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

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: 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.

Title: Taxes on the Rich should be Increased Content: 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...

Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: I accept

Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: 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.

Title: Job Creation/Stability Content: 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.

Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: 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...

Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: "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...

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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...

Title: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Content: 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...

Title: There should be no minimum wage. Content: No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue. As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.Let's address some of your other points:"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls. That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!

Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: 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.

Title: It would encourage low income earners to work. Content: Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.

Title: Jobs Act would benefit cities like NYC Content: 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].

Title: flat tax Content: I agree with a flat tax. You show me why not and show another type o tax that you would think works better. It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers from not only the lowering of the income tax brackets but the elimination of both the business side and employee side of payroll taxes. U.S. federal tax rates go as high as 35% in 2011, and additional surtaxes are scheduled to hit when Obamacare kicks in. On top of that, employers and employees both pay 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% per employee. All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate. So if your taxable income is $50,000 and your average tax rate is 40% counting payroll taxes, under Cain's plan, instead of $20,000 in taxes, you would only have to pay $4,500, for an extra $15,500 in take home pay! Regardless of your income level, those people that pay income tax will receive a cut. Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy. People who criticize the flat tax plan and emphasize its riskiness ignore the vast number of problems & riskiness of our current job-killing, de-motivating, freedom-sapping tax system. http://www.hermancain.com... http://www.forbes.com...

Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: 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.

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: Taxing the rich will benefit our economy Content: Finally! Thank you for accepting! In this debate I will show how increasing the wealthy's tax rates will hurt the U.S economy. First argument: Taxing the super rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion. It is the wealthy, who primarily create jobs and provide capital for business expansion. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, the wealthy account for the majority. Obama classifies the "super rich" as having a $250,000+ salary. These are the people who are trying to expand their business. By increasing their tax rates, we reduce the necessary cash flow needed for expansion. Second argument: There is no way we can tax those in excess of "super rich" without discouraging all other Americans from investing. There are two types of income, earned and unearned. The warren buffets of the country (who far exceed Obama's "super rich" classification) do not have much earned income. They have unearned income, which is systematically withdrawn to receive special taxation, called capital gains. The only way to tax those who far exceed "super rich" is to increase capital gains rates, which discourages the rest of America from investing.

Title: The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses Content: 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

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: Taxes and the U.S. Government Content: For taxes to be greatly lowered in our society we first need to reduce our spending. Government does not generate revenue, the people do, everything that the 'government' spends money on is funded by the people (their taxes). To cut taxes we need to reduce government spending, this includes cutting major government expenditures such as welfare and warfare (defense spending). By cutting our spending we can reduce our taxes which will benefit the individual and the economy. Any form of tax cut such as the Bush Tax cuts would be beneficial to the economy such as creating jobs and expanding growth. Over the last 100 years taxes have increased greatly and the amount of different types of taxes have also increased dramatically (1). The federal income tax was not even a tax in the United States until the early 1900's through the passage of the 16th amendment which was a controversial amendment to pass. Even after its passage the income tax did not even effect most people until the 1950's and 1960's, up until that point only a certain percentage of Americans payed income tax (2). If we reduce our unnecessary spending through cutting certain programs (privatizing programs) and bringing our troops home we can reduce our taxes and even eliminate most taxes like the income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org... (1) http://www.loc.gov... (2)

Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: 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.

Title: Obama's tax plan is idiotic. Content: First of all Obama isn't raising the corporate tax, he's keeping it around the same with a small cut, but he's taking away loopholes that allow the corporations to sneak out of an estimated $1 trillion in taxes. (. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) Obama will raise taxes for companies that make obscene profits, such as the oil companies. (. http://www.nysun.com...) and he'll lower the tax for start-up companies. Maybe what confused you is that the New York Sun article said in the first paragraph that Obama planned to raise taxes on corporations, but it later specified that taxes would only be raised on companies like oil companies, who have obscene profits. Obama also plans to raise the capital gains and dividends tax, but those are not on corporations, but on Wall Street stock holders. Obama will also eliminate tax breaks for companies who ship their jobs overseas, making it better economically for companies that keep their jobs in the US. Obama will stop tax money from being wasted on the Iraq war and put it into creating jobs, including green jobs, which serve a double purpose of providing jobs and helping the environment. Obama will increase taxes on the top 1 percent of the population, who won't end up dying on the street because they can't afford their fifth house and will lower or eliminate it for those in poverty, who actually could end up on the street. No taxes will be raised for those who earn above $250,000. This plan seems much too good for an idiot to think up and my common sense tells me this plan is not only good, but great. Taxes up for those who can afford it, down for those who can't, what a great idea. Not only that, but I can be confident that the tax money will be invested in worthwhile endeavors, not the pork barrel projects of the past. Barack Obama's record has proved this. Call me an idealist, but if ideals become reality, they aren't ideals anymore.

Title: Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: 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...;

Title: Should Taxes Be Raised Exponentially For The Rich Content: 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.

Title: Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Content: 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.

Title: The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed Content: Let me respond to the rebuttals and provide a final statement. We DO live in a different era than the "Work Together" era. Bipartisanship itself is not bad, but it's important to understand that all this "bipartisanship" has brought us to a $14 trillion debt. Now, it is vital to get serious about cutting spending and reducing tax rates on job-creators. We can't increase revenue with payroll tax cuts because they are focused toward the poor. They won't have to pay taxes on their extra income because they don't pay income taxes. If we cut corporate taxes, that extra money will go to creating jobs, which means more people will pay income tax. "The infrastructure banks have done exceedingly well"-which is exactly why you said our infrastructure is failing, right? And roads haven't improved since the first stimulus. The National Bank can be used to fund bad things. $3.4 million was wasted on crosswalks for turtles before: http://abcnews.go.com.... Who says it won't happen again? This won't help our roads, but it will plunge us deeper in debt. It takes time to get roads built with the litigation process. Sometimes, a bureaucracy blocks construction after millions of dollars are set aside. I'm saying that there are better ways besides the payroll tax. And eliminating the corporate tax and cutting individual rates would cost less than Obama's stimulus. In my plan, we make up the lost revenues because all the money is injected right into the private economy to create jobs. These employees will pay payroll and possibly income taxes, making it cost less than expected. You told me to refrain from using words like "fear-mongering". But you never addressed any of my evidence. Private schools do have teacher's unions, but they don't have the same kind of power. A principal can simply fire a teacher at any time for any reason. There are also some big Catholic schools, and they also do well with less money. I was referring to dollars per student. The infrastructure bank does route to private companies, but it goes through a bureaucracy first that isn't good at determining which projects will actually help our economy and improve our infrastructure. Let's divide the work into states and localities, so our infrastructure will be better. Then, we unite and succeed. I said that corporations could band together. They can work together toward a common goal too, not just government. Here is my evidence about unemployment benefits increasing the jobless rate. It even comes from a left-wing news website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... The Rahn curve explains that when government gets too big, the private economy grows less. http://www.heritage.org... But the money will dry up, and more appropriations will be needed so the construction employees will keep their jobs. So the $3 billion price tag means $300 billion in a century. The rich don't hoard their money-they invest in it to create jobs. And there are very few billionaires-your plan would also hurt people who earn $250,000 a year-which is not wealthy in many parts of the country. Some form of socialism may be OK as long as it is predominantly capitalist, but telling the rich to pay more when they already pay so much in taxes is a hard line into socialism. Yes, all countries have a little socialism, and frankly, they'd be better off if they had a lot less. The Democrats were the ones who promoted subprime mortgages. Payroll tax cuts are too inefficient and won't grow the economy quick enough for it to be worth it. All in all, the American Jobs Act is another partisan piece of legislation from the Community Organizer in Chief. Let's get working on real economic growth, not short-term gimmicks. I urge a negative ballot.

Title: Lowering Taxes is not Beneficial to the Economy Content: 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.

Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: 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.

Title: 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 Content: 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

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: 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.

Title: Governments and Corporations should focus their economies towards individuals. Content: Opposition believes that job creation is essential in developing a country’s economy. When more people are employed, the economy is more likely to boost the economy. Through government support, more of the population will be able to be entrepreneurs to create new businesses. Job creation is the redeeming quality of companies. The role of companies in the economy is to decrease the rate of unemployment and to see money being circulated in the economy, since people will have stable employment. Govts in general are obligated to regulate the economy as it is focused toward the people and to be free of any corruption or unethical practices. The role of taxes as well as government is to generate sufficient revenue to finance public sector activities toward the citizens, and employees. A government should prioritize its concerns about corps to better their citizens. Taxes also fulfill the need and desire for increased public services, and the capacity to levy taxes effectively. “No one likes taxes. People do not like to pay them. Govts do not like to impose them…While necessary, taxes impose real costs on society. Good tax policy seeks to minimize those costs.” Especially in situation with less regulation and tax cuts are going to be actuated, more corps seek chances to exploit their workers, manipulate their investments, and go against human rights. The investment and financial resources, which would be in the hands of big corps, does not fall to the hands of workers or citizens. Regulations and taxations are a means for governments to scrutinize companies and make sure that they have standards on employment and practices. Govts are not only involved in economics but also mandated to reflect many other social factors too including concerns about fairness and feasibility in dealing with their people. While individual corps is interested soley on profits, govt should examine the big picture and try to impact the economy holistically. 1-http://goo.gl/sohdy

Title: 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 Content: 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.

Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: "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

Title: Progressive taxes help increase employment rate Content: Erkki Koskelaa. "Tax progression is good for employment in popular models of trade union behaviour". Elsevier Science B.V. 1996 - Using three popular models of trade union behaviour — the monopoly union, the ‘right-to-manage’ and the efficient bargain model — as the framework for analysis, this paper provides the unambiguously negative answer that under plausible assumptions an increased tax progression lowers wages and is good for employment in all three popular models of trade union behaviour. This means that the effects of taxation appear to be very sensitive to the structure of labour markets."

Title: Free trade creates more jobs (and better ones) than it destroys Content: 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"

Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: 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...

Title: Taxes should be decreased for the Rich Content: 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...

Title: The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed Content: It is of my opinion that the American Jobs Act should not be past. This Keynesian economic approach has been tried before and failed numerous times. FDR tried to tax-and-spend his way out of a recession and we had nearly a decade of 20% unemployment. While our current economic situation isn't as bleak, it would still do no help to pass the American Jobs Act. I will critique each element of the act and explain why I am opposed to it. 1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees. While cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth is not a bad strategy, you can get a lot more bang for your buck in other places, particularly by eliminating the corporate income tax. That would only cost $191 billion and would have a tremendous impact on economic growth, particularly if we make it permanent. Businesses would flock to the United States because of our low taxes. 2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults. Spending billions on a program such as Pathways Back to Work is inefficient. The best way to expand opportunities for low-income youth is to expand charter schools so they have an opportunity to escape their failing public school. An expensive jobs-training program has too much potential for abuse. 3. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects. There is no such thing as a shovel-ready job. It may take years for a project to be approved given our current litigation system. A deficit-neutral way to create jobs would be to streamline regulations and make it easier for construction projects to be approved. 4. Spending $49 billion on extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries. Unemployment benefits should not be extended. They do more harm than good because they encourage laziness. Many people have been on unemployment for 2 years. They receive money for doing nothing and that is not just a waste of money but violates the dignity of that person. Unemployment would go down if we cap the time period for unemployment benefits at 1 year or less. People would then be more motivated to find a job. 5. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters This is just code for protecting labor unions. Teachers, police officers, and firefighters have an important purpose, but they are government employees. Having too many government employees is bad for the private economy because it crowds out private investment. 6. Spending $30 billion to modernizing at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges. This would provide little economic stimulus because this modernization would take place next summer. My plan of lowering taxes would create jobs now. Another idea is repatriation of profits: allow all companies to take money back to America tax free. This would inject billions into the economy. 7. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses. The best way to spur construction jobs is through eliminating the corporate tax. This would help a lot more than another stimulus. 8. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital. Similar, streamlining regulations is a better idea than spending more taxpayer money on projects that may take years to be reauthorized. 9. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services. I do not oppose this part of the bill. 10. Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed. While this has good intentions, more regulations mean less jobs. Businesses spend over a trillion dollars on regulatory compliance. That money could be used to add 43 million workers. Finally, to pay for this plan, Obama puts a huge surtax on millionaires and tax and fee increases. Taking money out of the private economy is never good during a recession, even according to Keynesian economic theory. My plan stimulates economic growth by allowing businesses to keep more money to create jobs, streamlining regulations, and restoring economic freedom.

Title: Ability To Recover Content: Prop states that the stimulus pkg(SP) will create jobs and increase consumer spending, this is the same outcome Opp desires; the problem is with the proposed solution. Furthermore, refer to how gov regulations have affected businesses positively in C3. Primarily, prop failed to provide a direct link of SP to the resolution, explanations of how SP will create jobs or put more money into circulation is absent. Furthermore, past SP have been declared a failure. [[http://goo.gl/XC2j5]] Harvard's Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research stated people who get one-time windfalls usually use them to increase savings or pay off debt, neither of which results in the purchase of new goods and services. In this case, the SP cost $160 billion and did nothing for the economy. [[http://goo.gl/O0tC4]] Govts can stimulate an economy through granting consumers, workers and businesses sums of borrowed money. The main impact of SP is an increase in debt; raise future taxes and distort the normal functions of economic markets and personal and corporate decision making. Second, as prop acknowledges, the benefits of SP will be “short term”. Studies by the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that stimulus pkgs and tax cuts would increase the size of the economy slightly and temporarily but would reduce growth in the long term [[http://goo.gl/3uKK7]] Opp is confused about the second part of the prop’s scheme. They say every SP has the risk of inflation which opp definitely wants to avoid, but we would like to focus more on the harms of deregulation and tax cuts, not SP. Moreover, their sources overall provide invalid evidence to back up their arguments, their third one has expired, and their first source talks about mass transits. Prop wishes to see more direct engagement with their arguments as well as the resolution.

Title: Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries Content: I understand what you are saying regarding unemployment rates. However according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, unemployment is at a low of 4.7. Therefore your argument about outsourcing causing more unemployment rates is not necessarily correct. Since some corporations are outsourcing and the unemployment rate is lowering, I disagree that we are harming our economy. As I stated before, outsourcing is justified in the long term by providing more efficiency within a corporation, it also helps the consumer, and lastly the more we outsource the more other countries we also try this practice. I believe that we must look at the federal numbers to prove whether outsourcing is hurting or helping the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor, it is definitely helping. Thank you for your debate.

Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: The raising of federal taxes is in many ways, similar to encouraging the growth and expansion of an already inefficient and cumbersome ie. the current US government. I would like to first point out a few mistakes in side pro's argument which presupposes that things such as medicare and social security are necessary to the country. These "services" are, in fact, neither necessary nor helpful to anyone (not even those who are supposed to benefit from medicare and SS. Now, to present my constructive argument, I would like to say that most of the services provided by the government can actually be provided by private enterprises, which have a track record of providing significantly better services. Rather than heavily taxing those who create jobs, as well as the families who are living paycheck to paycheck, we can instead reduce the tax burden by reducing the size of government as well as the unnecessary services provided by the government. To rebut some of side pro's points: 1. If government were to stop handouts as well as social security, a serious tax burden would be lifted, meaning more jobs and more job opportunities. 2. Privatization happens quickly in the absence of government monopolies on services. Side pro's point is null. 3. Retirees are not, in any way, kept alive by the government but rather by family and work pensions. In fact, lower taxes also mean lower tax burdens on retirees. Thank you. Back to you, side pro.

Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: Increased a LITTLE? The economy boomed! Millions of jobs were created, many areas of government spending was reduced dramatically, and more wealth was created. And you're wrong, revenues increased. One think you have to understand is that congress decides the spending. During Reagan's presidency, the majority of congress consisted of Democrats. They refused to lower the spending as much as Reagan wanted to. America was also battling the Cold War, and so Reagan spent a lot more on defense. It's also important to remember that Reagan had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. The stock market also boomed after he cut taxes. Taxing the wealthy will not work. Unless we tax everyone who makes at least 250,000 a year at 100%, it still would not balance the budget. People will always try to make money in order to put food on the table, but when taxes, regulation, and government spending are the lowest, it creates more opportunities for everyone. Countries like Venezuela, which have incredibly high taxes have fallen apart due to the opposite. I did not say we should cut the programs entirely. No, it's irresponsible to be wasting American citizen's money on a system that so many take advantage of, and is already going bankrupt. So, explain to me how it's not immoral to be taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on something they have no say in. That's the very definition of theft. Haha it's funny how you tried so hard to turn my moral argument around, because the truth is, you know you can't. If you're going to take someone's income away from them, at least acknowledge you're doing it for your own self-interest and face the facts.

Title: Reaganomics worked Content: I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue. Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive. Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.

Title: Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had. Content: excuse me, BUt Taxes are good. there are no problems with Taxes. Taxes prevent media, education, healthcare, transit, infrastructure, policing, military, natural resources and all other government run organizations like festivals Running. lowering taxes leads to privatization of government equities. Low taxes is For the rich not for the poor, by enabling them to suggest the government can't run itself anymore, and privitization would be favourable by giving the government deniability in the case of fraud, bankruptcies and employment insurance. The government sells government equity every time the taxes go down. That is bad. Multiculturalism is not bad So longa s we pay taxes. { Privitazation of media and school allows false information to be taught as Truths, and it is used as a controlling aspect of the country. That is what lower our taxes DID to our country. and Harper was GUIL-T }

Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation. Content: Economy Advantage: Correction the affirmative plan is going to directly create jobs. Jobs provided by the government are endless: Green Jobs, Infrastructure, International Relationships, Community Development. Job loses are slowly dropping and will completely and permanently halt after the passing of affirmative plan, because more people will have jobs provided through the plan and will be putting money back into the economy. When people are putting and investing more money into the economy then more businesses will develop, putting more jobs back on the market. FYI We do solve. The "permanent spending balloon" will solve for the economy because we have already spent so much stimulus as it is that we can only get out of this recession with further spending and stimulation. Extend the 1AC's Impacts of Global Nuclear War causing extinction by econ. Collapse. Racism Advantage: Yes, racism has been in our DNA since the beginning of time and no………. solving for poverty wont completely solve for DISCRIMINATION but it is a step in the right direction. FYI main reasons for continued racism is because of social inequality and lack of opportunity. Pass our plan and everyone is assured a chance at success and opportunity given by the plan erases racism in that area. The plan would solve for racism. Racism is discrimination against race not social classes. Solvency: The solvency presented by the Negative are arguments made for general block grants, not government block grants, not block grants used to fix the economy, just plain block grants by CITIES. And those block grants do not measure the success of a government operated plan. Pull through the 1AC's solvency stating that FEDERAL BLOCK GRANTS ARE SUCCESSFUL when the provide employment. Spending disad: NON-Unique: Spending is occurring in the status and further expenditures by the federal government are inevitable. LINK TURN: Spending is inevitable now, we must now spend to keep from double dip recession. Your Impacts are now inevitable as well. NO IMPACT FOR NEG: Spending doesn't cause econ collapse. AFF IMPACT: Only lack of jobs will collapse an economy. No jobs mean no investments which means no new businesses for jobs which means no consumer spending. No consumer spending is the equivalent of a fail economy. Military Disad: No-Link: 3 quarters of current recruit come from above the poverty line, therefore people join the military for other reasons. NO-IMPACT: Military recruits are lowering terminal defense in status quo. So if we get people out of poverty then there is no impact due to people not being in poverty. We must lead with soft power not hard. China is ever close to our hard power but lacks in our soft power. We need to excel in that area to maintain leadership.

Title: Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust Content: The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration[i]. Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector. [i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...

Title: Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America Content: Thanks con , I must reiterate however how close I have brought Con to agree with me on this topic.I will make my points breif and to the point Agian Con's entire case falls on one statement he supposes that a 10% flat tax rate would not be a feasible way to fund our goverment.Con himself says that our lowest income bracket is 10% so under my proposed flat tax rate indeed the entire middle class would be saveing money and paying less tax.From statistics...americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.Thats right $300 Billion.From the further economic growth that would result from a flat tax it would surely be a better if not equal way of funding our goverments needs and lower the unemployment rate as a result adding jobs would not only cover the tax given by the wealthy but it would give a surplus and spurr economic growth.America could and would be doing much better with a flat tax rate,that is if we want to create jobs , reduce our debt and grow as a nation.Thanks.Sources 1)Logic2)Cons own arguements3)http://www.usnews.com...; Americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.

Title: More People Should be Helped by the Government into College Content: Now, on to business. You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy. Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement. Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough. People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted. Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!

Title: its government Big and Beefy Content: 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

Title: Higher taxes discourage hard work. Content: "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."

Title: corparate companies not paying tax Content: I know that the corporates are making a lot of money. But, they are also the job makers. Without them people will be unemployed. Therefore, corporates are already doing a favor to the society, and therefore they do not need to give more to the society by paying taxes.

Title: Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work Content: "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.

Title: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Content: 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.

Title: The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs Content: 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

Title: Will open opportunities for new businesses Content: If people were able to travel easily to areas slightly out of urban areas then businesses could take advantage of cheaper ground rents out of the city and yet easy access to employees. With more businesses able to start up, the Government would be able to take advantage of more tax. This would mean less benefits paid for unemployment benefit as jobs are created out of the city, and more tax via income tax, and then more tax revenue via corporation tax on the business. This additional revenue could offset the loss of income from public transport. In our dying economy, this is what is needed.

Title: welfare to poor people Content: Lots of people go to these job-training programs, but increasing your skills does not mean there are any more jobs available. According to ed.gov going to job-training programs it leads to you getting lower wages. There are not a lot of these programs available or they can not go. Unless you have been there, like me and my mom currently, you won't see how hard it is and how it keeps you functioning. Also, you can create rolling taxes; the more money you earn the more, not by much, more tax pay.

Title: The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs Content: 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

Title: Jobs Act could create over 100,000 jobs per month. Content: 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."

Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: I don't have time to do this right now. I've been swamped at work. My arguments were going to be, in short -- 1. Lowering taxes on the rich increases income inequality. Income inequality is a serious problem. 2. Economic inequality has a huge set of social harms associated with it. Under almost any value criterion except "GDP growth," I win the debate on this point alone (e.g. if you use a happiness index or something like that to measure policies). 3. It's not clear that the "economic growth" from lowering taxes outweighs the "economic harm" from inequality. There's tons of evidence showing inequality actually slows growth, and possibly slows it even more than lowering taxes increases it. Given the uncertainty there, I'd say it's a clear vote for Con in this debate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the arguments. I'm gonna leave it up to 16k whether he wants to tie the debate and do this another time, or whether he wants to accept a win. Up to him. I'm okay with either one -- not in this for the win stats.

Title: Hillary Clinton better than Donald Trump Content: In my opinion, both are terrible, but Trump is the lesser of the two. For one, Trump has called for abolishing the minimum wage, which is a big plus. His tax plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on all classes. It has been estimated that his tax plan would increase the size of the capital stock by roughly 29%, would increase wages by 6.5%, and give americans 5.3 million more full time paying jobs. Compare this to Clinton's tax plan, where it has been estimated that long run real GDP will drop by 1%, capital investment would drop by 2.8%, and wages would drop by approx. 1%. The US economy needs economic growth. We are nearly a decade past the 08 crash and we are STILL hesitant to raise interest rates from post recession levels. U6 unemployment is still at 9%, inflation isn't budging. There is also the matter of international affairs, while Clinton was pro-middle eastern intervention, Trump was against it. The world plain and simple needs a strong America, lest regional conflicts flare up (see Russia and Urkraine.) Trump would embody strength, I have serious doubts Clinton would be able to do this. In conclusion, both Trump and Hillary are awful in my opinion, but Trump will serve our most urgent needs, and that is economic problems and geopolitical strife. I look forward to engaging in this topic with you further.

Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: 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.

Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: The DebateIn this debate, I will argue that the American corporate tax rate should be reformed and lowered in order to benefit the economy and the government.RulesRound 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Present argumentsRound 3: Refute opponent's argumentsRound 4: Make final cases/refutations and conclusion

Title: Presdiential debate Content: America, home to the strongest economy in the world. In recent years, we have seen this nation crawl through a near crippling recession and an ever growing debt crisis. If I am to be elected, the economy shall be my first and foremost priority. The first and Immediate step towards economic prosperity would be to lower the corporate income tax from our current 35% to 11%. This is, without question, a radical cut. Many may claim that such a cut would be disastrous to our economy. However, such a tax rate is already in place in the nation of Ireland ( 12.5%) If one is to look at Ireland's economy, you will quickly see that Ireland is now the fastest growing pharmaceuticals and technological economy in Europe. Such Corporations as Google, have placed their European HQ in Ireland for the very reason of their very low Corp tax rate. Of the ten largest pharmaceuticals companies in the world, nine of them have an HQ in Ireland. In the last ten years, twenty major US corporations have moved abroad to the emerald isle. In light of all of this massive success that Ireland has obtained, much of it at the expense of the American people, it is only reasonable, nay imperative that we must take up their example, not only as to mimic them, but to rival them; and bring back the corporations that we have lost overseas, and possibly attract more forign business. As to America's great natural resource abundance that God has so thankfully bestowed upon us, we must exploit it. Most Americans believe that most of the oil that we consume comes from the middle east, this would be false. Nearly 40% of all fuel used in the US comes from home. With untapped massive natural oil reserves in Alaska, and small but numerous oil deposits scattered throughout the Midwest, I believe that we can do even better. I believe that if we allow our business both big and small, to fracking into these deposits across the nation, we may be able to reach 60% oil independence. It would be counter productive to ban fracking, as many people across this nation would want, and it would be ignorant to do so on claims that have been discredited by nearly every expert to have delved into the matter. Fracking provides us the opportunity to produce more oil products, and with more oil being produced at home, we will be able to drastically cut back on our imports from foreign nations. Another thing that I will attack is America's spending problem. America spends over 800,000,000$ dollars on health and human services, 600,000,00$ dollars on defense, and 600,000,000$ dollars on education. If I am to be elected president, then I will institute reviews on money distribution and performance rates on all of these programs, and many more. I will systematically cut from the budget what is not being used or misused. Note, that for education and defense and I will not cut any employees. I would then systematically place this new found money in any new or under financed project of the US government. To also curve over spending and artificial interest rates, I would dissolve the Federal reserve. The Federal Reserve has stood since it's beginning only to serve "to big to fail banks" and a few notable European families. They have created a monetary monopoly and have caused this nation to go into recession on more than one occasion. In place of the Fed, I would set up a national bank system to monitor banknote supplying entities. Banknote supplying entities would be supplying the same banknotes at the same price but independently of the federal or state government. The National bank system would keep these entities in check so as to keep the system from becoming to over or under supplied. I have presented what I will do if I am to become president, I do hope that you, the voter, may share in my view of the future. I await my opponents response.

Title: the federal income tax should be abolished Content: when you tax something, you discourage it. you discourage productivity, savings and innovation and ship jobs overseas. we pay taxes on everything we do and the government has an exclusive privilege to our property. we want to encourage production, so we should not tax it. rather, we should tax consumption through a 23% national sales tax. we'd have more jobs and more opportunities with this. businesses right now are already suffering because of obamacare and excessive regulations.

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

Title: The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class Content: 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.

Title: the federal income tax should be abolished Content: 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.

Title: Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth Content: 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

Title: Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work Content: "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.

Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: 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...

Title: Inflation is worse than unemployment Content: The value of the dollar has no value when there are no liquid assets to spend. What I mean by this is simply that inflation lowers buying power but only extreme inflation really has a more tangible effect lowering economic standing to the point where it's crippling however a total lack of assets is definitely fatal to one's buying power and doesn't have a degrading effect against the dollar because there are no dollars to degrade. Unemployment effects three distinct systems which worsen the outcome for all citizens: 1. The Private Citizen: With no money they cannot buy anything. 2. The Corporate Entity: With no buyers they cannot produce profits. 3. The State: With no jobs for the citizens SUTA is reduced, Unemployment is increased with the stores for governmental money being depleted perhaps beyond the fund that SUTA was built for, and no taxation can be collected on other fronts for services provided by the city which create deficits within the city itself. All of this is cyclic however in when the Private Citizen cannot buy from the Corporate Entity the Corporate Entity cannot pay The State which causes the Corporate Entity to leave which lowers job market for the Private Citizen which only worsens unemployment and lowers SUTA taxation which in turn greatly increases the government deficit causing The Government to eventually go bankrupt due to being unable to meet the obligations of it's citizenry. While inflation can indeed raise prices to the point where maintaining person's on payroll is difficult and some have to be released so long as the business itself does not close down it pays SUTA and furthermore it won't leave the locale; if it does not leave then money is generated, or rather funds are passed, and the economic condition of all entities tends to stabilize and survive whatever dryspell is causing the issues such as a recession or even just a change in the natural resources of an area or natural disaster.

Title: John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama Content: New Points: 1.My opponent dropped the argument about $4,000 for college being helpful. We are in FULL AGREEMENT. 2.He agrees that the Bush Tax Cuts are hurtful. 3.Obama will create more jobs for the environment. 4.Obama will send drug users to rehab for part of their prison sentence, which will reduce the amount of drug users. 5.Obama will give the middle class tax cuts. 6.Obama will give all workers 7 sick days a year. 7.Obama will cut income taxes 100% for seniors who make under $50,000. 8.Obama will help fight age, sex, and race discrimination in corporate America. 9.Obama will not be influenced by lobbyists. 10.He will be bipartisan, honest. >>> 'PAYGO wont work.' 'He'll just raise taxes.' +++ PAYGO is a great system and not using PAYGO hurts the dollar. The way that the war is funded is from borrowed money. Borrowing money lowers the value of the dollar. A lower valued dollar makes buying things internationally more expensive, like oil. In 2000, the dollar was 1 Euro. Now, the dollar is $1.60 that of the Euro (even with Bush's experience). This makes oil more expensive for us and when oil is more expensive, gas is more expensive, which hurts the economy tremendously. (http://www.politico.com...) >>> 'Experience important' 'Obama lost popular vote' 'Minimal participation in caucases' +++ Experience is not as important as you're making it. Bush has tremendous experience and neither of us support him. He has 33% approval. +++ Obama won the popular vote. That calculation is a lie. That count doesn't count caucases correctly and skips the whole state of Michigan. +++ Many of the caucases had record turnout. >>> '13 yrs of military experience.' 'Survived due to patriotism' +++ Most of his experience was during prison, which is why he's one of the few people who supported Vietnam War after war. +++ Why would they care how patriotic he was? >>> 'Bitter comment proves Obama is out of touch' +++ Obama was once poor and middle class unlike McCain who is and always was rich. Obama also will give tax cuts to the middle class while McCain will give them to the rich. >>> 'The experience should be in the right places.' +++ Obama was a lawyer, editor, senator, legislator, community organizer. McCain was a marine and a senator. Obama was in all economic classes. McCain was always rich. >>> 'I said McCain's military experience – not the war in Iraq' +++ You said his military experience will help him with the war. And I proved you wrong. >>> 'Leadership.' +++ Obama was the head editor or the law paper at Harvard. >>> 'Legislative' +++ I strongly debated the point. I did not drop it. Stop lying! B) Judgment >>> 'Rev. Wright' +++ This gotcha does not prove anything about Obama's judgment. Nobody leaves a church because they disagree with the pastor on small issues. >>> '3am ad' +++ You said it was a non sequitor. And didn't explain the whole ad. I didn't say the 3am ad justified his whole experience. This was your point! >>> 'Lack of voting' +++ In Chicago politics, abstaining from a vote is responsible. Everybody does it. You know it. The same article also says it was "part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy." ...more lies from you pro... >>> 'Iraq stabilizing' '4000 lives in vain' 'Democracy' 'Security of Petroleum' +++ NPR (one of your sources) says the Iraq War is destabilzing the region and strengthening Iran and Al Qaida (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9914868) +++ More Americans will die if we do not pull out of Iraq. +++ Obama will talk to leaders about democracy instead of shooting their people, which will obviously not bring democracy. +++ My first point shows how the Iraq War hurts oil prices. And damagging ties with OPEC countries, through this war, is obviously not good. >>> This is the most obvious lie you've told yet. PRO said that Obama never opposed the war. I said "Obama did oppose the war! This is a lie! (http://en.wikisource.org......'s_Iraq_Speech)." Obviously, I was referring to his lie about Obama's supporting the war. I wasn't saying what I just said was a lie. My opponent is so desperate, he has resorted to blatant dishonesty to win. >>> 'Pulling out will destabalize the Middle East.' 'Iran will invade Iraq.' +++ Obama will talk with Syria and Iran and make sure they do not go in Iraq. He will use sanction threats, military threats, etc, hard power if necessary. >>> 'Large violence in Iraq' +++ This large violence is because America is killing people over there. We've killed 104,000+. >>> 'Bad war' +++ No. That's really stupid. >>> 'You cannot amend NAFTA' +++ Obama will not stop free trade. He will change little aspects to more benefit Americans, unlike McCain. >>> (ii) +++ No. Still irrelevant. >>> 'PAYGO untenable' +++ No. It is necessary. PAYGO worked from 1990 to 1998 until Clinton got a surplus and Congress started cheating. Then Bush (with his experience) got rid of PAYGO in 2001 for his tax cuts and other acts. >>> '9/11 brought a recession' +++ How would 9/11 have possibly created a recession? Accounting scandals, the burst of the dot com bubble, and Bush's reactions to 9/11 caused the recession. Even with his experience. >>> 'Already competitive bidding' +++ Obama will force all contracts to be bidded so we can get the best price and not run into another Enron scandal. >>> 'Kuschrev bullied JFK' +++ This is completely unsupported but the fact is there was no nuclear explosion on America because of Kennedy's willingness to negotiate. >>> 'Bush never talked to N. Korea' +++ Lies! He did talk to North Korea! (http://www.foxnews.com...) >>> 'Negotiating with Al Qaida will legitimize them' +++ They are already legitimate. The PATRIOT Act, which undermines trhe constitution in fear of Al Qaida is worse than negotiating face to face. They want us to be terrified and talking to them is what will make us not loose. Not letting them do as they please. >>> (Other points:ii) +++ Who is "he?" >>> 'Hitler invaded Poland after negotiations' +++ Negotiating with Hitler didn't cause him to invade Poland. Those talks probably prolonged the invasion. You did drop the point last round: FULL AGREEMENT. The cold shoulder never worked. >>> 'Bush tax cuts' +++ These were in place during his two recessions. Obama will give the money to the middle class who needs it. >>> McCain will not force children to have care, will not force high risk patients on companies, and will not simplify info. Obama's plan still allows you to choose and does all these other nice things. McCain just gives you a mild tax credit. >>> (iii) +++ What? What filibuster? How do you know they wont get 66%? >>> 'Abortion' +++ It's a woman's choice. A neglected child is bad for themselves, the parents, and society. >>> 'Medical infrastructure' 'National debt' +++ McCain will give tax breaks to all Americans. Both plans will give all Americans the option of health care. McCain just lets children die, etc. >>> 'PAYGO fails' +++ The GOP killed PAYGO out of irresponsibility. But it lasted well for 8 years and didn't get revoked for 11 years. >>> 'Iraq War' +++ The increases gas prices, weakens relationships, costs tremendously, and kills people. Stabilizing the region can be achieved through talks and help, not destroying the place. >>> 'Bush Tax Cuts' +++ We're not going in the same order because I have more points than you. Can you please show me where you mentioned Bush Tax Cuts in that round? Exactly! >>> 'Public diplomacy' +++ Talking to other people. >>> 'NCLB works' +++ Prove it! >>> 'Zoning overcrowds schools' +++ I go to a school that was overcrowded due to NCLB. We cant build a new school at every block. We have to divide it reasonably. Not send all the low performing students to a good school and keep the other lower performing students at the bad school. Please vote for the honest debater with the better arguments

Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: Thanks to tcow2970 for initiating the debate.Opening statement will be short, as the nature of the debate demands that pro must uphold the proposition that Taxes were indeed *excessively high* prior to tax reform. Government SpendingOver several decades, overall spending as a percent of GDP has followed a positive trend, as noted by reference [1]. That being said, to supplement such increased levels in spending, we either (a) raise taxes, or (b) accept higher levels of national debt. Option b) is undesirable because long-term debt does play into the devaluation of US treasury bonds, which would eventually reduce the ability to defecit-spend your way out of a recession. Thus, we are left with option a). Suggestions could be made to decrease spending, but such discussion is outside of the scope of this debate.Effectiveness of Reducing Corporate TaxesAs I am not intending to prove that lowering the tax is effective, but rather that the taxes prior to the tax cut are not excessive, I am not required to advocate for any specific position. Instead, I intend to question the impact a reduced tax rate will have on the general economy. Commonly it is said that lower taxes often produce a 'trickle-down effect' - that is, essentially when corporate taxes are lowered, they are better able to finance the cost of a larger number of workers at higher salaries. However, such logic has never actually been verified in practice. It is also important to note that corporate income taxes aren't fixed at the 35% number often thrown around by Republicans. The corporate income taxes rates also follow brackets. [2].References[1] https://blogs-images.forbes.com...[2] https://www.thebalance.com...

Title: increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA* Content: 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. 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] 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 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 CutsJohn 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 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 25,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. [1,4]IV. Clinton Capital Gains Tax CutBill Clinton should also be noticed for his capital gains tax cut. This is important because it is just before his surplus. Clinton decided to cut the capital gains tax and revenue boomed to $131 billion in capital gains revenue. Before that, it averaged $39 billion meaning that it increased dramatically and was a contributing factor to the surplus. This is because less taxes means that more people are willing to make capital gains. More people means more revenue. [5]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. 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.5. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.http://www.youtube.com...

Title: America should have the ACA. Also known as " Obamacare". Content: Good luck to my opponent. JobsBack in the day, most pople had insurance from their employer and that was their plan. You said big corporations were laying off the workers. The ACA has a plan for this. The exchanges were established to create less expensive quality healthcare. Those workers may apply for a subsidy and a tax break. This will help the lower income families by providing them with quality insurance. They may pay more but these plans provide more. Quality is the keyword here. If their employer's plan provided them with bad healthcare they had no choice. Now the government is willing to give medical groups more money. If they provide quality healthcare, which is what the ACA is all about. Focusing healthcare by not the cost but by the outcomes. As for those 603 businesses, they may find it cheaper in the longhaul to buy insurance. Think about this: Employee in hospital= not working=not producing profits. If they are sick they can't do their jobs. If they declare bankruptcy for their bills they may go to court which means even more lost productivity. The WorkersObamacare is subsidized because of the government. The plans were designed to be cheap and reasonable. They cannot charge more because of, gender and pre- existing conditions. It makes it fairer to those people. Also think about those who buy coverage in their 20's and keep it after 65. Let's say 1 million do this it could save the U.S millions. That's 1 million less individuals who bill the government. That's one less person future generations will have to pay taxes for. More people will buy from the government causing many companies who don't deliver to shape up or risk extreme losses. Barebones coverage The people who lost their insurance did so because their plans were not enough. Here's a example. John, 23, has insurance. He has a barebones plan which dosent cover much. Let's say he gets into a car accident and goes to a hospital. They cannot turn him away. They treat him and he gets a bill for $ 40,000. His plan covers 10% of hospital stays. He ends up paying $36,000 and may have to declare bankruptcy. Not to mention any other therapy, follow-up care, and medications. He can't go to work and he may get fired. The new plans cover more at a reasonable price. This way those people get more bang for their buck. Those losing it can maybe get a better deal at a reasonable price.

Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: Taxing American citizens is the opposite of the "responsible" thing to do. First, raising taxes has been proven in the past to fail. When Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowered taxes, the economy soared and millions of lives were improved. Second, when you reward something, you get more of it. When you punish something, you get less of it. Why should we penalize hard-working citizens because Obama went crazy with spending? When small businesses are taxed, they have to make changes that they can afford, which will result in many lost jobs. And when they can't afford to pay the taxes, they close, and even more jobs are lost. Taxes are already relatively high, and you want to put additional burden on people who are trying to provide for their families? And basic economics and math proves that simply taxing the wealthy will not solve anything. Where do we draw the line? How much is too much? How much is too little? How much of the hard-working citizen's money will suffice? And of course we can make cuts for social security and medicaid. They are already going bankrupt. We shouldn't be enlarging these imploding programs. Freedom is a zero-sum system, power given to the government is freedom taken away from its citizens. The government has to cease its endless spending, which is the real problem. The government has gotten too big and it's ruining our economy and putting it on the backs of the next generation. Raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral.

Title: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich Content: 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. 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] 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 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 CutsJohn 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 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. [1,4]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. 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.http://www.youtube.com...

Title: The top 10% should be taxed 90% Content: Now I am not an American so I cannot give any arguments for the USA. Also, if the argument was to be specifically about the USA. It should have been specified at round 1. This is debate.org not debate.usPro's point does make sense in developed nations such as the United States where income is very high. That said, I do infact wish that the richest people in the world are taxed the most, with tax level reducing as the income level reduces. However, the reality of the world in which we live in makes taxing 1 in 10 people 90 % of their income very disadvantageous.In the developing world (where the majority of people in the world including myself live in) it is not beneficial to tax the top 10% as much as suggested by pro.Pro said that point as well"The "trickle-down" theory never worked because companies are not making new jobs with the record profits they are making. They may be making new jobs in China and India, but that isn't helping the USA. That's treason"Yes, the businesses will open up in China and India, generating jobs there for 2/7 of the world's population. Now considering Pro's resolution that 90% tax shall be imposed on the top 10% of India and China, the jobs will never be generated which brings about unemployment etc.Neither China nor India have extremely wealthy top 10% of the population as pro seems to suggest.Even India's top 1% richest people only have an average annual income of 12.5 lakh ruppes or a mere 20,775 US dollarsWe can derive their income after taxes using simple math 10% of 20775 = 20775 x 10/100 which gives us 2077.5$ PER YEAR So the top 1% of the richest people in India will only earn 2,077.5 dollars per year after the taxes which pro suggests. Mind you, this is only the top 1%, I will not even get into the top 5% let alone 10%.Nobody in their right mind will open up a business in India under these conditions. China is better but still not satisfactoryThe 1% richest in China have an average annual income of 91,639 US dollars.This results in them earning a mere 9,163.9 US dollars annually.I am aware that the cost of living is low in China and India and that the top 1% will survive but the profit is so little that few people will open businesses. And again this is only the top 1%, if the same calculations were done for the top 10% or 1 in 10 people, the results will be exponentially more dysmal. This brings up another problem. 'Rich' People who do not want to pay 90% of their taxes in countries like India or China or anywhere else for that matter can a) store their money in swiss banks abroad and avoid paying taxes (which is being done even today) or,b) live in countries with little to none tax, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Staying on with the UAE, another point can be raised from here.The success story of this little nation can be linked to 2 things. Oil and foreign business.Oil is mostly in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE. However oil money from Abu Dhabi benefited themselves only for the most part. Dubai however, does not have a drop of oil. Yet, their infrastructure and economy is far more developed compared to Abu Dhabi. Why?Because Dubai sucessfully attracted millions of expats (and businesses with them) to the city by making it a tax haven (in other words no taxes). This made Dubai go from a desert fishing village to a Global trade Hub and a center for business from all over the world. And of course, this was due to it being a tax haven. This is not to say that all countries should adopt the same strategy (it will not work for reasons I won't get into), it is a good example of what could happen if taxes on the rich are kept at the minimum level required.Conclusion: I demonstrated above that taxes on the so called 'rich' top 1% in developing countries like India and China results in them recieving very little profit money after taxes, they will be unlikely to open large scale businesses. 10% of their population includes a large portion of the middle class, and stripping 90% of their income away from them will result in a 'brain drain' where educated people will emigrate to other places with higher wages and lower taxes such as Dubai, which became the developed city it is today due to its encouragement of people to open businesses by keeping taxes at zero.http://blogs.wsj.com...;http://www.business-standard.com...;

Title: TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON) Content: Opening Argument 1. Kasich would have boosted the economy if elected President, and he has the experience to back it up. a. As governor, Kasich was/is extremely successful in job creation. When he took office, according to the Federal Reserve, the state of Ohio had an unemployment rate of 9.2%. In December of 2015, it was lowered to 4.7%. That's a difference of 4.5%. He was able to do this by utilizing "job-friendly policies" such as cutting income taxes as well as eliminating regulations, which he believes harms small businesses and jobs. Assuming Congress would allow it, which (I'm sure) a majority GOP Congress would, Kasich would apply these same policies as President [1]. b. Also as governor, Kasich made $5 billion worth of tax cuts. He eliminated the 'death tax', a tax applied to large inheritances, and saved taxpayers approximately $650 million. In regards to balancing the Federal budget as President and his experience in the House budget committee, Kasich (in the September CNN debate) said, "I'm the only person on this stage, and one of the few people in this country, that led the effort as the chief architect the last time we balanced the federal budget. When I left Washington, in 2000, we had a $5 trillion surplus and the economy was booming." [1]. c. When he was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Kasich was called the "Cheap Hawk" because of his investigations regarding overspending. As President, Kasich would reduce healthcare, education, and transportation spending and increase military spending [1]. d. Now sixty-three years old, Kasich was only thirty when elected to public office for the first time. He served in the House of Representatives for 18 years, became the Chairman of the Budget Committee in 1994, and served multiple terms as governor of Ohio; he is apparently well-liked in Ohio as he won the state in the Republican primary [1]. 2. Kasich was the only candidate who was projected to defeat Hillary Clinton. On virtually every poll featured on Real Clear Politics projecting a Kasich vs Clinton general election, Kasich had a considerable lead. In fact, his average lead over her was +7.4%. The highest lead Trump ever held over Clinton was +1.1%, and that was with his convention bounce [2] [3]. 3. Anti-Trump Contention It's common knowledge that Trump has said and done some controversial things over his years in the public eye that do not equate to 'presidential behavior'. In the early 1970's, the Trump Organization was sued - twice - by the Justice Department for not renting to African Americans. In 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was fined $200,000 for removing African American card dealers "at the request of a certain big-spending gambler." A former 1980's Trump's Castle employee testified that all African American employees were ordered off the floor and into the back when Donald and Ivana came to the casino. A 1991 book written by former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino recalled Donald referring to black casino employees as "lazy", and that he once said, "I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it." He initially did not disavow David Duke's endorsement, and blamed this on a damaged earpiece. He claimed Gonzalo Curiel could not do his job effectively because of his 'Mexican heritage'. He accused Megyn Kelly of 'menstruating' at the first Republican debate (and called her a bimbo afterwards) and attributed this to how she questioned him. He insulted Carly Fiorina's appearance. He mocked a disabled reporter. This is not a man that is fit to be our president. Now I'll admit that Kasich has called people names in the past, however, he composes himself in a way that is far superior and far more professional than Trump. SOURCES [1] https://www.thestreet.com... [2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Title: Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended Content: Contention 1: Refusing to pass the tax cuts hurts the poor The Republicans and Democrats have recently reached a compromise over the tax cuts; if the Democrats extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, the Republicans will agree to a program which would stimulate job growth through a combination of unemployment insurance and tax cuts for America's poorest citizens. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan could create 3.1 million jobs. Voting for the pro and taking a moral stance against the "rich" is not just if it breaks the backs of America's poorest. Contention 2: It is unfair to punish the rich for being successful Taxing the rich is unjust--it's a punishment for success. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money provides an incentive for fiscal responsibility. Voting con forces the government better fiscal practices-- which are the real key to closing the deficit and reducing our debt, instead of just increasing taxes whenever they screw up. In response to the pro's first and third contentions: We need short term stimulus right now even more than we did when the Bush Tax Cuts were originally taxed. Sure, our government needs tax revenue, but extending the tax cuts creates 3.1 million jobs-- or 3.1 million more tax payers. Improving our economies health in the short run by creating jobs creates the sustainable tax base we need to pay off our debt/reduce our deficit. Furthermore, neglecting to promote domestic consumption-- which is what we need to create jobs and power us out of our current recession-- increases the likelihood that we enter a "double dip" recession. Voting pro creates a "w" shaped recovery. Voting neg creates a "J" shaped recovery. A double dip recession and the massive stimulus required to escape it would put us in an even deeper hole for paying off our debt and closing our deficit. In response to the pro's second contention a) Why should the government be allowed to decide "what a reasonable limit is"? The government's definition of a "reasonable limit" is however much money they want. Unless you can prove that there is no other way to avert financial ruin besides increasing taxes on the rich, deciding to punish American citizens for being successful and hardworking is unjust.

Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: 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.

Title: Increase taxes for the Wealthy Content: P1: Increasing taxes on the wealthy can increase the federal spending budget. With a larger spending budget the government can allocate more funds towards projects such as; low-income housing development, academically focused after-school programs, activity-focused centers for the elderly, employment programs for youth, the homeless, and college graduates, health care, financial aid, improvements on public spaces (e.g. parks, roads, highways), and natural disaster preparedness/prevention. P2: By raising how much the wealthy get taxed it may lower the inequalities that exist between the super-rich, the upper and lower middle classes, and the people living in extreme poverty. C: The United States should increase taxes for the wealthy.

Title: Progressive tax rates stimulate higher consumer activity. Content: As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

Title: Reaganist/Thatcherist/neoliberalist policies are bad for countries Content: Before I set out my primary arguments against Neoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganism, let me first address what you have so far posited. "Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:" - No, they didn't. I'll get to why. "20 million new jobs were created."- Where they? According to the BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) Reagan only "created" 5,322 jobs in his first term and 10,780 in his second. "Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989 " - From what? If it was by 0.2% from 1988 its hardly an impressive feat is it? "The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%." - I fail to see how this is an argument, you are just stating a fact. "Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense build up, which won the Cold War.) " - What is your point? Spending isn't necessarily a bad thing. "Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%."- Production soared; well i'm glad Reagan helped environmental desecration along just fine. "The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak."- Define poverty, that is quite a confusing term. Do you mean Absolute Poverty or Relative Poverty? "The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)"- You previously mentioned this but without data? Strange. Anyhow, I fail to see how an economy can recover for 92 months; at some point the economy stops "recovering" and beings booming, unless it recovered extremely slowly of course, which would not be good for a country. "During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)"-When you say the economy grew you mean GDP increased of course; all this means is the value of all goods, services and assets increased, or their are more goods, services and assets. "In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years."- But in the previous year it was 4.6% and the year after it was 4.2%. This suggests this statistic is an outlier. "The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet."- It created wealth, that's great, but America has the highest Gini Index of any developed country at 0.42 post-tax and transfer, according to the World Bank. Its all very good and well when wealth is created but it matters where it goes for it to benefit a country. What "bad" is bad for a country is very much dependent on one's views as to what constitutes "good" for a country. What I see as good for a country is policy that aims to improve the quality of life and standard of living for ALL citizens of a country via working towards central aim of development and fair redistribution of income via progressive taxation. So in my mind what is "bad" for a country in terms of policy-making are policies that do NOT improve the quality of life and standard of living for all citizens of a country via development and redistribution of income via taxation. Both Reaganism and Thatcherism comprise of 2 strands: social conservatism and economic neoliberalism. While social conservatism isn't necessarily bad for a country's development (for example, making addictive and harmful drugs illegal means not as many people take them, making them more productive citizens who then spend their income on other goods, services and assets rather than addictive and harmful drugs) it does in some aspects prevent a decent quality of life being handed out to all citizens; for example many social conservatives are against gay marriage, which means homosexuals are not allowed the same quality of life as heterosexual people. But neoliberalism prevents ALL citizens from being granted a decent quality of life. By deregulating corporations via cutting corporation tax, deregulating corporations via simplifying or exempting red tape around employment legislation and smashing trade unions (as Margaret Thatcher did) means that workers are unable to argue a fair wage, which means wages are often cut and there is no firm job security. Cuts to employment are made, and the remaining workers are coerced into working harder to keep their job. This in the end means workers work longer hours for less money to keep their job, while the corporations can keep a larger cut of profits that the workers made for the corporations in the first place. This is bad for a country as the state shrinks due to a cut in revenue and a cut to intervention in markets means the education and health of the labour supply deteriorates, the infrastructure of the state collapses and the effectiveness of law enforcement collapses. This in the end is neoliberalism shooting itself in the foot. Neoliberalism itself is bad for countries, and only good for corporations and large businesses. While Reagan and Thatcher were not full neoliberalists, but equally as atrocious as the ideology of neoliberalism. REAGAN: Under Reagan productivity (efficiency of production) did increase by 45%, but working peoples' wages only increased by 1%. Thanks to deregulation under Reagan, General Motors saw profits of $24.1 billion, while laying off 100,000+ employees, General Electric saw profits of $20.4 billion while laying off over 100,000+ employees. Household debt increased increased from 47% of GDP in 1980 to over 111% in 2000. There was an explosion in personal bankruptcies, from 287,000 in 1980 to 2,039,000 in 2000. Healthcare costs as a % of GDP were up from 9.1% in 1980 to 12% in 1990. By 1989 General Motors was making profits of over $4 billion, while eliminating thousands of workers; Flint lost 3,600 jobs in 1983 according to the newspaper "The Detroit News". The manufacturing complex Buick City eliminated 1,300 in 1986, according to the newspaper "The Flint Journal", while "The Detroit News" reported 4,500 jobs cut at the start of the year (All above statistics supplied by Michael Moore's Documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story"). All this occurred under Reagan's famous, "Reaganomics", or "Trickle-Down Theory", which he was majorly enamored with. In 2012 a study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that "the wealth of the rich does not trickle down to improve the economy but is instead amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy". My favorite non-fiction author Ha-Joon Chang, is an Institutionalist Economist and Professor at Cambridge, responsible for writing many popular economics books, writes "Slow job growth in the last few decades, rising income inequality in most rich nations and the inability provision in raising living standards across all income brackets rather than at the top only." The IMF in 2015 published a report reading "If the income of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth." Reaganism is ultimately bad, as I have just shown. His application of trickle down theory and his deregulation of the economy have led to the Gini Index of America being the highest of any developed nation, and mean that ultimately Reaganism was bad for the USA, & should be a warning for other countries not to do the same. Not only did Reagan NOT perform the duty of a good government, he has provided problems that, like Thatcher, have lasted beyond his Premiership and still wreak havoc to this day in the United States. If you consider any of my points null, please, I encourage you to refute. While you have only discussed Reagan so far I assume you are, as I am, going to discuss Thatcher and how she damaged Britain next round.

Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: The myth of tax cuts (removing the capital gains tax would be a huge tax cut to the wealthy) for the wealthy is good for the economy because they are the "job creators" has been thoroughly debunked by the last 3 years since we sailed over the supposed fiscal cliff in January 2013. As a quick refresher, the fiscal cliff was the term used to describe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that Obama had extended upon taking office, which included restoring the capital gains rate back to 20% (from 15%) for those earning over $400k, and increasing the peak marginal rate on the highest income earners from 35% to 39.6%. Conservatives warned that this looming fiscal cliff would handcuff our nations "job creators" and force us back into a double-dip recession. While the chart linked below (released with the jobs report last week) admittedly demonstrates only one large data point from the curret business cycle, and so I would acknowledge it doesn't prove that increasing the capital gains rate ALWAYS has no impact on job creation. But it does at least confirm that converse is also not true. Based on the continued strength in the job market post-fiscal cliff, we can at least be confident that raising the capital gains tax is not always a bad thing. In the case of the last 3 years, it has appeared to be pretty non-consequential. https://www.whitehouse.gov...;

Title: Maintaining Status Quo would Boost the Economy and Reduce Unemployment Rate Content: There is a huge gap in the argument of the opposition. They claim that our plan would reduce the stimulus for the economy. We never told the level of benefits would be reduced. The money would simply be given out in the form of vouchers. Anyway, taking into account the situation in which the unemployed person is, the money goes on paying his bills and receiving the basics of life. There is essentially no difference between the government spending this sum of money or an unemployed. There is no “double benefits” in the opposition’s case, because vouchers also stimulate the economy and create the demand. The whole argument is useless. We don’t understand why an unemployed deserves a salary for the job he is not doing. It is false to declare that an unemployed provided himself with a prolonged vacation. Firstly, he uses much of the tax payments within the first few months in which he is free to operate with the money. Secondly, the people receiving the unemployment benefit for a long period are predominantly low income people, who contribute the least part of the state tax revenue. For example, in 2007 in the USA the lowest earning 50 % of the population contributed only 2.89 % of all the income tax.[4] They cannot claim to have the right for unrestricted benefits. There are jobs in the market, but an unemployed person either chooses not to accept it, because it pays too little, or he is not willing to gain the necessary qualifications to become suitable for it. A situation when the society has to support such a person for prolonged time is unacceptable and he cannot claim the right to choose how to spend money. [4] http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html"

Title: Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work. Content: Income tax creates a situation in which everyone is effectively enslaved to the government for a percentage of their total work time during the year. For example, if someone is required to pay 16% of their earnings in income tax, they have been paid for 84% of the work they have done while the government has been paid for the other 16%. Abolishing income tax means that people are able to work for themselves 100% of the time and therefore this increases individual incentive to work.

Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now. Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.

Title: Bernie Sanders Would Hurt America If Elected Content: I will be breaking down the Con’s arguments in order and debunking them. There is not much room for rambling here because of the character limit, so I apologize if the flow of my arguments is somewhat abrupt. To begin, corporate taxes in Nordic countries are actually substantially lower than rates in the USA. (http://tinyurl.com...) This is interesting because under Eisenhower when taxes were around 90%, the only people who were actually paying these marginal rates were those making over $3,425,766 when adjusted for inflation. Since these were marginal rates, they only paid it on any earnings above that threshold. http://tinyurl.com... (http://tinyurl.com...) The recent supposed rise in income inequality has not caused any decline in upward mobility. Incomes and standards of living have increased, and mobility is as strong as ever. How much the top earns has no effect on the bottom’s ability to move up. Income inequality calculations are flawed, as households of different numbers are compared and do not factor in non-cash government transfer payments or taxes. A closer look at inequality reveals that it is not as prominent as suggested. Another factor left out is age; of course those in their fifties and sixties will earn more than college students and retirees. Consumption is a better measure of a household’s well-being than income. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that true income inequality actually hasn’t gotten worse since the 1990s. (http://tinyurl.com...) Emanuel Saez, the same economist whose studies on income earners are notoriously cited by leftists, also conducted another study on wealth inequality revealing that the top earners’ share of wealth at the beginning of the 21st century is lower than it was in the early 1900s; this study however is neglected by the left. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the Brookings Institute tested what would happen to the gap between the poor and wealthy if the income tax on the highest earners was raised from the current 39.6% to 50%. The results showed that it would have little to no effect on inequality, and that the U.S. along with Israel, would have the worst inequality in the developed world. (http://tinyurl.com...)The Mises Institute researched the the GDP per capita (PPP) relative to economic growth and I quote, “the graphs show, on average, the freest countries are not only richer, but also grow faster in the long run.” “As can be seen, on average, the freest economies have a better distribution of income according to this indicator. The argument that freer and more productive economies suffer greater income inequality is a myth built on the mistake of watching a few countries and not the entire sample.” (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con’s argument about GDP is irrelevant, because GDP, which is a measure of one year’s production, is an inherently incorrect measure of real economic growth. Government spending and all sorts of unnecessary transactions are accounted, however this is not the only miscalculation. Imports are netted against exports, “A fixture of GDP is the mercantilist mentality of treating exports positively and imports negatively. Why are exports additive to GDP while imports are deductive? If the goal of GDP is to measure the goods and services provided to people within a geographic region, imports — not exports — are the benefit. Exports are but payment for imports.” The GDP distorts the performance of an economy while failing to estimate a society’s standard of living. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...) The U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax codes among OECD countries, thus if they were going to work, we should expect that they would have done so already. There are also considerable negative economic consequences to a highly progressive tax code. Statistically, excessive marginal tax rates discourage work. The inevitable result of a progressive tax is reduced real economic growth. Progressive taxation is actually the most harmful to the poorer classes - the same people whom it is aimed to benefit. (http://tinyurl.com...) Empirically, higher taxes on the rich will do little to none on lowering inequality. The (Keynesian) Washington Center for Equitable Growth even points out what a top tax rate would do to 50% on the Gini Coefficient. Apparently, increasing the top rate to 50 percent would only reduce the Gini from 0.574 to 0.571.Some arguments against increasing progressivity are as follows: more revenue volatility rather than closing federal deficits, (which means larger future deficits), higher tax rates in the 1990s contributed to the 2001 recession and returning to them will damage our already weakened economy, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated economic growth, and raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses. (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con makes several arguments accusing capitalism of disproportionate wealth ownership, however, true capitalism has not been a constant in America for a long time; much of this demonization can be largely attributed to crony-capitalism (distinct difference) and the rise of corporatism, the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. (http://tinyurl.com...) Again, capitalism is blamed for inequality by the Con, although the only way to close the income inequality gap is through non-linear ideas and strategies driven through capitalism, as proven by a Harvard study conducted in 2015. (http://tinyurl.com...) Sanders has endorsed single-payer healthcare systems. He basically wants to adopt the Canadian and European model for health-care. Here are ten quick facts about the American health-care system: 1. Americans have a better survival rate for common cancers than Europeans do. 2. The same holds true in Americans versus Canadians. 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than people in other developed countries. 4. Americans have better access to cancer screening than Canadians do. 5. Lower-income Americans have better health compared to Canadians. 6. Americans spend less time waiting for a doctor than patients in the UK or Canada. 7. The people in single-payer states are more likely to say that their health-care system is not satisfactory and need to reform. 8. Americans are more satisfied with their care than Canadians are. 9. Americans have better access to new medical technology than patients in Canada or the UK. 10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of health-care innovations. American health-care has nothing to do with the free market. We do not have a fully free market with health-care. As of today, U31; of all U.S. health-care spending goes to waste. $765 billion dollars, all through the corporatist nature of our health-care system and a single-payer system, would actually only assist the collapse.The only reason Ford had to buy rubber from the Congo in order to supply his automobile assembly lines, was because the British had a monopoly on it in the 1920s. The simple fact is that this is not the fault of capitalism, rather the lack of it; under true free market capitalism, monopolies cannot form or be sustainable. The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. The Cato Institute argues against the negative and untrue claims attributed to the economic policies executed under the Reagan administration. “Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.” A full analysis of the economic impacts of his policies revealed even more. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...)LBJ’s “War on Poverty” can be called a “failure” for two reasons: one, the incomes and living standards of less affluent Americans were rising rapidly well before the War on Poverty began, and two, the original goal of it was not to prop up living standards artificially through an ever-expanding welfare state - which is exactly what it has done. Johnson’s proclaimed goal was not one of handouts, but of self-sufficiency. The Heritage Foundation conducted a full study on this and concluded that official poverty declined and self-sufficiency improved for the same general reason that these improvements occurred before 1965: a steady rise of wages and education levels. (http://tinyurl.com...) Theft is when someone takes something that doesn’t belong to them. You own yourself. Because you own your body, your labor, and what you acquire by trade, taxation is theft. Governments are institutions used by the super rich to concentrate wealth and power. Since they are not earning money by offering goods or services for us to choose from freely, theft is their primary mechanism. Taxation is just a word that makes us more likely to go along with massive, widespread, organized theft. It is not right for one person to steal. It is not right for two people to steal. It is still not right for 51% of a voting population to vote for a representative who will hire a tax collector to steal for them. A great government lie is that theft can be moral when performed by enough people and called taxation. Even if some money stolen is used for legitimate purposes, it doesn’t change the simple fact that taxation is theft. I challenge the Con to answer the five questions on the link without invalidating the very notion of government itself. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Title: lowering the driving age Content: I am doing a debate on lowering the driving age to 15 instead of 16 this would help us out with our economy too, there would be more cars being bought by younger ages. Because of more cars being bought there would be money being pumped into our economy and with that lowering our taxes a lot. Our biggest problem in this country is money and with m,ore money we open a lot of new doors and opportunities for others. We could open up new jobs for other people, we could lower the food prices in grocery store, the two most important in my opinion is either making homes with the extra funds coming in or feeding the people that have nothing especially if they have children. That is why we should,NO,need to lower the driving age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy Content: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy so people will have more money, people will spend more, businesses will make more money and pay more tax dollars. A large percentage of businesses pay income tax at the individual tax rate not the corporate tax rate. If income taxes get cut then the businesses that pay the individual income tax rate will have more money and hire more employees. Corporate taxes should also get cut to 25 percent so that businesses will hire more employees. If businesses make more money and pay more tax dollars then the government revenue will increase. If businesses hire more employees then there will be more taxpayers which will also increase the government revenue. The wealthy should get a large tax cut because a lot of them own businesses. If they get a tax cut then they will spend more money, make more investments and hire more employees.

Title: Labor unions Content: you have improved, but you really need to debate other people ;) C1: hurt the economy Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.[1] The economic detriment is because of increased wages. More wages = higher cost, higher cost = harder to higworkers as you have less money. Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive. [1] less investment = less economic growth. C2: raise unemployment Faced with such an economically unattractive scenario, corporations will choose to reduce their labor costs by outsourcing work, replacing workers with machines, and/or moving manufacturing facilities to low-labor-cost nations.[2] by the way the economic unattractiveness is partially due to unions [2] C3: raise costs of goods Furthermore, those high union-mandated wages result in increased prices for manufactured goods. It has long been an established fact that as labor costs increase, demand for consumer goods diminishes and the pool of consumers shrinks. [2] There are times when wages need to be raised to be equitable, but the power of the unions is that they can sometimes raise wages and benefits to unrealistically high levels. These levels can be above what the market can sustain, which will cause the manufacturer to raise the costs of items that it produces. [3] The above framework doesn't rule out the theoretical possibility that union agitation leads to wage hikes, which in turn lead to general price hikes [4] C4:RAISE TAXES California's government unions could seek a 43 percent tax increase on wealthy Californians. The Contra Costa Times reported on the action, but missed the magnitude of the tax increase. [5] They call for tax increases. A Nevada labor union leader said his organization is "looking seriously" at launching a ballot initiative to put a tax hike to increase funding for education to the voters, possibly as early as the 2012 general election. [6] Another call =conclusion= my case refutes his arguments. Labor unions hurt the economy. Vote con! sources: http://www.heritage.org... [1] http://stephencabotblog.com... [2] http://www.ehow.com... [3] http://mises.org... [4] http://www.calwatchdog.com... [5]

Title: Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's Content: Point 1: Ron Paul's Tax Plan is perfect for today's economy. His tax plan involves a significant reduction in taxes, including a significant reduction in taxes to the rich and taxes to corporations, and the tax rate is too progressive, and the taxes don't even do anything. "During the stock market crash, the recovery started in 1934, in 1937 taxes were raised causing the economy to plunge back to where it was in 1934."[1] Why is lowering taxes important? Lowering taxes allows the regular citizen to have more cash in his or her pocket, which makes them feel more secure financially in a recession. Not to mention, some of this extra money can go to buy stuff which increases GDP. "Income taxes should be cut because the overall tax burden is quite high right now. As of the third quarter of 2000, federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product hit a peacetime high of 20.8 percent. Prosperity has made Americans more accepting of the rising tax burden, but the current economic slowdown will make high taxes harder to bear."[2] Why is lowering taxes for the rich important? One, 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. But more importantly, two, they create and maintain 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 the 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. "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."[3] Why is lowering taxes for corporations important? If you lower taxes for corporations, that allows the business to have a higher profit. Profit means wage increases, safer working conditions, and most importantly, expansion. All of these things allow the employee to feel more secure financially, allow the employee to feel safer working, and allow the employee to enjoy his work more. And expansion, as I said earlier, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Why? Because to expand, you need construction workers, materials, building permits, and other things. This buying increases GDP. On top of that, the expansion allows the business to produce more, which increases GDP. And it decreases unemployment because expansion requires more workers. "Hewlett-Packard says that it saves $1 billion a year in taxes by operating in some countries where it's "wholly exempt from taxes," resulting in a 21% rate. Apple's overseas cash hoard leapt from $17.4 billion in 2009 to $30.8 billion in 2010, in part because its intellectual property is owned by foreign subsidiaries."[4] This also means that if corporate taxes are too high, businesses will go elsewhere, therefore, we lose their GDP contribution entirely. Why is the tax rate too progressive? One because 47% of the population pays no taxes, and the other 53% are decried for being greedy, when they are the ones paying the taxes! And on top of that, the rich are even more decried for being greedy, and yet the poor pay no taxes and the rich pay a 45% tax rate! This is very unfair. Also, the poor are not really poor. "Here's a lesson in economics for OWS. Explain to the 99% that they are actually in the 5% of richest people on the planet. Then take their wealth and redistribute it to the 95% of the world that is poorer than them. See how they feel about wealth redistribution then."[5] Why are the taxes worthless? One, they don't go to decrease the deficit, they go to increase Government Spending on social programs that put us in an even bigger deficit. And two, the taxes that go to fund these social programs just encourage a longer recession and a longer high rate of unemployment. "Federal spending has gone up 84% under Obama.""Since that's the case and we still have a liberal President and a liberal majority in the Senate, it's entirely possible that every new dime of tax revenue would be spent — and then some."[3] Point 2: Ron Paul's government hands-off approach to the economy is perfect. Ron Paul knows that there is too much Government regulation of business today. With less regulation, that gives more money in the hands of corporations, which again, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Businesses always have to worry about useless environmental regulations that cost money, they have to worry about workers conditions laws that cost money, and they have to worry about other business regulations that cost them money. "Government has been calling the plays while ordinary Americans ride the bench. But when the game is on the line, it's time to give the real playmakers the ball. The answer to too much government isn't more government."[6] ""The current regulatory burden coming out of Washington far exceeds the federal government's constitutional mandate, and it's hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can't afford it," Cantor's fellow House Republican, Speaker John Boehner, said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington last week."[7]. Reduce regulations, increase profit. He also knows that the economy can correct itself. He knows economies will punish businesses who provide bad working conditions or bad salaries. "Our government frenzy of throwing $6.3 trillion dollars in bailout money at our economy will have long reaching effects on our national debt and our ability to borrow money. It is political, short sighted, and inefficient. And ultimately taxpayers will be paying for the political gains of our economically illiterate Congress."[8]. Point 3: Ron Paul's fiscal and monetary policy is a lot better than Obama's. His fiscal policy involves cutting one trillion from federal spending each year, veto unbalanced budgets, and would never raise the debt ceiling. This all would in turn, decrease the federal deficit significantly over a 10 year period and would get America out of foreign dependency. "Saying no to the debt ceiling," correctly saying they would raise the national debt ceiling anyway to avoid severe financial disruption."[9] The danger in Obama's fiscal policy is that he keeps spending way too much, and will eventually send us into default. His monetary policy involves a full audit of the federal reserve, which is long overdue, considering they have misplaced several billion dollars over the years, then eventually end the fed so as to get rid of the terrible system of central banking. "Given that Paul is about the only one in Congress willing to fight this fight, he merits support, even if that support is occasionally critical."[10] [1]:http://answers.yahoo.com... [2]:http://www.cato.org... [3]:http://rightwingnews.com... [4]:http://forums.cnet.com... [5]:http://liberalforum.org... [6]:http://www.nytimes.com... [7]:http://abcnews.go.com... [8]:http://blog.myrecordjournal.com... [9]:http://useconomy.about.com... [10]:http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...

Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: id say that they shouldn't because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent."Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so, Jacoby argued, especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore, increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says, in a policy brief." Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkin's bill has been referred to committee, which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season, action on such a controversial issue is unlikely.

Title: The Bush Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans Content: Alright. First of all, tax cuts have been shown to stimulate job growth in the nation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. After their full passage in 2003, the economy went from a recession to an expansion, with a net total of 4.53 million jobs being created between May 2003 and December 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives. Even this does not reveal the full impact of the tax cuts, as it includes the disastrous recession losses in 2008 that were caused by the implosion of the mortgage bubble. With this track record of growth, it would be foolish to assume that repealing even parts of the tax cuts would not have a negative impact on the American economy. Secondly, the tax cuts had the interesting effect of increasing government revenue, including on the national level. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States federal government collected $1.8 trillion in taxes in 2003, before the full impact of the tax cuts on the economy, until revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007 before the recession struck the United States. Next, eliminating the tax cuts for the highest income earners would not solve our debt crisis. As reported by wsj.com, eliminating the cuts for those earning more than $1 million a year would only add about $40-$50 billion dollars in revenue, about 3% of the annual US deficit. More often than not, it would also hurt the economy, as was implied by President Obama himself when he said "You don't raise taxes in a recession." Doing so merely takes the money out of the private sector, where it can be used productively, and moves it to the government. Finally, tax rates are already too high. The top tax bracket is 35% according to taxes.com. This means that 35 cents is taken for every dollar someone earns, and is given to an irresponsible government that has failed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Raising taxes merely punishes the achievers in the United States and gives to an undeserving government.