in your rebuttal that "In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower". And that, "the reasons for the less money include": 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy To address these points: 1. EBIT = "Earnings before Interest and Taxes". This is a term well-known to CEO's and CFO's the world over. It's basically a companies "Operating Earnings". You state that 'more money has to be paid to the government' so my scenario is inaccurate. I disagree. The $1,000,000 in earnings would be the same in both scenarios because they are PRE-TAX earnings. No money has been paid to the government in either Scenario. 2. While, theoretically, this point is true. I believe it to be irrelevant to this debate. This more of point in discussing international trade agreements & tariffs. 3. Companies cannot "write-off" as expenses, investments in other companies or economies, so there isn't a "tax incentive" for them to do so. A CEO's motivation is to lower the companies tax burden while simultaneously growing their own company. In short, the scenario's I've illustrated are correct, and valid. They are indicative of the way 'Real World' CEO's view taxes and their effect on business decisions. I know this from first-hand experiences. In your rebuttal, you referenced the study, 'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases'. While this study may be accurate and insightful, it doesn't address the topic of this debate. It addresses tax cuts vs. increased government spending. Hence, I find it irrelevant. However, I did find an article which illustrates my point very well in an even more extreme example. The link is below. To Summarize, higher corporate tax rates DO encourage business investment. The higher the tax rate, the more motivated a CEO is to avoid paying the taxes. The best way for them to do this is to spend the money on growing their business (invest) instead of giving a large amount to the government as taxes on their NET profit. The Mind of a CEO: Tax rates high = Cheap to reinvest in company Tax rates low = Cheap to declare profits Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject - I look forward to many more discussions! http://www.alternet.org...

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. My opponent has repeated his argument with an example completely ignoring the flaw I pointed out. So I will point out the flaw once more.Scenario #1: Tax Rate: 35%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000Scenario #2: Tax Rate: 50%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000The scenarios are wrong!In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower. The reasons for this I have explained in the first round. As my opponent has not contested them, they stand.As my opponents arguments are based on unrealistic scenarios and assumptions, they are invalid. My opponent has quoted from a book (and a report based on the book) authored by Jim Stanford[1], who works for 'Canadian Auto Workers union, Canada’s largest private sector trade union'. Let me suggest that there is a conflict of interest.Let me present a work of Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna[2] who are economists at Harvard University [3][4]. Based on a study from period of 1970 to 2007 for several OECD countries, they conclude:'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases.'I look forward to closing remarks from my opponent.[1] http://www.economicsforeveryone.ca...[2]http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[4] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...

Jobs Act could create over 100,000 jobs per month. Jacki Calmes and Binyamin Applebaum. "Bigger Economic Role for Washington." New York Times. September 13th, 2011: "The jobs package of tax cuts and spending initiatives could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms; the potential Fed actions could add 15,000 more jobs a month over two years.[...] the firm projected that the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to gross domestic product and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. JPMorgan Chase estimated that the plan would increase growth by 1.9 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Most bullish is Moody’s Analytics, which forecast that the package would add 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point, and increase growth by two percentage points."

Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Corporations don't just keep the money, it has to go somewhere, and is paid to their shareholders, we can just tax them. That way the corporation will have an incentive to reinvest this money rather than paying it to shareholders as to raise the price of its stocks.

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, "Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that "high" income tax on any profits.

Higher taxes discourage hard work. "America’s producers can compete successfully in the international arena – as long as they have a level playing field. Today’s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country."

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Dismissing something easily says more about the one dismissing than about what's being dismissed. It seems that you didn't even read the objection but instead had a prefabricated response ready. I'm here to learn about the arguments surrounding these important policy issues. From your response to the objection, it seems that you're here to do something else. And that's okay of course, but let's actually try to start the debate. First, there is the empirical aspect of it, which requires calculations and some guesswork about what corporations might or might not do given a change in the tax code. Second, it necessarily involves interrogating the meaning of a corporation, since we are referring them to discrete revenue and expenditure categories that are different from private citizens and non-profit organizations. You are wrong to say that I am arguing "political drawbacks" instead of economic benefits. We are debating political economy--that point at which they intersect, to put it into academic terminology. It is useful at times to distinguish economic calculations from policy, but to fail to see how they inform one another distorts the bases on which these kinds of decisions must be made. First, I will address the empirical aspect of the argument. Then I will respond specifically to each of your points. As I indicated in my objection, the question of raising or lowering the tax rate for corporations cannot really be approached without consideration of the fact that many of the richest corporations do not pay anywhere near the going rate. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average corporate tax rate is only 12.6%. http://money.cnn.com... A report from the Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 of the biggest 280 corporations had no federal tax liability whatsoever. http://www.nytimes.com... The argument that lower tax rates will keep business in the U.S. ignores these disparities. The assertion becomes more ridiculous if we ask just what the tax rate should be. Those thirty companies that completely dodged the tax system through offshore maneuvers have no incentive to bring business back into the U.S. no matter how low the rate is. If we still entertain illusions that the global market will somehow correct this, we can refer to this study: http://www.cfr.org... and this http://www.wsj.com... Nor are corporations to blame for the fact that they dodge taxes. Which indicates the significance of my second point. It is misguided to try to blame corporations for being greedy, and the recent attempts to publish CEO pay as a way of shaming these great disparities in wealth are rather pointless, because as I said above, all considerations for a corporation are subordinated to those of the bottom line. The issue, as you said, is not whether to abolish the corporate tax altogether. The rate reflects the societal costs of protecting the public from the inherent abuses of corporate activity. Now, that is a difficult calculation to make because many of those costs are integrated into a whole web of public and private institutions. In an obvious way, this means that the corporate tax rate needs to contribute paying for the SEC, FDA, EPA and all the hosts of other agencies out there whose job is to protect the public good from the undesirable results that occur when a corporation does precisely what it's supposed to do, that is make money at all other expenses. The argument that lowering the rate will incentivize business investment ignores the complexity of these costs. That is what I was getting at in the first part of my argument, which your rejoinder ignored. Corporations rely on able-bodied Americans to buy their goods and to supply them with labor. It is this complexity that maybe gave you the mistaken notion that I thought tax revenues were distributed randomly. My understanding of it is that there are three metrics on which the rate is decided: 1) equity, which evaluates how the tax rate is distributed across individuals taxes 2) efficiency, which tries to address potential distortions in the decision-making process due to tax burdens 3) competitiveness, which is, admittedly the most vague of the three--but it has to do with maintaining rates that are comparable to those of other nations with similar GDP. It is the third that seems to be your best shot for arguing the tax rate should be lowered. Yes, it is vague, but it is a problem only because we do not tax pure profits, as explained here (p. 16-17 specifically) http://www.fas.org... You said that while "we pronounce ourselves to be the most capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation." Well, people pronounce a lot of things all the time--but if we mean by "most capitalist nation" that we are or should be engaged in some kind of free market laissez-faire system, completely free of public oversight, then you are mistaken. The so-called free market has already demonstrated that, left to its own devices, it is patently destructive and fatal to human interests. We have known that for more than a hundred years. In any case, that is a historical point which we can take up if you'd like. Nor do the present facts justify characterizing taxation on business as heavy, when compared with other industrialized nations. According to the findings of the CRS report mentioned above, the U.S. statutory rate is the highest, but the effective rate is the same as other OECD nations. In fact, the U.S. "collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011). " As for your remark that the public has no say about investment in the private sector, yes, of course. But you missed the point. The issue is not dictating investment--it's that we have good reason to question simplistic narratives about growth, narratives that come from the financial industry and corporations that consecrate growth and try to convince us that it is an undeniable good. Lastly, you said that "[t]he private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college." That preposterous statement is not the sort that will become any less preposterous by looking at the numbers, no matter how you spin them. For one, it's way too sweeping. Also, there is a huge part of the private sector that requires no level of higher education--nearly all the workforce of restaurant and retail industry, including the folks that make your burger or ring you up at the Walmart, nor their managers, known as middle-management, and a whole host of other working people on whom the private sector relies for the delivery of its goods and services. But more importantly, it is a gross distortion to separate the actual functioning of the private sector from the interests of the public good. Yes, there are specific occasions when such a distinction is required--for instance in legal contexts--but if decisions are to be made about political economy, we must find a perspective that understands how they interact.

its government Big and Beefy Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs

Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. So you'really suggesting to raisee taxes on the people and have 0% for corporations? What if companies don't pay people more? What's their incentive to do so? What if they just keep the profits?

Taxes on the affluent should be increased. I would say it is very foolish to say taxes don't kill jobs. Even many liberals conside that high taxes can harm growth. Profit is the force the power that powers capitalism. By taking huge portions of peoples income, you reduce business profits which hurts business expansion. High taxes lead to low wages and less products. Low taxes means more production, so the standard of living for the poor increases. You can say that extra money will not be invested, but rich people also spend a ton of money on luxury goods. That stimulates the economy. Taxes are a black hole that sucks potential capital from the economy and then wastes it on all forms of government "services." You can say that taxes are repaid in the form of services, but what use full services does the federal government provide? Most taxes are just generational theft that takes money from poor young people and gives to the elderly. Other tax dollars go to lovely "services" like corporate welfare that takes the money of small businesses and gives it to big ones. Or maybe your dollars will fund wars or even the lovely NSA. They could be used to build notoriously inefficient highways or throw billions of dollars at the failed government monopoly known as the education system that creates schools so bad they only continue the poverty cycle. How do any of these programs create jobs? If business had more money and less regulation, they could produce goods cheaper goods. Maybe there would be demand for these cheaper goods. Think of all the innovation and production that could be achieved if tons of capital wasn't siphoned out of the economy. As for revenue, government revenue had been at 19.5% of GDP since the 50s. If can claim that low taxes doesn't create jobs, you need to check out the results of tax cuts in the 20s, 60s. In the 80s, tax cuts were implemented in the US, Britain, and Chile, all to great success. Even JFK, who liberals DROOL over, was a big supporter of tax cuts. He said this, " The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures." He also said this, "This economy is capable of producing, without strain, 30 to 40 billion [dollars] more than we are producing today. Business earnings could be seven to eight billion higher than they are today. Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher -- and, if it were, investment would rise. We need not accept an unemployment rate of five percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use." And this, "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records." This is why i believe that taxes and regulation should be cut by massive amounts to release the means of production of this nation. http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com...

Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs Government costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other. There is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing. There is compelling evidence[i]  that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it. It’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled. Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy. [i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999

The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs The American Jobs Act helps small businesses and is also set to significantly increase the number of jobs available to people. Small enterprise is particularly important in the creation of jobs because these businesses tend to be start-up businesses. Many start-ups are entrepreneurial in character, and succeed or fail on their ability to identify and exploit new markets. Increasing investment in new and emergency markets spurs the creation of additional jobs within those markets. Thanks to the cuts in payroll tax contained in the Jobs Act, many small businesses will stand to benefit by gaining some of the money paid to the government back. The President’s plan will also eliminate payroll taxes entirely if firms add new workers or increase the wages of their current workers. As such, there will be significant incentives for small businesses to hire more workers.­1 Cuts to payroll taxes, combined with the other changes planned by the bill, are estimated to create 100,000 jobs a month for the next year, accompanied by a projected 1.25% increase in GDP. Moody’s Analytics is even more optimistic about the likely benefits to the American economy should the act pass, predicting growth rates at 2% and claiming that 1.9 million jobs will be created as a result.5

Taxes on the affluent should be increased. You claim that "[federal] government revenue had [sic] been at 19.5% of GDP since the 50s." That is untrue. The post-WWII average of tax revenue is 17.7 percent of GDP "" projections of revenue for 2013 by the CBO place it at 16.9% only. In 2009, tax receipts amounted to 14.8 percent of GDP, the second lowest in recorded history. Kent Conrad was correct: tax revenues are at a 60-year low. The important point to not is that the reason that revenues are projected to climb "" to 18 percent of G.D.P. in the coming year "" is a function of the "fiscal cliff" tax increases and economic growth. Both of those claims undermine conservative ideology, though. Raising taxes should shrink revenue, they claim. Why then has the nonpartisan CBO estimated that it will continue to increase to 19.1 percent up to 2023? The answer is: we haven"t met the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve. In fact, revenue would maximize at a top effective rate of 68.7%, significantly higher than even the top marginal rate now (39.6%), and certainly higher than the rates that the affluent actually pay. As I"m sure you now, many of them pay significantly less than middle- and lower- income individuals because they either earn their income through capital gains, are able to receive special loopholes, etc. The best example is oil subsidies -- roughly $40 billion "" which Republicans continue to defend. As I stated earlier, Mitt Romney paid roughly 14% on millions in income. Paradoxically, the "47 percent" whom he criticized pay higher percentages of their incomes than does he, for they pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, user fees, state and local taxes, property taxes, etc. In the wake of welfare reform of the 90s, pushed their by a Gingrich-led Congress, their lives have been even worse. Add to that the record levels of income inequality "" the fact that CEOs now earn about 380 times the wage of an average worker, relative to 42 times in 1980. And their pay has increased since the crash, while median incomes have decreased "" in fact 93% of the gains of the economic recovery went to the top 1%. Which brings me to my next point: you mentioned corporate welfare. Why would you presume that I support corporate welfare? Do you oppose it? Excellent. You"ll agree, then, to cut oil subsidies. You"ll agree with Ronald Reagan, Art Laffer, and me that capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. You"ll support eliminating farm subsidies to affluent corporate farmers "" which the Republicans voted to fund at the same time they slashed food stamps by $40 billion. Do we have an agreement? If your answer is yes, you"ve just conceded the debate "" that"s raising taxes. If you cannot support those measures, you cannot rightfully say that you"re opposed to corporate welfare. If your argument is that we should take Mitt Romney"s idea and "broaden the base and lower the rate" then I have a few questions for you: what specific loopholes would you cut? Will it be revenue neutral, independent of dynamic scoring? Would you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires "" which, by the way, the CBO claims is the only plausible way for the plan to be revenue neutral? Also, explain to me how that will create jobs. Are you claiming that some people are able to pay virtually nothing, while others pay significantly higher rates? If that"s the case, wouldn"t raising taxes remove from these companies their incentive? To me, that sounds like a case for targeted tax hikes "" that some people will continue to produce even with higher rates, while others may be more recalcitrant. That"s the essence of my argument. But I agree with the economic research "" and with people like Paul Krugman, who look at the data and argue that the rate at which we would find ourselves in trouble is around 73-80%. Just as a slight increase in the minimum wage would not be cataclysmic "" and would not shed jobs "" slight tax increases to the tune that I"m advocating will not, either. Your next factual inaccuracy was: "If business had more money and less regulation, they could produce cheaper goods." This claim hinges on the notion that companies are suffering from a lack of productive capacity, and that rates are on the downward sloping portion of the Laffer curve. That"s inaccurate, though: I pointed out that revenues as a percentage of G.D.P. are at historic lows, that C.E.O. pay and corporate profits are at all-time highs, that the stock market is doing great, and in my last post, that taxes for the affluent are at near all-time lows. Allow me now to prove to expand on that latter point, and prove it. First, I"d like to credit the compilation of the following points to former U.S. Secretary of Labor, and Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich. He argues "" as I have "" that tax rates are at historic lows "" that the rich are paying a lower rate than they have at any time in the past half-century. Before the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, the top tax rate was 70% (and 91% under Eisenhower). Yet, in spite of credits, deductions, exemptions, and so forth, wealthy people paid about 52-56% of their income in taxes. Because many affluent individuals derive their income from capital gains, they end up paying even less. The grandest point, though, is that the affluent can afford to pay more right now. You argue that tax cuts will hinder business profits, and thus lead to less employment, lower wages, higher prices, et al. These are assumptions "" which even a very rudimentary microeconomic model would dispel, for even they account for the fact that companies will absorb some of the tax. In a lot of cases, they"ll absorb all of the tax "" e.g., meta studies demonstrates that raising the minimum wage would create jobs because it would create more demand. But there is a point, yes, where it would hinder job growth, just as there is a tax rate "" around 73% -- where companies would lose their incentive to invest and to hire. But we"re nowhere near that point: the top 1% have amassed about 20% of total income. The 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined, while the top 10 percent of households take in half of national income, instead of the historical average of a third. At the same time, the average income for the bottom 20 percent of households has fallen by approximately 3 percent since 1979, says the Census Bureau. This is in spite of nearly doubled productivity over the past 30 years -- wages have flatlined, and in most cases declined. But during the three decades following WWII, wealth inequality was far less severe, and the economy boomed as a result. Why? Because it remains true that the rich would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a larger share of a stagnant economy. And without a way to spur demand, without consumers to purchase their goods and services (and thus to employ executives, for without demand, they"d be out of business), they"d be out of luck. I don"t think we agree on this very simple point: that government can work. Yes, it wastes money; yes, it does things we don"t like (wars, drones, etc). But how about defense services, public education, infrastructure, research, air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and police and fire forces? Not only are these things critical to our survival, but many directly employ people, which sets off a multiplier effect (the famous Keynesian multiplier "" which we can discuss more later) which leads to more demand, higher wages, more employment, etc. That is the essence of a vibrant economy "" not wealthy people saving most of their money, or even spending it on luxury goods (buying a Tesla, for instance, is not going to employ millions of people who are out of work). They have more money, and therefore for each additional dollar they earn, their marginal propensity to save is much higher than their marginal propensity to consume. This is untrue for the workers I have delineated earlier, who spend nearly all of their incomes because they have to in order to survive. Surveys from business leaders are unanimous that the problems they"re facing are not overtaxation or overregulation "" but lack of sales. Finally, I would dispute your claims "" and would ask you to provide specificity "" that tax cuts lead to job expansion. I"m almost out of space, so I can"t go through each separately, but consider this: a Congressional Research Service study, which Republicans tried to conceal, holds that tax cuts are not correlated with growth in savings, investment, and productivity, but are with increased income inequality. That"s true of the 80s "" where the bulk of the "growth" in the US came about amid 11 consecutive tax increases and an exploded Pentagon budget. Even Thatcher implemented a sales tax that was disastrous for working families. And following Kennedy"s tax cuts, top marginal income tax rates were at 70%, and corporate taxes at 48%. Do you support that? Which brings me to my next point: I"ve proven to you that tax cuts don"t raise revenue, that you can not directly connect a tax cut to growth, and that income inequality is a threat. How do you justify them? How do you pay for them? Or do you support austerity measures, such as those in Europe, which are hindering any type of recovery? Your points about times that it has worked are quite vague and inconclusive, so I"d ask that you more thoroughly justify your points. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.factcheck.org... http://money.cnn.com... http://www.epi.org... http://www.foreffectivegov.org...

Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets C1) We should reduce the corporate tax rate Having a competitive tax system is increasingly important in a globalized economy. Globalization means firms wishing to invest capital in a region can be easily encouraged—or deterred—if taxes increase or decrease. High corporate taxes discourage investment and reduce economic growth. America has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.1%.[1] This is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%. The harmful effects of high corporate taxes are visible in our economic system. Johansson et al. has a paper published by the OECD investigating the impacts of different types of taxes and economic growth. The paper found that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are the most detrimental to economic growth. The study found that a 1% shift of tax revenues from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by 0.25 – 1% in the long run.[2] Johansson also found that statutory corporate tax rates of 30 to 35%, which the US now surpasses, reduces investment by 1.9%. To quote Johansson, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate would “lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.” The reason for this is because many of the firms that are productive also rely on retained earnings to pay for their expansion. Tax cuts would increase the amount of retained earnings and increase prospects for future firm expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold confirms the findings of Johansson and concluded that corporate taxes “have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.”[3] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent.[4] The biggest problem with having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is that it reduces our international competitiveness. Incentives matter, and taxing labor and capital simply means that the incentives to make more of it decrease. If a country has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than we do, it is our companies and workers that suffer. The current corporate tax rate caused companies to shift $50 billion away from the United States to countries with lower corporate taxes.[5] Despite our high corporate tax rate rayr, we do not have much to show in the way of revenue. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset have found that the revenue maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%.[6] Any corporate tax rate above 26% would decrease revenue. This is not surprising as the average OECD corporate tax rate is 24.8%. As international businesses can relocate to a location where taxation is lower (which means more profits), having a tax rate far above the OECD average would deter potential businesses from entering the country. This means a smaller tax base. Brill’s and Hasset’s study is supported by basic cross sectional data. In the US, corporate income tax revenue makes up 2.2% of our GDP; for the OECD, that number is 3.4%.[7] Despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the percent of our corporate tax rate revenue to our GDP is over one percent lower than the OECD average. This confirms the Brill and Hasset analysis that current corporate tax rates are on the far side of the Laffur Curve. Studies claiming that corporate tax cuts do not cause growth have no solid foundation. Owen Zidar, who opposes tax cuts for the rich, finds that tax cuts for the middle class cause economic growth.[8] It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class would increase consumption and cause growth. Luckily, corporate tax rates do cut taxes for the middle class. According to another study by Zidar, workers receive 35% of the benefit from corporate tax cuts.[9] The literature says tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, and corporate taxes benefit the middle class; it seems illogical to claim corporate tax rates would not help the economy. The Zidar estimates are a bit on the conservative side. The CBO has found that “domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.”[10] Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that workers of unionized industries carry 56% of the tax burden from corporate taxes.[11] A tax cut would bring a huge benefit to middle and lower class workers. C2) Reduced income taxes cause growth Lower income taxes cause growth; yes, even for the rich. It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, so I assume the majority of this debate will revolve around tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes for the wealthy make up for the majority of our revenue, and it is only the top quintile of incomes that actually pay significantly more to the government than what they cost (e.g. they pay more taxes but use fewer social services).[12] Using tax revenues as a proxy for tax rates would work out pretty well. The following graph, using local tax revenues as a proxy for local tax rates, compares tax revenues to growth rates. Here is the data: There is a clear and strong correlation between lower tax revenue and faster GSP growth. According to the data, 40% of the variance in growth rates at a local level are determined by the tax burden.[13] This data does not include severance taxes or growth related to oil and gas. This is because merely having an abundance of resources could interfere with the results. While defending tax cuts we must look at the 1980s. I will defend Reaganomics responsibly. You think tax cuts in the 80s were the cause of the rapid growth during that decade? They weren’t. Federal Reserve policies must be credited for that. But that does not mean the Reagan tax cuts were a failure—they were a great success. The benefits from the tax cuts were long term; they increased innovation and heavily contributed to the growth in the 1990s a decade later. According to the American Enterprise Institute, “Reagan’s economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. … [T]he changes Reagan championed in the tax system fostered innovation and entrepreneurialism even as they encouraged the development of venture capital and investment in human capital.”[14] His policies allowed businesses, which may not have been created due to high risks from a terrible tax code, to come to fruition. Tax cuts do not benefit us in between each business cycle; tax cuts take years for the benefits of increased investment to show up. Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t cause mega growth in the 80s, but it caused growth well past his term and beyond. The example of Reaganomics—that tax cuts take time to kick in—is confirmed by peer-reviewed literature. A study by economist Robert Reed argued that “tax policies take time to work,” and that when the effects kick in, “a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges.”[15] When we increase taxes, it takes time before the negative effects fully take hold—the reverse holds true. More progressive tax systems lower economic growth. A progressive tax system means the wealthy pay more than the poor; the larger the gap between the amount the rich pay and the poor, the more progressive a tax system is. When a tax system increases in progressivity, meaning the rich pay more taxes, there is less growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve study observed that “a decrease in tax progressivity did lead to higher growth … differences in tax code across countries could explain up to a two and half percent variation in economic growth.”[16] The negative effects of high taxes, even on the wealthy, has been confirmed by studies by the Mercatus center as well as the American Economic Association.[17-18] Reducing tax rates on the wealthy would promote more economic growth. C3) Revenue As I showed in the case of corporate taxes, we could reduce the corporate tax rate by over 10% and increase revenue.Income taxes are a different story. Depending on how a tax cut is crafted, tax cuts may or may not pay for themselves. If the marginal rate was extremely high, reducing it to a moderate level would reduce deficits. There are always Laffur curve effects, so the changes in revenue could be exaggerated by a static analysis. This is not to say that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Despite revenue losses, tax cuts would still increase GDP growth. If we reversed the 2012 4% hike in taxes, revenues would only fall by $14 billion, but GDP would grow by 0.43%.[19] In fact, revenue maximizing policies would be detrimental to our economy as a whole.[21] Instead, we should focus on reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Sweden, for example, reduced the top marginal rate by 20% in the last recession, but they also prevented going into debt by reducing welfare spending. Countries that successfully reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios find that spending cuts rather than tax increases are a better way to fix the problem without reducing economic growth.[20] Spending cuts can increase growth. According to a research paper by the Mercatus Center, “fiscal adjustments on average reduced debt-to-GDP ratio by 0.19 percentage points of GDP in a given year. GDP grew by 3.47 percentage points in total, which is 0.58 percentage points higher than the average growth of G7 countries.”[20] I am in favor of reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Reducing the corporate tax rate would increase revenue—abolishing the corporate tax rate would have little effect on our budgets.[22] http://bit.ly...;

The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1

Supply-Side Economics should be used to Revive the American Economy My CaseThe Laffer CurveTo understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. Here is what it looks like: Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1]Dr. Laffer also says: "Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs." [1] HistoryTo understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth.I. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsWhen President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 24%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus.Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,4] Here are the unemployment figures during the Roaring Twenties: [2]Also, many people were able to buy more products with him in office because the low tax rates allow many people to see their incomes rise and prices fall: [3]II. Kennedy Tax CutsJohn F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 24% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue.Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1]III. Reagan Tax CutsWhen he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility.The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. [1,5]Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. Lebergott, Stanley. Annual Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, 1900-1954. 1957.3. Lebergott, Stanley. Pursuing Happiness: American Consumers in the Twentieth Century4. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.

Jobs Act makes business investments tax deductible. If a businesses invests money, they can claim tax deductions on those investments.

The US should reform its Corporate Tax You provide no sources to prove that small businesses would be hindered by bigger businesses. Probably because it is not economically probable as entrepreneurs are always rising up to the occasion and becoming successful people. If anything, the expansion of large businesses means more competition between themselves, more expansion which means more jobs, and more production which means higher profits for them which in turn leads to higher corporate tax revenue as illustrated by the Laffer curve. Big business never goes unrivaled. There is always competition in a vast and large marketplace. Subsidies are not good because that is crony capitalism. Also, remember that WE want businesses here for our own county and for our own economy. We want to eliminate deductions and put in a lower rate because businesses want higher profits, not lower ones. By creating business friendly environment in the USA we fix that problem. I have already sourced how it would be good for the government and the economy, so I have the facts out there. You still need to prove your points or else your case risks falling apart.

better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally Job creation is much more than a business expanding and in need of more workers. Investor are the reason for new companies to exist. Investment banking that are to the use of sales of bonds and stock and commerical banking that give out loans to small business these are to different types of investment along with the private investor, jobs do get created. These are in the form of small business. It is a fact that the average small business owner had to get a loan (a form of investment) from a bank. This is of course do to the average savings per household is 6000 USD http://www.score.org... The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982. http://www.sba.gov... This shows the work of investments.

Corporate taxes should be lowered So, the economy is still in bad shape. By that, I mean that there is still less buying and selling because corporations have to pay so much to stay in business. After sales, consumption, income, property, and corporate taxes businesses would barely have enough for salary or profit (if any). The result would be a decrease in spending which can be a precursor for recession. The recession is based on the health of the economy by how much people buy or sell, and the law of demand states that even the slightest price increase can lead to significant results. Another result would be high unemployment, because different companies have to pay their workers on top of these taxes which they sometimes find hard to do. Some people might think that the people already working there would just be paid more, well it depends. Most trustworthy and intelligent managers would hire more labor instead of investing more in what they already have. Given these facts, I think that taxes should be lowered overall for businesses so that they can hire more labor, get more resources, and supply better qualities of the product. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://taxfoundation.org...

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% This article from the Atlantic says that in 2012 the top 1 percent will pay their highest total tax rate since 1979 (http://www.theatlantic.com...). In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and we had prosperity. Jack Kennedy cut taxes and we had prosperity. Obama raised taxes and the economy stagnated. The unemployment rate under Bush averaged 5.2% and deficits were much smaller, not to mention he had to pay for two wars. Obama raised taxes and shrunk revenue because the government policies kill jobs as do burdensome regulations such as ObamaCare.

Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Most of the final round has been devoted by my opponent to address my argument that pre-tax money (EBIT) will be less in a high tax regime. By doing this he has tacitly conceded that if my objections are valid, they represent a flaw in his argument.Let us go through each of his rebuttals one by one...Contention #1: More money has to be paid to governmentMy opponent argued that the tax has to be paid after this money is calculated. So this money should be same. What he has failed to understand is that more money has to be paid by everyone, including the suppliers of the company. As a result the suppliers will increase there price leading to higher cost. Similarly employees too have to pay a larger tax. This may force the company to increase compensation. All these taxes will be reflected in the final sales price of the output. Higher sales price will decrease consumption leading to depressed economy and lower pre-tax profit. What we need to understand is that tax is not decided after everyone has made the money. The tax rates are known from start.Contention #2: Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax.My opponent has declined to consider this point arguing that this concerns international trade so it is irrelevant. I would like to state that those who believe international trade to be irrelevant are headed for extinction. Suppose a company loses out its costumers since its foreign rivals (who enjoy less tax) out compete it. Let me suggest that the company will have less EBIT because of less revenue.Contention #3: Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economyThe rebuttal was that there is no tax incentive to do so. However it is possible that the CEO may choose to forgo some tax incentive to invest in an economy which has a low tax rate and more growth as that will be more beneficial in long term.We can conclude:Low tax rate: Lots of money. Some is reinvested. Some is taken as profitHigh tax rate: No money! No reinvestment! No profit!My opponent has raised an interesting objection. I had posted a link to a research paper which he has acknowledged to be 'accurate and insightful'. However as per him the paper is all about 'tax cuts vs. increased government spending' and not about 'low tax vs high tax'. When government charges higher taxes, it typically increases its spending also. 'Increasing government spending' is usually synonymous with 'high tax regime'. Thus this paper is highly relevant.In the last round, my opponent has provided a link to a book authored by a trade union economist. In this round he has decided to refer to an article written by a fiction writer![1]In this debate the voters have to decide whether they support a theory being argued by fiction writers and trade union economists but being contradicted by studies carried out by respectable and independent researchers.They have to vote for or against a flawed theory which even defies common sense.Vote Con.I would like to thank my opponent and wish him best of luck for future debates![1] http://www.larrybeinhart.com...

Corporate taxes should be lowered Because recession is such a general term, let me narrow to the part I'm trying to show you. You make an important point that taxes are lowered if they relocate overseas, especially to China or Japan. This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does. Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits. Corporations do this to avoid corporate taxes, and take their business somewhere that doesn't normally have corporate taxes like we do. And if corporations have had lower taxes than they have 40-50 years ago (which is somewhat true), then why are they shipping jobs overseas? Because they're not low enough. And why is this such a big deal? Because the more money made, the higher the tax rate is and corporations make a lot of money. The IRS reports that since 1988, the tax rate per income began to fluctuate and people with lower incomes started to be taxed at a higher percentage than those making more (to this day). They got tired of this, and since then began to relocate to countries with cheap labor and low or no taxes. Since the late 1980s, this caused a whole range of economic problems which can be obvious when seen. It's no coincidence that the countries that we owe trade deficits with are the ones that corporations decided to relocate to. As for my sources, did you not see the entire article filled with 10 benefits of lower corporate taxes? And what "program" are you talking about? And yes I do agree with the long-term health of the economy, which means that we have the same goals. We have different theories on how to meet them however, and if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit because more people would make demands. It's simple math. If the tax rate was 8% for a candy bar, only 1 person would want to buy it. But if the rate was 4% then 3 people would want to buy it, so the government would be making 4% more if the taxes were lower. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.americanprogress.org...

The US should reform its Corporate Tax Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)Well, here's my case.Laffer CurveDuring the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate. Companies Move OverseasPfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation.2. Giobanetti, Tom. "As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California." RealClearMarkets.

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. My argument is plain and simple. Business owners create jobs. When we raise capital gains taxes on business owners, they have less incentive to continue investing their time & effort into creating jobs, and are more likely to just sit back and retire. Therefore, if we want to maximize the incentive for business owners to continue working, innovating, and hiring, then we should not raise taxes on them, and if anything should remove the capital gains tax entirely. As a reminder, all capital investments have already been taxed once when the income was earned as personal income, and so capital gains remain a double-tax. Double taxataion that reduces incentives for growth and hiring are bad for the overall economy, and so I urge a no vote on this resolution.

Increasing taxes on successful corps will do harm. Motoko Rich. "Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur." New York Times. September 9th, 2011: "David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising company in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to ask the 'wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.' His company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, so it would face higher taxes under the president’s proposal, he said. He added: 'My partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.'"

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.

Trickle-down/Supply-side economics is a failed system Gimme dat supply side. The Pareto Principle The Pareto Principle is frequently employed by economists to determine whether or not certain policies are considered good. The principle simply states that if a policy increases the wealth of one group with no negative effects on other groups, the policy was worthwhile [1]. This applies here for the simple reason that this debate is specifically about tax reductions for one group: the wealthy. Reducing their tax burden, which allows them to use their income as they see fit, increases their wellbeing. If we assume no negative consequences, the policy is deemed ‘good’. That, in and of itself, means that society as a whole improves, and trickle down theory fulfills the goal outlined in R1 to “help society as a whole.” I assume that my opponent accepts the notion that decreasing taxes on the top of society would benefit those already at the top, or those who will eventually make it there. He must demonstrate, in order to win this debate, that tax cuts for the rich reduce the wealth of different parts of society or have enough negative consequences to outweigh the benefits given to the rich. My opponent must show on balance that these policies hurt as many (or more) people in some groups compared to the number of people benefited in other groups, or that the wealth lost in some groups is much larger than the wealth gained in others. Income tax reductions increase economic growth, Income tax increases reduce economic growth A country with no taxation would have problems offering goods and services--like a social safety net, infrastructure, education, and national defense--and is not desirable. It does not follow, however, that excessively high taxes on the wealthy or any group of people is desirable. Once said goods are being provided, excessively taxing the wealthy would have negative effects. It should be noted that the impact of taxes is pretty straightforward in theory: if you increase the cost of something, you get less of it. It is as simple as that. In the world of soft drinks, a 10% increase in the cost of a soda decreases consumption about 8%, making the elasticity around 0.7-0.8 [2]. The same should occur when we increase the cost of being wealthy--activities that they do, like investment or saving, would decrease if the marginal returns fell due to increased costs through taxation. Taxation has been demonstrated to affect human behavior as described above. Increasing the cost of activities--like work--decrease the amount that people partake in such an activity. A tax increase that decreases wages by 10% decreases labor force participation by 36% [3]. There is no reason this effect would significantly differ between wealthy businessmen or hardworking middle class earners; those in the top echelon of society in many ways work longer and harder than those in the lower classes [4]. Decreasing the returns for that work would disincentivize those activities and not only make them worse off, but reduce productivity, economic growth, and harm everyone. N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University backs this up with anecdotal evidence: himself. He admits that he can afford to pay extra taxes, and that it wouldn’t make him go broke. “Paying an extra few percent in taxes wouldn’t create a lot of hardship,” he writes. But there is a caveat: an increase in his taxes would reduce the amount he is willing to work as the returns for that work would decrease significantly. “Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. … without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working.” [6] This personal story merely demonstrates how taxes can negatively affect the economy and wealthy individuals without necessarily making them go broke. Mankiw can afford higher taxes, but if his taxes are increased or decreased, the incentives to produce change dramatically. One of the best studies testing this theory has been done by President Obama’s own advisers--Christina and David Romer. They find that for every one percent increase in the marginal tax rate, growth decreases 1-3%, and that lower taxation fosters economic expansion [5]. Another study by John Gruber and Emmanuel Saez--Saez tends to oppose tax cuts--finds that high income earners are actually more responsive to taxes than those with low incomes [7]. Taxing the wealthy has a disproportionately negative effect on economic growth. Research on austerity is an important place to look to see whether or not income tax hikes or cuts are good for economic growth. IMF research, praised by liberal economist Paul Krugman [8], has demonstrated that tax increases are detrimental for economic growth. The research [9] provides an interesting graphic on the relative differences between reducing debt-to-GDP ratios through tax hikes versus spending cuts. Neither are pretty, but the former is significantly worse. This analysis confirms the theory that taxes influence behavior, and that tax changes can positively or negatively affect economic growth. Both private consumption and GDP are affected by tax changes. This is a similar conclusion to that reached in Gemmel et al., “taxes have more damaging effects on growth than deficits so that simultaneously reducing the latter and raising these taxes is bad for growth in net terms.”[10] Research by both the Ways and Means Committee and the Mercatus center confirm the findings above--tax increases are bad, tax cuts increase growth [11][12]. To quote the congressional report, “[t]his report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages.”Tax progressivity is another way to determine whether or not tax changes at the top will affect overall economic preformance. One study found that “tax progressivity has a strong negative effect on the annual growth rate of real gross state product.”[20] The results can be seen below (X axis = progressivity). Corporate tax reductions increase growth The corporate tax burden falls on the shoulders of the workers, despite being geared towards the wealthy. According to the CBO, as much as 70% of the corporate tax burden trickles down to the worker via wage reductions and price increases [13]. The National Bureau of Economic Research corroborates this, finding that 56% of the corporate tax burden falls upon the backs of the workers [14]. Reducing the corporate tax rate would translate into higher earnings, more spending, and more economic growth. Indeed, research focusing only on the growth effects, and not just the distributional impacts, agrees with ‘trickle down’ theory. A 1% shift of revenues from income taxes and corporate taxes to consumption taxes--which are seen as ‘regressive’--increase growth by 0.25-1% [15]. OECD economist Jens Arnold argues that corporate taxes “have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.”[16] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent [17]. On top of all of this, the revenue maximizing point of the corporate tax is around 26% [18]. The current corporate tax rate is 39.1%, much higher than the revenue maximizing point of 26% [19]. If we were to reduce the corporate tax to 26%, using Lee and Gordon’s numbers, we would increase growth by 1.31-2.61%, and increase revenue to boot! Conclusion High income and corporate taxes disincentivize beneficial behavior by making it more costly to perform said behavior. By reducing the returns for work and investment, you reduce those kinds of activity. In the case of the corporate tax, you directly harm the worker by causing the company to reduce wages in order to make up for the higher cost of doing business inside this country. Reducing both income and corporate tax rates would increase economic growth and increase wages, making the economic pie larger. Further, using the philosophical Pareto principle, unless my opponent can demonstrate tangible harm (through wage depressant or another form of malice) from reducing taxes on the wealthy, we are forced to support the negative in this situation as society would ‘benefit’ by default. 1. http://www.nber.org... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://cepar.edu.au.tmp.anchor.net.au... 4. http://blogs.wsj.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://www.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nber.org... 8. http://www.nytimes.com... 9. http://www.imf.org... 10. http://papers.ssrn.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com...; 12. http://mercatus.org... 13. https://www.cbo.gov... 14. http://www.nber.org... 15. http://www.oecd.org... 16. http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca... 17. https://www.sba.muohio.edu... 18. https://www.aei.org... 19. http://www.heritage.org...

Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy I would like to remind myself and the Contender that you can not bring up any new points for Round Three. It is only for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First of all, I'd like to point out the statistics I put previously on my Round Two post were ignored by my opponent. He or she states that the effectiveness of tax cuts are in theory and idealistic; however, the results prove his argument wrong. Just refer to my source I posted in Round Two.[1] The results of cutting taxes worked as expected and when Michigan did it, they had 10 years of an unprecedented flourishing economy and being ranked as the top third state in job growth during the 90's. Also, most people in the United States that work get their income from the private sector; and the middle class generally don't like their taxes. At the end of the day, the economy is stimulated because of tax cuts and the economy booms, just as I explained with the case of the economy of the state of Michigan. And yes, job growth does increase significantly with tax cuts, and I just explained why. And of course we need taxes so we could fund many things, I'm not saying we should abolish all taxes, just cut them significantly enough to stimulate the economy. That would be cutting income tax and corporate tax by 5%-10%. And as I mentioned many times, the statistics and results have proved my case true and working. Just look at the Michigan case in 1991 with John Engler, and even look at the other states that had their taxes cut, which resulted in an economic boom and exponential job growth. And of course, tax cuts work very well with limited spending, which is another story. In conclusion to my case and to this debate, I firmly believe that tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and even increase revenue for the government as I mentioned in this debate. Thank you all for your attention and good day. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered I will be arguing that Corporate Tax should in fact be lowered as to accommodate for growth as well as incentivize investment into our private sector. Rules are as follows: Round 1: Acceptance/Informal short summary of primary argument. Round 2: Statement of Opening Arguments. Round 3: Continuation of Argument and Rebuttal. Round 4: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion. Please, do not troll.

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered There is an important distinction to make between the tax rate for publicly traded companies and the actual percentage amount they pay. The disparity is due to tax loopholes such as off-shore banking and a host of other maneuvers performed by corporate lawyers. Even if these loopholes were closed through legislation, I disagree that the corporate tax rate should be lowered. There are two fundamental lines of reasoning behind my objection. The first is based on empirical observations, the second with philosophical issues about growth. Both of course are interrelated. Like private citizens, the private sector benefits from public goods such as public education, publicly owned and operated infastructure, general law and order maintained by police, and various federal agencies, especially in maritime contexts. The integrity and efficiency of these public goods would suffer if corporate tax rates were lowered, and this in turn would cause business costs to rise. If corporations tried to shoulder these costs themselves, for instance through privatized security, their ability to remain solvent would diminish. In general, the costs of doing business would increase, and those costs would be passed onto the consumer. Corporations also benefit from social welfare funds in ways that are not always obvious. Many retailers and restaurant corporations do not pay their workers a living wage. As a result those workers are forced to seek assistance from the government through such aid programs as food stamps. The taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the costs of maintaining a workforce for many corporations. Some of the societal benefits stand in direct conflict with the interests of the corporation. For instance, federally funded advocates of environmental defense and consumers rights must maintain freedom from the machinations of the corporation in order to do their job. The second aspect of my objection is theoretical, that is it has to do with the determinations of concepts. (I don't want to sound condescending, it's just that in mainstream discourse there is usually some confusion about the distinction between the practical and theoretical spheres.) Corporations are not free agents; that is, they cannot, by definition, self-legislate. I mean this in the descriptive, not normative, sense. The concept of a corporation demands that it profit; it must answer to shareholders, and all other considerations--whether ethical, aesthetic or even legal--are subordinate to this demand. That means that the costs of growth are always ultimately translated into dollar amounts. Likewise, the benefits of growth, strictly speaking, can only be reflected in dollar amounts. Of course, they can be translated once again into societal benefits of all sorts, but that is a matter of interpretation that lies beyond the calculus of corporations. This is partly why, for instance, from a legal point of view, a corporation's liability is limited to its investment. My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector. I only say this because it seems to me useful to also bring into question some of the grounds on which the claim is being made. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work "The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." The IRS is a total complete wreck. It has shown several reasons or situation in which it is unable to properly regulate taxes. Given them another Tax to regulate would be equivalent to giving a severe mentally retarded child pre-cal test and expect an A. "The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." (http://blog.aicpa.org...) "The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures." I ask my opponent this question, were is prove of effectiveness. We cannot pass a resolution simply because it looks good on the outside, we have to go in depth to assure us that this will be an effective program. Our economy today, does not give us opportunity to simply waste money in passing a resolution that will in turn fail with no benefits. To properly reduce the unemployment rate in the United States, the answer is not to Tax companies for overworking there employee, but to build new job in which people are able to apply for. "The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking." Taxing companies on the basis that there are minimal cost in regulation would be mutiny as the government is now taxing its citizens without giving them a clear understanding as to how the enforced tax is going o help the public. This would be equivalent to letting criminals run free on the basis that freeing prisoners is more cost efficient than imprisoning them. Ones again, my opponent has provided no evidence as to how this is beneficiary to us, thus failing to meet his burden of proof. For the reasons that i have countered all his points, i urge you to vote Con on the basis of superior case as well as a better argument. Thank You.

Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy Rules: I will write an essay and my opponent will rebut on Round One, along with his or her acceptance. By Round Three, there will be no new points, only conclusions. Good luck to both sides! Cutting taxes would increase the purchasing power of the people. This means businesses will profit more from consumers and with more money, we can experience increased overall wages, increased earnings for everyone, and this will be beneficial to the country's overall prosperity. This will also lead to increased employment. Businesses, with tax cuts, will be able to spend their tax cuts on expanding. And what do you need when you expand? You need people, which means more people get hired, in other words, more jobs. This will obviously decrease poverty levels, homelessness, and America's overall prosperity. The government can also benefit from this with increased revenue. With tax cuts, I mentioned that more people will have jobs, which means more people will be paying their taxes. This will be a winning game to both the people, their economy, and to the government. In conclusion, tax cuts will increase jobs, encourage or increase economic growth, increase government revenue and benefit us all in the long run.

Corporate taxes should be lowered "This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does."Lowering taxation period leads to higher GDP ceteris paribus"Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits."You are ignoring the law of comparative advantage. Your statement is blatantly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org..."Corporations do this (ship jobs overseas) to avoid corporate taxes"This is incorrect. Corporations shift profits overseas to avoid taxes. They shift manufacturing jobs overseas because the lower cost of living allows the goods to be manufactured at cheaper wages than by unionized wages. "if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit"No. We are not that high on the Laffer Curve as evidenced by the historic corporate tax lows.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work "My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. " My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U. S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation. "Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations. " (. http://www.cato.org...) As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis. ) "This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers. " Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost.

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work My opponent states that my idea does not solve the general economic crisis, I never claimed it would. I am simply trying to solve ONE of our problem within our current economic crisis. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of money. This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers.

The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses While the American Jobs Act gives help to small businesses it does nothing to help proven companies that already have a record of success as is shown by their size. Indeed these companies may even be hit by the revenue raising side of the act. It is often the wealthy- both businesses and individuals- that engage in enterprise and risky expansions into new markets. A lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable and more appealing. Promoting private enterprise and risk taking is a key strategy in resolving recessions. It is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets, which drive demand. An increase in the tax burden of America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations is problematic. It impedes this growth and innovation-led recovery strategies. It is important to note that the risk the American economy needs to promote is risk that is well regulated and, further, is risk in non-critical and emerging industries. As such this point is distinct from the second point of opposition and must be presented as so, otherwise, it risks a misunderstanding with judges.10

American Jobs Act AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire.

The government should cut taxes for everyone In a perfect world, taxes could be cut for everyone and government spending could also be reduced without anyone being affected by it. However, this is not a Utopian society, and the problem with this plan is that it can't be done while maximizing morally positive outcomes. My opponent has set forth a hypothetical economic cycle contrary to all historic fact. His plan relies on big business being the backbone of the US economy, without bearing the brunt of the weight. In this round, I'll work backwards through his 5 expectations.5. "Businesses will hire more employees because they will have more money." By business owners, if I were to adhere to his previous statements on how the wealthy should receive more of a tax break because of their vested interest in creating more jobs, my opponent is talking about the wealthy. Being that he didn't provide a criteria for wealthy, I assume my opponent means the richest 1%. The underlying ideology behind his 5th contention, supported by his previous 4, is that the 1% is giving us money. The contrary, is the truth. Between 1980 and 2005, more than 80% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%. [1] Along with the increasing gap between social classes, they have been experiencing the lowest tax rate in 30 years. [2] The result is obvious, there simply isn't enough federal government money to fund our operations and we have an increasing debt. As illustrated by political comedian Bill Maher, "Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives, they open the box, and the first guy takes 80.."When taxes are higher, our economy does better when it comes to GDP & employment rates. Don't want to take my word for it, how about the Bureau of Labor Statistics with bureau economic analysis? Exhibit A: 3/4. "As businesses are making more money they will pay more tax dollars. Government revenue will increase in result of businesses paying more tax dollars."As stated above, a combination of their income growth and their tax rate show that when they are experiencing the highest corporate profit total/average of all time [3], we are still at an unemployment level of 7.9%.[4] Though it has decreased from its peak, it is not nearly enough to justify the claims made by my opponent. To refute this point,Exhibit B: 1/2. "People will have more money because of the tax cuts and they will spend more. As people spend more money businesses will make more money."Ah, now my opponent is onto something. I, too, accept the proposition of tax cuts for the middle & lower class of the US. They're taking the biggest hit of the recession, and are struggling the most. Tax cuts for the middle & lower class by 5%, tax increase on the top 3% by 3%.My opponent's conclusion paragraph1)"The wealthy should get a 10 percent tax cut because they will spend more money, invest more and the ones that own a business will hire more employees in result of a large tax cut" The wealthy already have gotten a tax cut from the previous administration. They hoarded the money, and didn't increase jobs-- Unemployment increased over the last 10 years. 2)"The wealthy should get the largest tax cut because they create most of the jobs in this country."Somehow, the wealthy have all been established as the business owning "Job Creators!" The top 1% of US citizens make $380,354/year.[5] There are 314,809,366 people in the US [6]. 1% of that number is 3.1 million. As clarified by the presidential debates, 97% of all business owners fall below 250,000/year. Out of the 29 million businesses in the US, 26 million don't count. That leaves one million business owners, to 2 million other people. My guess is that they're filled with famous athletes, famous actors, and reality TV stars such as, "The Situation," from Jersey Shore-- some job creator. These people are no more the job creators than the lower class is the working class. Only few create jobs, 97% of which don't even qualify to get their taxes raised (or count as the top 3%/wealthy), and all social classes work. 3)"Finally they should cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax, Alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax. To make up for these large tax cuts, the government should cut spending by as much as they cut taxes and eliminate tax deductions and exemptions. This tax plan will create many jobs and result in additional government revenue."How much would these tax cuts cost the US government, & where would the federal government cut spending to make up for these losses?In conclusion, I'd like for the audience to pay close attention to my opponents inability to dictate where the tax rates would be decreases specifically, where the government would cut their spending to match the decreases, and how that will effect the overall economy. There's nothing wrong with debating tax cuts/increases in theory, but when you expand to federal cuts you have to specify which of the programs you intend to take the hit because it has to do with how probable it is. [1]http://www.slate.com...[2]http://www.factcheck.org...[3]http://thinkprogress.org...[4]http://www.tradingeconomics.com...[5]http://www.financialsamurai.com...[6]http://www.census.gov...

Tax cuts didn't help in 2009, they won't help in Jobs Act. Jack Rasmus. "Obama's 'Jobs Act' Proposal: Why Less Is More of the Same." Truthout. September 14th, 2011: "The 38 percent tax cut mix in 2009 amounted to about $300 billion in total tax reduction. That $300 billion followed a $90 billion tax cut less than nine months before in spring 2008. Another $50 billion in tax cuts was further added later in 2009-2010 in various bills and administrative actions. That's a total of $440 billion in tax cuts. There's more. Add to that $440 billion another $270 billion in Bush tax cut extensions in late 2010 for 2011, plus another $100 billion in this year's payroll tax cut. Now, add the Job Act's tax-heavy $270 additional billion. Now, we're well over $1 trillion in tax cuts in just the past two years. And what's been the result in jobs? Still 25 million unemployed today as in June 2009."

AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire. Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow. Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases). Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment. Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital."

Over-taxing wealthy impairs trickle-down effect and job-creation Deroy Murdock. "Halt reckless spending and extend Bush tax cuts." Dessert News. July 26, 2010: "Americans in the top bracket run companies, start new businesses, launch innovative products and hire other Americans to perform these positive functions. While Democrats routinely denounce "the rich" as if they were un-American, the sad truth is that very few poor people create jobs."

Taxing the rich will benefit our economy Kudos to my opponent for providing a well thought out debate! Just to clarify to the voters, my opponents "Introduction" which states what he is arguing is suitable and will be the topic of judgment. First Argument: Taxing the rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion.The problem with the U.S economy is that our government has their hand in the free market which is causing a kink in the natural course of capitalism. Our high unemployment rates and lack of investments are caused by uncertainty. When you have an inconsistent government trying to pass laws that directly affect the profitability of the private sector, investors become fearful and sell their stock. This eventually causes a bear market, and the combination of a bear market and an unstable government further depreciates the market and ultimately causes a recession. Companies rely on investors for productivity and profitability. When investors remove themselves from the market, it causes the companies debt/income ratio to increase. In order stay profitable, they remove expenses, most commonly in the form of employment. My point in the paragraph above, is that capitalism is a top to bottom method for economic and social well being. Capitalism only involves the private sector, so they are not included nor should they be included in our economy's success or failure. Therefore, it starts at the top after supply is created to fulfill demand. Those are the people who create jobs and have the power to stimulate our economy.Increasing the tax rates for those who receive $250,000+ will do absolutely nothing to enhance our economic situation. It is proposed that by increasing their tax rates, it will provide the government with 1.1 trillion in additional income. With the additional money, as my opponent stated, Obama is planning on building and fixing infrastructure, as well as provide money for public employees and allowing for middle class tax cuts. The problem with this, is that the demand created by the increased taxes have no long term affects in economic stimulation. Building infrastructure creates a temporary demand. It will provide temporary work to an outsourced, private sector company solely for the purpose of providing temporary jobs. However, because we have limited funds and limited infrastructure, it will inevitably end. People don't invest in something with limited value, so nothing but government spending and temporary work will become of it. With regards to public employees, the demand has always been there. They would simply alleviate some of the hiring freezes that were put in to place after layoffs. Regardless, public sector jobs don't provide for investment opportunities, so the market will continue on its current track. As my opponent stated, the low and middle class spend more than the upper class. This is true, however, the middle class only account for 10.6% of U.S taxes. The government can't afford to lower them to the degree where the increased saving and spending would even scratch the surface of improving our economy. As everything stated above suggests, taxing the rich provides our government with money, but does absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy. At best, it provides temporary work for infrastructure and places public workers back in to jobs they shouldn't have lost in the first place. Now let's talk about the individual. Small business owners make up about half of U.S employees. There are a little under 6 million small businesses who employ roughly 160 million people. The average U.S salary is about $27,000. Roughly 1 million of those small businesses make $500,000 to $1 million. For simplicities sake, we'll use $500,000 as an average small business owners income. 39% of 500,000 is nearly 200,000. Let's say we reduce the tax rate to 30%. Now we're at $150,000. By reducing the tax rate we are saving a small business owner $50,000, which is potentially two salaries and two less unemployed. If we did that for every small business owner we would have 12 million new jobs created. Let's say the business was at full staff and couldn't hire anyone else. The average person who makes that kind of money already has an established emergency fund. An emergency fund is typically 3 to 6 months of savings for emergency events that arise. All additional money either gets spent or is invested. $50,000 x 6 million business owners is 300 billion dollars that is put back in to our economy. Even if they save, a savings account is technically an extremely liquid loan to the bank, who takes the money you just deposted, and invests it. So regardless of whether the additional money is in a savings account, or a brokerage account, it is still circulating the market.Bottom line, taxing the rich will not stimulate our economy. It will provide $1.1 trillion to be spent on temporary jobs and jobs that should have never been lost in the first place. It will not be put back in to the market nor will it provide an environment to entice people to invest in the market. Keeping taxes the same or even reducing them, however, will allow capitalism to run its natural course. It will provide for billions of dollars to be put back in to the market that everyone of us depend on. New investors allow companies to expand in every aspect of their business. Stimulated businesses create jobs. Jobs reduce unemployment and allow for investing. Investing drives interest rates up, and our government reaps the benefits from all angles. More taxes are paid because there are more employees. They make more money off of corporate taxes because of expansion. And, it allows the federal reserve to charge higher interests because more money is flowing through the market.Sources:http://www.csmonitor.com...http://www.census.gov...http://www.sba.gov...

Tax Rate Cuts, Not Tax Rebates, Stimulate the Economy Although tax rebates, increased unemployment benefits and other short-term payments may feel good and appear superficially attractive, they do very little to actually boost the economy and improve Americans' well-being. Rather, cutting tax rates, not mailing tax rebates, is what stimulates prosperity. This is a critical distinction. The primary reason why tax rebates don't work is that they merely redistribute existing wealth, as opposed to creating new economic growth or encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. They do nothing to encourage risk-taking, investment or enlargement of the wealth pie, but instead re-slice the existing pie in a zero-sum manner.

the federal income tax should be abolished High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact. What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.

Tax cuts, not government spending, are the best way out of recession Job Creation/Stability

Jobs Act would benefit cities like NYC Patrick McGeehan. "Obama Jobs Plan Would Boost the City, Comptroller Says." New York Times City Room. September 9th, 2011: "The president’s jobs plan, which he announced on Thursday night, called for reducing the Social Security tax on income to 3.1 percent in 2012. The rate is currently set at 6.2 percent on the first $106,800 of an employee’s pay. Because workers in New York are relatively highly paid, the effect of that cut would be greater in the city than in other parts of the country. It would save $775 for a worker earning $25,000 a year and $3,100 for one who makes $100,000. All told, the comptroller’s office estimated, the gain to New Yorkers would amount to $4.8 billion, and the spending of a portion of that total would preserve or create about 25,000 jobs in the city." [read extended argument on article].

Free trade creates more jobs (and better ones) than it destroys Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, At the Montana Economic Development Summit 2007, Butte, Montana, May 1, 2007 " The U.S. jobs created by trade also tend to offer higher pay and demand greater skill than the jobs that are destroyed--although a downside is that, in the short run, the greater return to skills created by trade may tend to increase the wage differential between higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers and thus contribute to income inequality (Bernanke, 2007). The effects of trade on employment must also be put in the context of the remarkable dynamism of the U.S. labor market. The amount of "churn" in the labor market--the number of jobs created and destroyed--is enormous and reflects the continuous entry, exit, and resizing of firms in our ever-changing economy. Excluding job layoffs and losses reversed within the year, over the past decade an average of nearly 16 million private-sector jobs have been eliminated each year in the United States, an annual loss equal to nearly 15 percent of the current level of nonfarm private employment.6 The vast majority of these job losses occur for a principal reason other than international trade (Kletzer, 2001; Bernanke, 2004). Moreover, during the past ten years, the 16 million annual job losses have been more than offset by the creation of about 17 million jobs per year--some of which, of course, are attributable to the direct and indirect effects of trade. Truly, the U.S. labor market exhibits a phenomenal capacity for creative destruction"

The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs The American Jobs Act may be projected to create a lot of jobs. However, this comes following tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus package in 2009. In the past these measures to help the economy failed, with unemployment remaining stagnant at around 25 million despite the efforts by the government in 2009. The reason this occurred in 2009 is that despite the stimulus package there was a strong degree of uncertainty within the economy. As such, even though consumers and producers were facing a lower tax burden it became apparent that neither group was willing to take big risks in a highly uncertain economic environment. The possibility of recession was all too apparent, and this affected both business and consumer confidence. Given the Eurozone crisis at the moment, the situation in 2011 is very similar, with much of the world economy waiting on the outcome in Europe to see whether recession or recovery awaits. Such a climate is not conducive to risk taking on the part of firms. Hiring extra workers, for example, might be a profitable activity, however, it also entails significant risk as the firm has to be able to guarantee that it will get more out of the worker than it ends up paying. The current state of world markets is not conducive to a stimulus package and it would simply be better to wait out the Eurozone crisis and then deal with the coming problems in an environment that is more confident and that is populated by actors equipped with greater understanding of the direction of the world and American economies.6

Taxes should be raised on the rich Let's do this! I will make my own case first and then do refutations. My CaseC1: Laffer CurveOne of the most important factors in an economy is the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. The important thing to understand is two scenarios in which the tax rate is either at 0% or 100%. In both cases the government is getting no money by either no taxes or a rate so high no one would possibly work because of how much money they would not be making. As the rate rises from 0% the government gets money and as it lowers from 100% more people come back to work. The important thing to understand is that at some point the government would lose revenue rather than make it with higher rates and that is why lower rates should be implented. When tax rates are high, rich people stop investing their money and find tax shelters for it, but when its lower they continue to invest and expand their businesses. [1,2]C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsUnder Woodrow Wilson, the top tax rate rose to a high of 77% and the country went into recession in 1921. Warren G. Harding became the next president of the United States and lowered the rate to 50% followed by Calvin Coolidge after his death, who lowered the top rate to 25%. This was followed by huge economic growth and a massive budget surplus. During this same period, Real GDP growth expanded from 2.0% before the cut to 3.4% after. The unemployment rate fell from 6.5% to 3.1%. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. This actually got the rich to pay more in taxes than they did with a higher rate. Production increased dramatically. [1]Even more specifically with the Coolidge cuts: "Nor is it surprising that, with increased economic activity following the shift of vast sums of unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent. " [4]II. Kennedy Tax CutThe tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway. The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations. [1,3]III. Reagan Tax CutsWe all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures. Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly. C3: Income MobilityWhen the tax rates have been lowered we have seen huge income mobility among people. In a sense, it spreads wealth around and increase income mobility better than any social program could. This means that lower taxes is better in helping the poor because businesses are able to provide more jobs and increase wages. Income mobility is in the best interest of the people. During the Harding-Coolidge years: "The facts are plain: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable that number fell drastically, to just 21 people by 1921. Then, after a series of tax rate cuts during the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more rose again to 207 by 1925. Under these conditions, it should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue after tax rates were cut. " [4]During the Reagan years:"The percentage of families earning more than $50,000 in 1990 dollars rose by 5 points from 30.9 percent to nearly 35.9 percent. During the 1980s, millions of middle-class Americans disappeared into the ranks of the affluent. " [5]During the Reagan years, there were fewer than 5,000 people who had an income of $1 million or above. When he left 35,000 people did. This shows that there was huge income mobility at the time. [5]My CaseR1: Higher Taxes do not BenefitMy opponent and his report claim that when taxes were higher, economic growth was greated. This is simply not true. The rate was 90% under Eisenhower and the economy grew at 2.3%. During the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies when the tax rate was 70% the economy grew at 4.9%. This is far greater than under Eisenhower. Under Reagan, the economy grew at 3.2% with his low tax rates. In fact, every president beat Eisenhower with his 90% rate in economic growth except George H. W. Bush. [6]It is clear that the economy grew strongly when the top tax rate was cut. R2: Capital GainsAccording to Shlaes:"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year. " [7]The capital gains tax hinders the expansion of business and entrepreneurship which is necessary for every free market capitalist economy to expand, but taxes has hindered them. George Gilder writes about the history of the tax that:"Government tax policies have done their best to deter innovation and promote mergers, creating a capital blight in which smaller companies that were attempting to expand suffered most throughout the 1970s. " [8]R3: HistoryI have proven through the Laffer curve that tax revenue increased dramatically from when it was under higher rates and the economy expanded much faster. Why? Because people took their money out of tax shelters and invested or saved it allowing for economic growth and more revenue. The stock market grew stronger under Coolidge and Reagan than it did under Ike. Coolidge saw over 260% of Dow Jones growth and Reagan saw over 130%. Ike saw 120% growth, but remember that no one was paying their true income in the 1950s as they tried to hide their money. [9]FDR saw larger growth than Reagan's, but this was mostly because of World War 2 growth. Unemployment fell and real GDP increased, but only because of the war. Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. . http://www.debate.org...3. United States. Congressional Budget Office. U. S. Congress. A Review of the Accuracy of the Treasury Revenue Forecasts, 1963-1978. Washington D. C. : 1981. Print.4. Sowell, Thomas. ""Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich". " Hoover Institution, 2012. Web.5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.6. Niskanen, William A. , and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record. " Cato. org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.7. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes. " Bloomberg. com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.8. Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D. C. : Regnery, 2012. Print.9. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term. " MSN. com. MSN Money, 5 Nov. 2012. Web.

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered It seems then that we are in agreement about the untenability of altering the tax code without addressing the tax loopholes. My point is that when it comes time to actually fix a rate, we will be only grasping in the dark so long as those loopholes are closed. We are also in agreement about the amorality, or moral neutrality of corporations. As you mentioned, the main costs of a corporation are wages, supplies, or means of production however broadly construed, and taxes. Lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes will actually result in an effective tax raise for many corporations. So why would they return their operations to the U.S. if the reform measures you are seeking only address taxation? My point about the welfare measures the corporation receives on behalf of the taxpayer, e.g. in the form of slave wages, indicates that lowering the tax rate alone is not sufficient. It is here instructive to take a brief glance at the historical development of the corporation. (Hegel discusses it in an interesting way in The Philosophy of Right, but that is maybe too far afield.) It is a historical fiction to think that corporations emerged in a free market and then only later came under the burden of government regulation and taxation. From the inception, the interests of the corporation were facilitated by government policies. There are countless examples of this, but the most pronounced is perhaps the railroad barons at the end of the nineteenth century. So it is too simple a dichotomy to present the government on one side and the corporation on the other. This is why, for instance, Roosevelt warned against the military-industrial complex, and it is still vividly relevant today in the Middle East. In light of this, your alleged benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate can be seen as wishful thinking of fallacious supply-side economic theory. Yes, a lower tax rate might raise wages, might boost incentive, attract foreign investment, eradicate poverty, end war, save the polar ice caps from melting, help us colonize the moon, make us beautiful, rid us of all evil, and so forth. I'm not trying to be sarcastic--it's just that these are the perennial and familiar promises of the proponents of free-market economy that have not materialized, even as the system has increasingly favored corporations since the sixties. The most clear indication that a lowered tax rate is not advisable or desirable is that the rate has in fact incrementally lowered for over the period of the past forty years. Wages have stagnated, while CEO pay has skyrocketed, completely independent of CEO performance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... There is a lot of mystical beliefs about the invisible hands that will guide wealth into the nation and keep business in the U.S. but there are no reasonable historical tendencies to justify this thinking. There are two principal reasons for this: 1. The intimate interactions of corporate interests and governmental policy have created a situation of pronounced inequality, and have effectively redistributed wealth to the top one percent. 2. The corporation, by its very nature, tends toward either implosion or monopoly. The public was compelled to intrude upon the free activity of the corporation because that activity threatened its collective good. I appreciate your Libertarian views--even though I usually find myself in general disagreement, the Libertarian wing of the Republic party is, in my modest estimation, the only one that is self-consistent and philosophically and economically astute. But let me for a moment broaden the perspective. I don't judge negatively people who desire profits, and I agree with your implication that to associate the desire for profits with greed is not all that useful. But not all values are moral values. We can still admit that the corporation is essentially amoral and still talk about its ethos, its system of values. I mentioned above that one of these is the fundamental translation of various kinds of activity into exchange value. In the same sense, not all work is labor. The corporate system reinterprets growth, time, work, nature, and even political engagement financially. Corporate taxation is the imperfect result of this necessary translation. I only have about ten minutes left, so let me just give one easy example of what I mean here. A mining corporation--e.g. the Pebble Mine Company up in Alaska--goes into a place, digs the minerals out of the earth, then moves on when those resources have been exhausted. From the corporations point of view, the land is nothing more than the ultimate dollar amounts that will be made on the market. But land is something different than that--it gets left behind, and has been altered irrevocably. The toxic tailings ponds that every mine leaves behind last forever. (Cf. the spill in Durango right now.) No matter if the tax rate were twice what it is, there is no way to recover that land. The same goes with fracking--the toxins that are pumped into the ground will last millennia. So it is not as simple as just saying that corporations benefit from infrastructure and public safety--it is that they translate the world, both the human world of activity, work, time, and the natural world as monetary values. Taxation is therefore the only way for the corporation to legitimately participate in the system. It might seem as though I'm changing my fundamental objection--but these latest remarks are bound up with what I've been saying from the start. Either way, I'm learning a lot from this discussion and look forward to your response.

Taxes and the U.S. Government In order to decide whether or not policy makers should have high or low tax policies, we should look to the empirical evidence regarding taxation and its relationship to economic growth and income growth. It turns out, the majority of empirical research has found increasing taxation leads to negative impacts on economic growth, which can be measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These negative impacts are not just coincidence, even when researchers control for other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy, they still reach the same results. In a study titled, "The robust relationship between taxes and U.S state income growth", published in the National Tax Journal, the author, Robert Reed, concluded that: "My analysis suggests that tax policies take time to work its full effects on the economy. When the specification is sufficiently general to pick up these effects, a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges." (1) Additionally, a study of 15 developed countries by the International Monetary Fund found that "a 1 percent spending cut has no significant effect on growth, whereas a 1 percent tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3 percent after two years." (1) In contrast, a study published in the American Economic Review found that "A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters." (1) These are just some peer-reviewed study which show negative impacts of taxation on economic growth. Even more can be found at the first link cited. So why do higher taxes result in decreased economic growth? Perhaps it is because a dollar in the hands of the private sector is spent more efficiently than in the hands of the government. Perhaps it's because taxation reduces the incentive for people to work and invest. Theoretically, taxing someone for hiring a worker, or investing in capital goods, etc basically makes it more expensive to do those things, and thus, less of it will be done. This explanation makes sense and is loosely confirmed by the results of empirical research. (1) http://taxfoundation.org...

Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office. These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i] [i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html

Stimulating businesses through tax-cuts and deregulation will be engine for economic recovery. The second part of our proposed stimulus package involves stimulating business growth. Businesses will be one of the most positively affected by a policy in which increases deregulation and tax-cuts. By being exempt from a certain amount of tax and free from certain government regulations, businesses can gain an increase in investing power and flexibility in expansion and investment. Such policies are especially beneficial for large corporations, who are often the most bound by government mandated tax policies and regulations. Easing up on large businesses allows for more large scale capital investment. This means corporations can buy more raw materials, set up more factories, increase the amount of the jobs, and drop the prices of their products. In the scope of recovering from economic crisis where unemployment is high, prices rise, and inventory stocks pile up, the cheapest, fastest way to do so is through big businesses. The impact of average fixed costs and marginal costs on economies of scale are far lower than that of smaller ones, allowing them to make bigger and, on average, faster investments for a lower average total cost. This still accounts for larger investments, increasing money circulation throughout the economy and also (since part of such investments are also into labor costs) allowing for an increase in the number of jobs. Though big businesses would serve as the central engine in fostering in economic growth, our proposed policy would still benefit small businesses and entrepreneurs as tax-cuts and deregulation also allows for more investment power and flexibility. Though many may criticize the policy's tempory disregard of large corporations’ noblesse oblige, the burden of such large scale businesses to support society through its tax obligations, the government's priorities lie with getting the economy back to stabilized growth as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The government should cut taxes for everyone The government should cut taxes across the board. Every taxpayer should get tax cut including the wealthy. Here's what will happen if they cut taxes. 1st: People will have more money because of the tax cut and they will spend more money 2nd: As people are spending more money businesses will make more money. 3rd: As businesses are making more money they will pay more tax dollars. 4th: Government revenue will increase in result of businesses paying more tax dollars 5th: Businesses will hire more employees because they have more money. This will also result in more government revenue because more people will pay taxes because more people will have jobs. The wealthy should get a 10 percent tax cut because they will spend more money, invest more and the ones that own a business will hire more employees in result of a large tax cut. The middle class should also get a good size tax cut to make it easier to pay back loans and to spend more money. The wealthy should get the largest tax cut because they create most of the jobs in this country. The wealthy also worked very hard for their money so therefore government should not take a lot of money from them. The government should also eliminate income taxes for the poor because every dollar matters for them. Finally they should cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax, Alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax. To make up for these large tax cuts, the government should cut spending by as much as they cut taxes and eliminate tax deductions and exemptions. This tax plan will create many jobs and result in additional government revenue.

2,000 Days of DDO: When in Recession, Taxes Should be Lowered Cool, were debating for the third time! This is awesome.My ArgumentsThe argument that it is better to lower taxes in an economic recession is an easy one to make if you have a vast knowledge of history like myself. There are two key examples of how tax cuts that were passed in response to a recession. These were in response to the recessions of 1920-1921 and 1981-1982: Let's look at both.I. 1920-1921The radical economic policies and the end of World War 1 under Woodrow Wilson brought the economy into a recession. Real GDP growth had been declining. Federal revenue was dropping and unemployment was rising. The new Republican president, Warren G. Harding, passed a tax cut. Wilson had taxes as high as 77% and Harding lowered this to well under 60%. Unemployment declined from 6.5% to 3.1%. Real GDP grew from 2% to 3.4% and federal revenue grew from -9.2% to 0.1%. When Harding died, these policies were continued under President Calvin Coolidge. The top tax rate was by then as low as 25%. This allowed consumer spending to grow and many Americans could now afford goods that the rich could only purchase. The works of Harding and Coolidge brought a massive economy recovery and ended the recession. In fact, Coolidge holds the record for most stock market growth in US history. [1,2] II. 1981-1982Republican Ronald Reagan entered the presidency and faced the 1981 recession. To combat this recession, Reagan cut taxes deeply to bring economy growth. This was a massive success. Real GDP went from 0.9% to 4.8%. This clearly proves that there was massive growth in the recovery. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in November 1982, but declined to 7% by December.For real income tax revenue growth, it grew from -2.8% to 2.7%. This clearly points that tax cuts work to fixing a recession. Finally, the stock market grew incredibly under Ronald Reagan. [1] Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.2. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term." MSNMoney. N.p., 5 Nov. 2012. Web.

The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive. The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks. Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4 As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.

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."No they weren't. I added them for use of showing how President Coolidge vetoed most progressive legislation including those farm subsidy bills. I am going to assume that my opponent means I hacked debate.org by making the character limit longer in order to add videos, but I don't know how to hack anything so that was not my intention.The Great Depression video was there to explain how more economic intervention such as tax increases dramatically hurt an economy. Again it fell in 10,000 characters, so I do not understand what my opponent is citing. Perhaps he can cite the code of conduct for a better understanding in the comments or pm it to me.My CaseC1: Laffer CurveSimply relying on charities and non-profit organizations in an economic recession, or in an economy in general, is a very bad idea. Businesses will always be there and they need profit. The more profit they have then the more they can expand their businesses. The same with capital gains taxes to expand ideas and entreprenuers. My opponent seems to be arguing to get rid of private businesses who seek maximum profit for charity. That does not work. My opponent did note what Arthur Laffer has said, but my opponent has not give an alternative form besides the Laffer curve to look at when discussing tax revenue and economics growth. Had he mentioned another kind of curve or idea then we might have something. Since he has not, we only have the Laffer curve to follow. I have won this argument.C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsAs I stated before from Shales' book and that video, most farm subisides were cancelled and did not have a huge effect in the 1920s because they did not exist for most of the era we are discussing. They only existed in the early part of the 1920s and were stopped or vetoed when Coolidge entered office in 1923. Because of the fact that the subsidies were not responsbile for the economic boom that dominated most of the 1920s, they are not a benefit. The lower tax rate under Calvin Coolidge actually got the rich to pay more in taxes. Those making over $100,000 shared 29.9% of the total payed income taxes. In 1929 when Coolidge left office they payed 62.2%. This is before Hoover's tax increases. What we can see here is that there is a huge correlation between lower tax rates making the rich pay more. Higher tax rates make the rich pay less of the percentage. [1]I showed economic variables before and after the tax cuts. What we saw was that there was more growth after the tax cuts because businesses could expand more. I will briefly refute Clinton with the 1994 midterms: “We took a special interest in 1946 and 1994 when a first- term Democratic president lost both houses of Congress to the opposing party,” Birinyi analysts Cleve Rueckert and Daniel Erdelyi wrote in the report. “In both cases the market was down in the two months prior to the election, and was up over the ensuing three months.” [2] When the Democrats lost Congress in 1994, the stock market grew at a rapid pace. In late 1993 the GDP growth rate was 2.1%. After the midterms it was 5.4%. We can clearly see that the supply-side Republicans saved the economy by simply winning Congress in 1994. [3]II. Kennedy Tax CutMy opponent looks at only some cases of abolishing the death penalty. Let's look at the specific my time my opponent was talking about instead of simply a few states at later times. According to Johansen:"The number of executions plummeted from 47 in 1962 to 2 in 1967 to zero in 1968. The homicide rate, which had been holding steady around 50 throughout the 50's, started up in 1965, just two years after executions began their plummet. The biggest increase in one year came in 1967, the same year that the last person was executed." [4]Here's a graph to back that up: http://www.debate.org...When the death penalty was put back in place crime fell by a wide margin.Now on the unions. Unions have been found to help their workers but hurt consumers and people searching for jobs. They block the market from hiring new people and effectively tax investors forcing businesses to pass the expenses of higher wages to consumer through higher prices. They completely cause a negative effect. [5]III. Reagan Tax CutsMy opponent looks into a depression occuring sometime around 1987 and 1988. Unemployment remained under 6% for the rest of Reagan's presidency after the recession (http://www.debate.org...). It was clear here that there was massive economic growth. Stocks boomed under Reagan as well (http://www.debate.org...). We can see here that there was clear economic growth from Reagan's tax cuts. Inflation dropped heavily under Reagan from 11.8% to 4.7% [7]I have already refuted Clinton's "growth" which was caused by capital gains tax cuts and the 1994 "Republican Revolution".C3: Income MobilityI have already refuted this point by proving that the poorest fifth of the American made more money $6,494 to $6,994 in a period from 1980 to 1989. The poor did make more money, the reason it is small is because most poor people don't work and live off government welfare systems, so obviously they would not be effected by any tax cut, but they still did better under Reagan than Carter did. [6]My RefutationsR1: Taxes Benefit the EconomyMy opponent made this argument through the Eisenhower years, but he has not brought Ike back up so this must be dropped. He instead changed his own argument to a different period. This argument was dropped.R2: Capital Gains TaxesAccording to the article: "Sinai says he favors raising taxes on one kind of capital gain, carried interest, to treat it as ordinary income. But the bigger picture is that lower taxes on capital are good for workers, a group that includes protesters and their siblings. They will have to decide whether they care more about punishing the rich or about increasing the number of jobs on offer to their friends. It’s a tough call. My guess is, as the temperature drops, the protesters will take jobs over rage." [8] R3: New DealUnemployment drops inevitably the recession. We want to know what makes it drop faster, higher tax rates or lower ones. In this case this case lower tax rates were needed because it was proven they could work. Instead, FDR had a huge tax hike which would lessen economic growth and weaken the recovery as proven the Ohanian study.R5: Gini CoefficentLook up because I refuted this point earlier with wages and inflation.My opponent talked about income inequality in his R7, but that is discussed higher too.ConclusionI have proven tax cuts on the rich help everyone by dramatically increasing economic growth and saving the economy. They create jobs and increase income mobility. Vote Con!1Historygeniusslapped!Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. Gammeltoft, Nikolaj. "Democrats Losing Senate Would Probably Give Boost to S&P 500, Birinyi Says." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 17 Sept. 2010. Web.3. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.4. Johansen, Jay. "Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime?" Johnasens.us. N.p., n.d. Web.5. Sherk, James. "How Unions Work." Heritage.org. Heritage Foundation, 21 May 2009. Web.6. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.7. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...8. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.

High taxes on rich has coincided with great economic growth Robert Creamer. "Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich." Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: "The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a 'job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession.' Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero."

Demonstrated Utility of Tax Cuts Contrasted With Increased Spending During a financial crisis, it is important to create incentives for working toward economic recovery. Since normal situations of high taxation already “discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion,”[[http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm]] this can only be amplified in situations where people feel especially stretched thin during economic distress. Government coffers become stretched by the added burden of spending, and with economic downturn there is less revenue generated. This lack of government revenue is further aggravated by when workers are forced to adopt behaviors to avoid paying taxes (such as taking jobs that pay under the table and never report their income). This is counterproductive toward the aim of recovering the economy. This forces either deficit spending in order to cover the cost of whatever the government spending might be, or government spending being insufficient to cover the costs of its intended purpose. It lacks a guarantee that the government can afford to continue the spending it promises. Taking a lower amount of taxes on a percentage basis is a short-term mechanism to stimulate economic growth that translates into higher taxes in the long term when there is more money overall to be taxed. President Reagan cut taxes during the 1980s in the United States, and all projections were assumed for revenue shortfalls, or if nothing else, no increases in overall taxation revenues. However, the taxation revenue on individual incomes increased from 1980 to 1989, nearly doubling, from $244 billion $446 billion. Similar measures from the 1920s and 1960s also showed growth in overall taxation revenues after their implementation rather than expected shortages.[[http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm]] In fact, when recession hit the United States in 1919, a series of tax cuts over the next nine years kept the economy stable, and the recession itself was over within two years. It was only after government spending increased in the 1930s in response to the 1929 Stock Market Crash that the economy plummeted into the true depths of its depression[[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334276867815560]]. Since it has been established that status quo taxation will provide incentives for citizens to subvert the legal norms of taxation payments, the reduction in taxation engenders loyalty between citizens their governments, and influences enough growth to more than pay for itself in a short time after implementation has occurred.

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work I am glad my opponent is taking this debate seriously and I thank him for that. "My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation." The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal. The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures. My opponent points out that passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware how effective it could be. The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking.

Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country. As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1] I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...

Expiring Bush tax cuts for rich will burden small businesses "Editorial: Extend the Bush tax cuts, temporarily." Dallas Morning News. August 2, 2010: "Obama's proposals could put thousands of small-business owners in a tax bracket higher than America's corporate giants. The top tax rates would rise from 33 and 35 percent today to 36 and 39.6 percent in January. The millions of small-business owners who file income taxes as individuals could pay rates higher than Exxon Mobil or Goldman Sachs. Where's the wisdom in that when small businesses create most American jobs – and need help, not hindrance?"

American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform "The American People are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed." It is because Ronald Reagan pinpointed the issues with the overtaxing in America I believe that the corporate tax rates (before the tax cuts) were too high. To hopefully convince everyone viewing this debate I provide some points. First, we had some of the highest tax rates in the world NPR News in 2017 found the claim that the United States had the highest corporate tax rates in the world to be "generally true". There are even some instances in which corporations pay upwards of 50-60% of their profits. If that doesn't scream borderline socialism / government abuse, I don't know what will. Second, the super high tax rates cause international outsourcing The Balance in 2013 found that United States companies have 14 million employees overseas in jobs that could be employing Americans. Why? Because of my first point that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Congressional Democrats from the ways and means committees reported that at least 47 major corporations have moved overseas in the past decade alone. Those are millions if not billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of jobs. How do we bring them back? Lowering the corporate tax rate. Finally, outsourcing jobs causes unemployment which leads to more crime This is a pretty self explanatory point, but the example I will be using is the rust belt. The place that used to be the manufacturing hub of America but is now a crime ridden ghost-town. Places like Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh all used to be flourishing economies in America that were known for being vibrant and industrial revolution havens. Now, due to the outsourcing of jobs, their unemployment has skyrocketed and their crime rates have skyrocketed. Thanks for reading! Format for debate 1. Opening Cases 2. Responses to opening cases 3. Final addresses

Lowering Taxes is not Beneficial to the Economy When taxes are lowered, the government has less income. When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully. When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy.

Efficiency of Private Businesses Tax cuts are more efficient because firms following their self-interest will seek investments that provide profit. With heavy corporate taxes, firms are forced to either take on too much risk to make profit which can lead to financial collapse, or they merely make safe moves and firms that make acquisitions profit more than those taking risk. This is less than desirable because too cautious or sparse of investment means that there is likely to be little growth. Additionally, the corporations that are able to acquisition are the larger which means an economy may see oligopolies and eventually monopolies form which will harm the competitiveness of the market. In addition, tax cuts are preferable because the forces of supply and demand can more freely work on their own. Firms seeking profit are more sensitive to demand than governments seeking to employ and prop up. Thus they affect supply so that the market is cleared as supply and demand meet and wastefulness is minimized. This makes for a more efficient allocation of resources and a much more sustainable economy. Both are necessary to recover from a recession.

The American Jobs Act Encourages Risk Without Infrastructure or Results in Inaction By Whilst the jobs act does not fully cover infrastructure, more acts can be drafted in order to deal with this problem. Further, the financial sector is likely to now be significantly more wary of the problems that initially caused the recession. This is because the collapse of Lehman and the Sub Prime crisis as well as the following recession significantly hurt their businesses. As such, especially so soon after the global banking crisis, such companies are going to be more careful about taking unnecessary risks. Whilst this attitude might decay over time, by the time it has decayed enough that action must be taken, it is likely that America will be out of recession. Further, it is believed that right now, the general health of the corporate sector is sound. This means that whilst there is the possibility that businesses will opt not to use tax breaks to increase wages and pay debt, it is fairly unlikely. Even if another recession hits, the current strength of the corporate sector is such that it is likely to be able to weather the storm and as such, CEOs are likely to wish to spend windfall that they do get in order to get ahead of the competition for the next boom phase.9

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% My belief is that the corporate tax should not be cut to 0%. However, this does not mean that it should not be lowered at all. Corporations are by definition: "a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes." [1] Corporations can hold huge amounts of money, and they are expected to make money (from shareholders), and they often engage in illegal activities with leftover money, so they can make money, thus being able to increase stock prices and therefore revenue. [2] Also, corporations may move entire parts of the company overseas to not be taxed. This is a problem because it worsens the economy. The same effect would be felt with no corporate tax rate. This is my political opinion, as well, that most corporations legally bribe politicians, and buy their support through Super-PACs. This is why major politicians are able to fund their campaigns, and why corporations get what they want. Corporations funded most of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney"s campaigns, with about $489,660,089; and $366,336,696; respectively. Top two contributors were the University of California/Microsoft Corporation, and Goldman Sachs/Bank of America, respectively [3]. So my idea is "the less they have, the better." [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://phys.org... [3] http://www.opensecrets.org...

Tax cuts for everyone Laffer curve1. Your arguments center on the framework of the laffer curve where by a hypothetical economy would receive diminishing returns after a certain margin of taxation. (just rephrasing your argument) 1.10 Diminishing returns1.11 the idea that the curve slopes downwards is because there are no incentives for entrepreneurs to work at 100% tax rate. However, there is research that shows it is possible (Malcomson, J, 1986). In brief, it depends on technology and the elasticity of labor supply in which they share a negative relationship.1.20 Government spending1.21 What we see as taxes by the government are mostly pure transfers. Taxes by the government are usually spent on building infrastructures, which also improve the condition of businesses. With a reduction in taxes, the onus is thus placed on the businesses to come up with such infrastructure themselves.1.30 Market failure1.31 This leads to my next point. In the situation of having free-riders, it is possible for the market not to produce the goods needed as aspiring entertainers could benefit without contributing for said infrastructures.1.32 in the event of negative externality, it may be possible for the government to spend more to internalize these effects. For instance, pollution being an externality would become more than expected and government need to spend money cleaning up the environment which may be greater than the increase in tax. 1.40 Saving1.41 In most economy, saving plays a huge role in the multiplier effect. In countries where saving is a great deal, consumer spending would hardly seem to increase as the money would be hoarded by them. in contrast, if saving isn't a huge percentage , reduction in taxes would plays a more prominent role. Optimum point2. In your argument, you state that the highest income earners need taxes to reduce by 2% and the next income bracket by 3%. However, there isn't any economic backing to these clams.2.10 Proving too much2.11 By saying that reducing taxes increases spending, you are going in to the fallacy of "proving too much". This is so as by throwing back your argument to itself, one could keep reducing taxes ad infinitum until the government hasn't any percentage to tax from thus voiding the original premise.2.20 Optimum point 2.21 from wolfram|alpha, we could see a decrease in tax around 2003 led to decrease in state revenue even at prevailing mean value of 15-12%.2.22 In addition, statistical tax rate differ across countries and while some countries might have low tax, high tax revenue, it does not apply universally. ReferencesMalcomson, J (1986). "Some analytics of the laffer curve". Journal of Public Economics 29 (3): 263. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(86)90029-0

Corporate taxes should be lowered My opponent seems to blame the recession on corporate taxes. His argument has no substance at all and only includes baseless conjectures which somehow add up to why corporate taxes should be lowered. Corporations pay significantly less in taxes today than they did 50 years ago due to increased globalization and offshore subsidiaries which allow them to essentially avoid corporate taxes. http://www.cbpp.org... As my opponent is attempting to say that corporate taxes should be lowered because it would benefit the economy, yet he has offered nothing to support this resolution. I await his logically structured arguments, and compelling evidence for why corporate taxes should be lowered. I agree that lowering taxes in general is always going to increase GDP if government spending remains unchanged, however this will ratchet up the national debt via larger deficits ultimately leading to higher borrowing costs and more painful taxes later. Quantitative easing will likely end this fall. This will (and already partially has based on bernakes recent comments) ratchet up interest rates and quickly make debt payments extremely costly You can see based on yield curve history rates are already rising and will dramatically rise when the program ends. http://www.treasury.gov... Bernake has already said that debt will be a huge long term drag on the economy. http://www.youtube.com... In the short term lowering taxes on anyone/anything will benefit GDP. However I believe my opponent will agree that long term health of the economy is of far greater import.

Taxes should be decreased for the Rich Point 1: The Rich make a significant contribution to GDP through buying. They buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP. "The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together."[3] Point 2: The Rich create businesses. Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more they spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment. "The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year."[1] This means that the more money businesses have, the more they will expand, thus creating jobs. If the rich had more money, the same principal would apply. "Lower taxes on the rich will allow them to invest more money into the the US marketplace (obviously if they are smart enough to accumulate and hold onto the money they are smart enough to invest). By investing this money they produce jobs, they produce capital goods which create cheaper goods for the population to enjoy. THe taxes are still too high even with the bush "tax-cuts". Does it make sense that taking money away from the producers of the nation that all of the sudden jobs will be created? Of course not."[2] "The issue boils down to simple economics. Paraphrasing the columnist Daniel Henninger: we can't create new jobs and eat them too. If the United States wants the jobs that small businesses create, then the government cannot confiscate an even greater share of the incomes that generate those jobs."[3] Point 3: The Rich pay a 45% tax rate, and the bottom 50% pay no taxes. "The top 3% earn 30% of all income and pay 52% of all income taxes."[3] "Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as "greedy" and "selfish" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it."[4] Point 4: The Rich give a lot to charity "Those making over $200,000 account for 36% of all charitable contributions."[3] [1]:http://www.bloomberg.com... [2]:http://answers.yahoo.com... [3]:http://www.demint.senate.gov... [4]:http://rightwingnews.com...

Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% The top 1% does not need to pay 20% taxes. I see you mentioned Reagan brought prosperity. He began the spiral downwards that our economy is still in. Barack Obama actually kept 97% of the Bush Tax Cuts, and I don't see the debt going down. Bush spent 4-6 trillion on the wars, and since Obama's administration ended it, we are moving towards a balanced budget. Obamacare is not relevant. You are not fighting for the actual topic, you are simply bashing Obama. I do not like Obama, but I give credit where it is due. Bush deserves none and Obama deserves some for helping poorer people out with the Affordable Healthcare Act, and ending a decade of war. By the way: to further destroy your Bush argument, his administration had the worst deficits in American history. Guess who is lowering the budget deficit, even with "Obamacare"? "They pay about half of their income." Funny, the high for corporations is 35%, and the high for individuals is about 39.5%. I'm sorry, they don't need 1 billion dollars per year. No sources due to time constraints.

Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work Our job creation problems is actually fairly simple to solve. We need to tax corporation who outsource their labor... who is going to replace the cheap labor you ask? Easy...The people who collect unemployment need to be put to work. The government pays the unemployedï¿½, the corporations pay the government the same wage they paid the overseas worker. (maybe the government will break even, they can use the rest of the money to help the unemployed - skill training, counseling, home assistance) You might see this as slave labor for the corporations, but i say So you rather see people collect unemployment checks, and drain our economy further? What is the point of people sitting around collecting checks.... Put these people to work, maybe they will learn a new skills at this job... Maybe they will make valuable connectionï¿½s that can lead to a real job. Obviously these jobs are going to very low level type jobs... Employers might see something in these people that can lead to promotionsï¿½. These are your choices... Outsource OR feel productiveï¿½, learn new skills, make connectionï¿½s. Outsourcinï¿½g is a pure drain!

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. The tepid recovery in the American economy is a testament to how resilient and innovative American businesses are. Just imagine how many more jobs would have been created if the capital gains tax were eliminated!

No guarantee corps will spend tax breaks in Jobs Act. "A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "There is no guarantee that companies will spend the money on such things. Some might use it to pay down debt; others might spend the money on m&a or buy-backs, Richard Koo's book about the Japanese crisis, The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, details how, despite near-zero interest rates, companies focused on repaying debt. There is good news here; the general health of the corporate sector is sound so they might be tempted to use this extra cash to expand payrolls. But by being politically canny in the way he framed this package, the President may have put his re-election hopes in the hands of the CEOs of the S&P 500."

The US should reform its Corporate Tax If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies. Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.

Corporate Tax Should be Lowered My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.

The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class One of the more divisive problems in America is the increasing inequality between the wealthy and members of other classes. The harms that could, and have resulted from this extend to the Occupy Protests in the tail end of 2011, as well as riots With the rich consistently seeming to get richer despite the poor economic climate, many of the less rich within the American economy feel that the state is playing against them, conferring advantages on those best able to lobby politicians and make large election campaign donations. This is problematic when it is state mechanisms that will enable American’s who lack access to costly universities to better educate and train themselves, thus making them more employable thus allowing them to help push the American economy out of recession. A popular consensus has emerged amongst America’s middle class, which portrays the recession as an event triggered by the rich, with rhetoric regarding “Greedy Bankers” playing into the public discourse on the ineffectiveness of state regulation of large financial institutions. The American Jobs Act redresses the balance between the wealthy top tier of American society and its middle and working classes. In doing so, it helps to alter the perception of the rich and their contributions to society. The burdens currently confronted by America’s middle class are addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, payroll tax, a pay-as-you-earn tax that is withheld from employee’s wages, will be significantly reduced. As such, any families with a large number of working members will be subjected to a much lower tax burden. This would provide a tax cut of around $1,500 to a typical American family.2 Given also the higher tax burden placed on the rich with this tax, and the system that results is likely to be skewed more strongly in favour of working Americans. Further, changes in the taxation system will also be able to sure up any loopholes that have been exploited by the rich to avoid taxes. Finally, the jobs act redresses problems where the largest subsidies go to things such as charitable giving and mortgage interest – presumably things which are paid by people who need subsidies the least. Caps will be placed on such tax breaks under the act and as such, money will be more likely to go to people who need it more – the poor or unemployed. In bringing about these changes, better economic circumstances are created for the poor and the balance between rich and poor is likely to become smaller.3

Supply side economics has proven a major failure. Robert Creamer. "Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich." Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: "The 'supply side experiment' turned out to be a colossal failure. For eight years, George W. Bush applied the theory in its purest form: increase tax breaks to the rich, eliminate regulations on Big Oil, insurance companies and Wall Street. The results are there for everyone to see. The New York Times reported last year that, 'For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring.' In fact, since George Bush and the Republicans in Congress passed two massive tax cuts, we have seen a massive, secular decline in the creation of private sector jobs."

Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy People don't always spend more when taxes are cut. If there worried about the economy in the future they tend to save not spend more. Also just because business save more money doesn't always mean they will spend it to increase jobs. History epically recent shows that business use these benefits to benefit shareholders directly. Why in the mid 20th century, when corporate taxes and personal taxes where at its highest booming economics. Here's a philosophical question for you to.. That even if what you said was true don't you think that some people, some where would be left out? What your describing is trickle down economics, which doesn't work.

Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Amid the worst financial cataclysm since the Great Depression, one factor remains constant: discussions in the Beltway are centered around deficit reduction and what can be "slashed" from the budget. They speak of short-term pain in order to prevent long-term pain. But who bears the brunt of that pain? The answer is simple: the poor, the middle class, and those struggling to make it. The wealthy, who have done better than ever -- with corporate profits at all-time highs, with the stock market continuing to rise, with taxes lower than they've been since 1950 -- are not asked to bear any of this pain. And why is that? Because many of them -- the Koch brothers, Exxon executives, et al -- are lobbying politicians for breaks and preferences, leading many to claim that we cannot engage in a meaningful discussion on whether to increase taxes for the affluent because, in so doing, we would "be creating too much uncertainty in the marketplace" and "strangling job creators." I'll be making the case that neither of those are so. First, taxes are at historic lows as of now, and many wealthy individuals pay significantly lower than do middle-income and poor individuals. Take Mitt Romney, for instance: his income comes from investments, and thus he can pay a rate as low as 14% on millions of dollars in earnings. Is that fair when a family earning $50,000 is paying a rate of roughly 23%? But this is fair, says Mitt and friends, because the low rate provides for them an "incentive to invest." Let me pose the obvious question to you, though: if we took the advice of Ronald Reagan and Art Laffer -- yes, I went there -- and taxed capital gains as regular income, would you hold your money? Would you funnel more of it to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland? Doubtful. As Warren Buffet pointed out, increases in the capital gains rate pose no deterrent to the willingness to invest. The chief factor is -- as business surveys even point out -- is demand. And right now, demand is struggling because the economy is struggling. The engine of the economy is the demand function -- consumers of modest incomes who spend roughly 100% of what they earn because they have to in order to survive, as opposed to their affluent counterparts who are more apt to save any increase in what they earn. But, say conservatives, saving is a good thing: a dollar saved is a dollar invested, so goes Say's Law. This is also a fallacy, rooted in an assumption. Investment decisions, as I stressed, are rooted in the demand for the product. Without demand, it doesn't matter how many resources companies and investors have -- they're simply going to horde them until the economy improves (or invest them overseas). In fact, executives are sitting on roughly $2 trillion in capital that they're not investing. Tax rates are at all-time lows. Why aren't they investing that money? Because doing so will create a "glut" of capital. With zero-bound interest rates, it is actually a good investment now to simply hold cash. Finally -- since I would like to leave a number of topics fairly open at this point in the discussion -- I would like to tackle the most commonplace arguments for tax cuts: the notion that they have created jobs. Here's the truth: rates were as high as 91% in the three decades following World War II, and yet we saw the most prosperous economy in American history. But wait, conservatives say: No one paid 91%! While they're partially correct, effective rates were as high as 56-58% -- significantly higher than they are now. Bill Clinton, again, raised taxes, and oversaw a booming economy. But as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and even Barack Obama cut taxes, the U.S. economy stagnated; in the case of Reagan and Bush, deficits spiraled out of control, and Reagan even raised taxes 11 times. I thought the point of the Laffer curve was that, if taxes are cut, the federal government would take in more revenue. Why didn't that happen? Because the rate would need to be as high as 70-80% to find ourselves on the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve. Now, rates are nowhere close to that point. So, let me make my position clear: I do not believe that marginal rates should be returned to what they were under Einsenhower. Simply, I'd like tax rates that allow the federal government enough revenue to invest in roads, bridges, highways, education, health care, job training, research, green energy, etc -- all the things that in which we collectively invest in order to create a better society -- in order to create jobs and prop up a deeply depressed economy. What the actual rate ought to be is not of much concern to me, and I can't say I have a figure offhand. The fact of the matter is, we know from the data and from history that the wealthy are not going to take their businesses elsewhere; that the economy will not shed jobs; that there will be no calamity. With that said, I welcome any challengers, and eagerly await a vigorous discussion.

Small businesses depend on product demand, not tax breaks for wealthy A 2010 Congressional Budge Report Found: "Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for [small businesses ] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products." In other words, if you're worried about the fragile state of the economy and you want to do something to make sure recovery is not set back, there are any number of more effective ways to spend that money. Continuing to help states pay their Medicaid bills would be one.[6]

better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally I accept my rivals challenge My challenge as I understand it is to defend the tax cuts of those who invest in industry. Investor in industry in America use money to build up many type of businesses. Many of these businesses are small up and coming "shops" that exist only do to the investment of others. These investor contribute to forming many new businesses which in turn hire other people as employees. These people then use the money they earn to spend on items they need and want this helps the economy. I argue against my rival in the idea that tax cuts on both parties are needed to create jobs in the private sector. It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work. Maybe even more so on investors part.

Taxes on the Rich should be Increased There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs. There is an extensive academic literature on this subject, and it all lends itself to the same conclusion: tax cuts are not conducive to growth, but is to income inequality and middle class stagnation. First, let’s discuss the reality of the current state of taxation in the United States. Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute, in examining post WWII tax rates, noted this observation (1): Since the end of World War II, U.S. top individual income tax rates have declined markedly, as have effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances. Consequently, the federal tax code has become much less progressive (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate has fallen from just over 90 percent in the 1950s, to 70 percent in the 1970s, to 50 percent in the mid-1980s, to 35 percent for most of the past decade (TPC 2013a). The taxable income cutoff above which the top rate is applied for married joint filers has also fallen precipitously, from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars), to roughly $1 million in the early 1970s, to just $388,350 for 2012 (TPC 2013b). The overall decline in progressivity is most striking within the top income percentile: The effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile (i.e., 99.99–100 percent of filers by income) has fallen by more than half, from 71.4 percent in 1960 to 34.7 percent in 2004, versus a decline for the 99.5–99.9 percentiles from 41.4 percent in 1960 to 33.0 percent in 2004 (Piketty and Saez 2007). To elucidate this piece, here are his conclusions: 1. Tax rates, which ranged from 70 to 91% in the first three decades of the post-WWII era, have fallen substantially. 2. Effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have fallen as well. 3. The tax code, with time, has become increasingly less progressive. We also have data telling us that the tax systems in most states are regressive – that is, a disproportionate portion of the burden is falling on lower-income people – as many states move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes (2). At the same time, corporations are getting giant breaks. Not only are they low by historic standards, as Thomas Hungerford points out (3); the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice conduced an extensive study (4) of 288 Fortune 500 companies over a 5 year period, and came to the following conclusions: 1. 111 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing paid negative tax rates. 2. One third paid no federal income tax less than 10 percent over the period. 3. The average tax rate was only 19.4%. 4. 55 of the 288 companies enjoyed several years of new taxes, with a total of 203 years of no taxes. So, now we have examined the evidence as to the current state of taxation. Let’s review: 1. Many states have regressive tax burdens. 2. The very affluent have seen their tax rates at near historic lows – in spite of significant growth in the post-WWII era with significantly higher tax rates – and are enjoying significant breaks on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, who have been forced to shoulder the burden. 3. Corporations are receiving unheard of breaks. So, we know that the essence of trickle-down economics is already in play: taxes are already low. What are the results, however, of these breaks? Let’s go back to Andrew Fieldhouse, whose study concluded this: Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth—private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity—nor on overall economic growth rates. Interesting. But what about the Laffer Curve, conservatives may ask? Is there not a point beyond which the government simply cannot raise taxes lest it loses revenue? Of course there is. But what is that rate, and are we anywhere near it? Fieldhouse addresses this, as well: Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate…. Historically, decreases in top marginal tax rates have widened inequality of both pre- and post-tax income. Emmanuel Saez and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond also weighed in as to what the effective tax rate ought to be, and concluded that the optimal tax rate on high-income Americans would be 70% (5). We also have data from a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Service (6). Here is their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. For more on income inequality, let’s go to Robert Reich (6): During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. And, for a bit more, let’s go to Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, who cites World Bank economist Branko Milanovic (7): From 1988 to 2008, Mr. Milanovic found, people in the world’s top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 60 percent, while those in the bottom 5 percent had no change in their income. And while median incomes have greatly improved in recent decades, there are still enormous imbalances: 8 percent of humanity takes home 50 percent of global income; the top 1 percent alone takes home 15 percent. Income gains have been greatest among the global elite — financial and corporate executives in rich countries — and the great “emerging middle classes” of China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. But how bad is income inequality? Let’s ask Stiglitz: Last year [2012] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 percent, 11 percent. Ninety-five percent of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. Recently released census figures show that median income in America hasn’t budged in almost a quarter-century. The typical American man makes less than he did 45 years ago (after adjusting for inflation); men who graduated from high school but don’t have four-year college degrees make almost 40 percent less than they did four decades ago. So, there is certainly a moral argument at play: the middle-class has stagnated since the 1980s – the rise of Ronald Reagan, and the inception of the supply-side economics experiment we’ve been experiencing for about 34 years now. But what are the economic effects of income inequality? Should we be worried that income inequality is constraining the economy? Yes, says Stiglitz again. He makes the following four arguments: 1. Income inequality will lead to underconsumption, as the rich spend relatively smaller portions of their income than poor people due to the diminishing marginal returns of income. 2. Income inequality leads to a waste of human talent, as the non-affluent cannot access high-quality education as readily as rich people. 3. Income inequality gives way to financial crises. 4. Income inequality lowers tax receipts. And we also know that income inequality in the United States, coupled with social mobility, is significantly lower than it is in Europe. We know that countries in Europe – Finland, Germany, Norway, et al. – and even the U.S. in the three decades post-WWII had higher tax rates, more government investment, less income inequality, and more growth as a result. European countries also beat the U.S. on health, life expectancy, happiness, economic mobility, etc. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming, and there isn’t much time to waste. Supply-side economics is a fantasy. Sources: 1. http://www.epi.org... 2. http://www.itep.org... 3. http://www.epi.org... 4. http://www.ctj.org... 5. http://pubs.aeaweb.org... 6. http://robertreich.org... 7. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Should Taxes Be Raised Exponentially For The Rich To understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1,2] Dr. Laffer also says: "Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs." [1] History To understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth. I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts When President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus. Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,3] II. Kennedy Tax Cuts John F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 25% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue. Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1] III. Reagan Tax Cuts When he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility. The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. [1,4] Sources 1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web. 2. http://www.debate.org...... 3. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print. 4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.

Reduces the price of goods If income tax is eliminated and a consumption tax is enacted, an immediate reduction in cost of goods is received. To put it simple, think of the amount of income tax taken out in corporate and personal tax to build let's say a car. Not only is the consumer paying income tax on his income, the persons and corporations up and down the assembly line do also. The engine maker, chassis, bumpers, tires, steel, wiring, etc... All of these income taxes will not be part of the cost. Therefore a vehicles cost would be reduced according, this would be the same rather it be a home, camera or a number 2 pencil. Most estimates have been around 25% to 32% overall. So a vehicle costing $20,000 to produce would now only cost $15000, now how much more competitive will American goods be, and the consumer would be getting a much better deal on goods and services when this is passed on.

better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally "It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work" this seems to be the essense of con's argument. he earlier says that investors in general "spend on items they need and want and this helps the economy". i don't dispute this. all i'm arguing is that it's better to give tax breaks to those we specifically are creating jobs and new businesses, as that is in society's better interest than investments in general. other investments would obviously be made, given people will always want profit... even if they are not made as much. what we will have on balance is more jobs and new businesses (more stimulant for the economy) per dollar the taxpayer spends. con has not shown why it's better to spread a set money around to everyone, as opposed to focusing it on job business creators more specifically. he just asserts some benefit that would be caused if we did, not giving an over all picture.

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. But what is your time as a CEO worth? In the current tax scenario, going through all of the effort of opening a new store and hiring people is going to net you $120,000 more than if you just went to the beach and let your money sit in the markets ($360k vs. $240k). I agree that most folks will keep working for that type of gain. But not everyone, because no one actually likes working hard, and passive investment income sounds pretty good too.However, in the high tax scenario, going through all of that effort of running a business only is gonna make yoU $90k more than the passive investing strategy ($270k vs. $180k). For at least some CEOs, they'll look at that tradeoff and decide their time is more valuable, so they'll head to the beach and hang out. Now think about if we eliminated the cap gains tax entirely. Then the same CEO is looking at a potential difference of $150k ($450 vs. $300) in reward for his time, since no taxes will be paid at all in either scenario. This is clearly the most likely to encourage the CEO to go ahead and invest his time in growing the business.

The United States should abolish the Capital Gains Tax. We affirm. Resolved, the United States should abolish the Capital Gains Tax. Framework: Economic benefits outweigh all others Our sole argument is small businesses Forbes Magazine in 2017 reports that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, as they make up 99% of all firms and over half of the employment. Abolishing the capital gains tax would help small businesses in two ways. First, it encourages Venture Capitalism Specifically, Kai Ryssdal17 of Emory University explains that venture capitalists specialize in small business investment as they"re willing to take risks by investing in young firms. As a result, Ryssdal finds that over 20% of US Small Businesses are funded by venture capitalists. Conversely, for high growth start-ups, Mohendra Gupta of Stanford University explains that venture capitalists are important because they ensure long-term investments and better opportunities for future funding. Unfortunately, Ernst Young in 2015 of the Alliance for Savings and Investment reports that the capital gains tax discourages venture capitalism funding due to the high costs for a small reward. Ultimately, abolishing the capital gains tax is key to increasing venture capitalism as Paul Gompers14 of Harvard University explains that a 1 percent decrease in the capital gains tax increases venture capitalism by 3.8 percent. Second is through reducing investment abroad Diana Roth15 of the Manhattan Institute explains that high capital gains tax rates encourage the flow of investment outside of the US and into foreign markets. Accordingly, Todd Mason14 of the American Enterprise Institute finds that the United States has a capital gains tax rate over 10% higher than the OECD average. In fact, James Jackson17 of the Congressional Research Service concludes that investment abroad increased 4.5 times more under the high taxes of Obama compared to the low taxes of Bush. Fortunately, Eric Toder12 of the Brookings Institute finds that by abolishing the capital gains tax, the United States would become a more desirable location for small businesses because it would give them a fair competitive stance in the market against the current big businesses. Supporting small businesses is important because it creates jobs. Phil Krepen95 of the Institute for Policy Innovation finds that historically, small business growth has surged during times of low capital gains taxation. Increasing the growth of small businesses is imperative for job growth as David Robinson17 of Duke University explains that previously missed attempts at funding small businesses could provide for 85,000 new jobs annually. Accordingly, Michael Mazerov16 of the Center for Budget for Policy and Priorities reports that small business jobs are critical as they"re historically more sustainable and longer lasting. Karen Campbell of the Heritage foundation thus finds that repealing the capital gains tax will send a strong signal that the US is open for business. For all these reasons I am incredibly proud to affirm.

Taxing the rich will benefit our economy Since Both my opponent and I have forfeited, it seems best that I will further argue my first argument in this round, while attempted to refute my opponents as well. Since both my argument and my opponents are somewhat similar (though arguing opposite ends), and we will have no last round purely for rebuttals, I will try to refute his argument here, since I laid out my argument in depth in the second round. My opponent starts by making this statement: "The problem with the U.S economy is that our government has their hand in the free market which is causing a kink in the natural course of capitalism." Since the policies of Alexander Hamilton in George Washington's government (the first Administration in US history), the Federal Government has played a role in the economy. Hamilton's policies were markedly protectionist. [1] This myth that the "free market" is self regulating and that there is a "natural course" of capitalism is superstition. Every presidential administration in history has levied taxes and regulated the economy, so to attribute economic recession to this is inaccurate. Moreover, my opponent asserts that "Capitalism only involves the private sector". This is also false. For example, the issuing of government bonds is capitalism. The government guarantees a return rate for investment- which is the most simple and fundamental role of capitalism. Moreover, capitalism relies on the existence of incorporated businesses (called corporations) to create shareholders and distribute risk, but a corporate charter has always been awarded by the US government. My opponents biggest mistake in attacking my argument is stating that infrastructure spending causes "temporary" jobs. True, if the government pays a construction worker to build a bridge, when the bridge is finished his job is finished, but then all service sector jobs are temporary. But the true misunderstanding of my opponent is that while the construction worker may only have a temporary employment, his income that is spend into the economy causes permanent growth, which on a large enough scale raises demand, and thus incentivizes the private sector to hire for "permanent" positions. If my opponent understood my position as merely arguing that public works would lower the unemployment rate directly, I must have been unclear. My argument, the Keynesian argument, the argument of established economic policy accepted by economists, is that the income by temporarily hired people will be spent back into the economy, which creates growth. My opponents scenario is dead wrong. I have worked for several small businesses, and have discussed his scenario with my bosses many times. Consider my opponents scenario: the economy is stagnant (as it is now), and small business owners have given a 50,000 tax cut. Since business is not very good, due to the economy, hiring a new employee for 25,000 a year would cost more to the employer than he would gain in productivity. This is a very simple truth. In a time when there is no demand in the economy, hiring is always a direct loss. Capitalism is all about creating the largest profit possible, and even if small businesses' tax rate was reduced to 0%, hiring would not increase. An employer simply subtracts wages from productivity and if the difference is negative, he will put the tax cut in the bank, where it allows for greatest profit. Therefore, my opponent is incorrect in his assertion that supply creates demand, and capitalism is a top down structure. The great disposable income the consumer has, the more money is spent into the service economy. And while the Christian Scientist Monitor article you cited states that the rich pay the highest taxes, you forget to mention that in the past 5 years the percentage of total income earned by the top 1% in the US is at record highs [2]. In 2007 the top 1% earned 23.5% of all income in the US, and this number is rising. So, if the richest Americans have received greater proportional wealth since the beginning of the recession in 2008, why has there been increasing unemployment. Whether you like Obama or hate him, there is one thing we can all agree on: he is ineffective in passing his agenda. The tax structure is identical to that under Bush. Corporate profits in 2011 were the highest in 60 years [3], yet hiring is at a standstill. This is easily explained. Since demand is still so low in the economy, the wealthiest Americans and corporations still have reason to invest in new employees. Reluctant corporations holding assets to keep profits high instead of hiring people is capitalism running its "natural" course. Instead of allowing the wealthy to sit on assets and wait for the economy to recover, we the people through our government ought to instead reinvest these funds into the middle class, creating a boom in income, and a boom in spending. Since most middle class people spend all of their income, increasing their income would increase activity in the markets, which would in turn increase growth in the private sector, and make hiring a new employee a net gain in the productivity the employee creates. Thank you [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.economist.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...