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

positive: Flat Tax That's very nice of you to say, Con. Here we go... 1. While "pay according to your ability" sounds just, a flat tax is more fair. A progressive tax rate penalizes people for success, as higher income means higher tax rates. Sometimes this creates circumstances where one is actually rewarded for a pay cut. For example, suppose everyone who earns less than $100 a year is taxed at a rate of 5 percent, and if you make between $100-200, you are taxed at a rate of 10 percent. If I earned $98 a year, being taxed at just 5 percent I would walk away with $93.10. But if I earned a $4 raise and received $102 per year, and was taxed at a rate of 10 percent, I would wind up leaving with less than I started with before my raise - just $91.80. As such, it behooves some people to earn less just to stay in a lower tax bracket. That does not reward progress but instead punishes productivity. 2. Every year, corporations spend millions on accountants to try and beat the tax code. With a flat tax, businesses can make decisions designed to better serve the marketplace and their shareholders, rather than worry about ways to cheat the system. 3. Similarly, shifting away from a progressive tax rate would make filing for taxes easy, and the rules easier to comply with. This would reduce both errors and tax fraud. As a result, professional tax advisers would not be needed, thereby saving money for the average tax payer.4. Another reason a flat tax makes sense is that this system would make it hard for lawmakers to create tax loopholes in exchange for campaign contributions and other personal favors. This would do wonders for the world of politics, and make politicians more accountable to their constituents rather than their biggest donors. 5. A flat tax rate could likely encourage investment and expansion, as additional profit is not taxed at a higher rate.6. Under a flat tax system, instead of taxed income, much of the tax revenue collected is done so via purchases of goods and services. It can be assumed that people with more wealth will make more frequent and more expensive purchases anyway. As such, they will still be paying the majority of taxes. 7. Right now, the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the nation's taxes. As a result, high-worth individuals hide their money in offshore accounts to try and lessen their tax burden. They also choose to relocate their citizenship and places of business to tax havens or locations that are more tax friendly. We have "evidence that tax receipts from the rich rise when the rate they're asked to pay goes down. When the top rate of tax was slashed from 73 percent to 25 percent in the 1920s, the share of taxes paid by those who made more than $100,000 a year - more than $1 million in today's money - increased from 28 percent to 51 percent, according to The Wall Street Journal" [1]. Therefore, if the argument is that the wealthy need to continue footing the bill for America's debt, then it would make sense to transition to a flat tax -- considering we have proof that lower tax rates lead to higher shares of taxes being paid! 8. Proponents of a progressive tax rate claim that those who "can afford to do so" bear the highest tax burden - but why? Just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they should be forced to pay for something. I can afford to buy my neighbor dinner, but my neighbor nor anyone else should demand that I do so just because I might have more money than him. 9. People with money invest in other ventures to encourage market growth and create jobs, which is good for the economy as a whole. It's also good for the advancement of technology and other things they invest in such as biomedical research. If wealthy people have to pay for other people instead of invest, it will inhibit progress. Meanwhile we have reason to believe that people can/will find a way to get by even without significantly taxing incomes at progressive rates. 10. Up until 1913 Americans kept all of their earnings. Despite this, we still had schools, colleges, roads, railroads, subways, the Army, Navy and Marines Corps (who happened to win 8 wars). We can afford to scale back on taxes and assume society would not fall into ruin. We could also afford a flat tax and not significantly burden the lower class by eliminating a lot of what we spend unnecessarily, i.e. pork spending and excessive military affairs for example. Estimates of around a 15% income tax rate are considered the flat tax rate status quo which is reasonable. The highest typical proposed rate is around 20% which is a lot more fair than the highest rate, who pay almost 40% in the U.S. today [2]. 11. Despite the fact that the majority of taxes are paid by a small minority, a whopping 62% of Americans favor a flat tax. Amazingly this breaches party lines with 66% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 52% of Democrats in agreement, which is a big feat in bipartisan support compared to most economic proposals [3]. 12. The flat tax removes the section of the tax code that is biased against the formation of capital. It eliminates the death tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of savings and dividends [4]. 13. A flat tax would eliminate the bias against saving an investment, which would translate to productive economic behavior and boost the economy's long term rate [5]. Instant wealth creation for people who would have otherwise paid taxes would allow them to compete and put America in a better position in the global market. Countries with higher tax rates are worse off than those with lower tax rates [6] Conclusion In conclusion, a flat tax offers simplicity, fairness and opportunities for significant and immediate growth. It would put an end to cronyism and political favoritism in politics, minimizing corruption and fostering integrity among politicians to represent their constituents rather than make deals pertaining to corporate tax loopholes. The rich would still pay the majority of taxes, as they would likely spend more money, more frequently (and pay sales tax). However they would also have access to income they would have otherwise been taxed, giving them the freedom to invest in research, technology and job growth. The majority of Americans across party lines support the flat tax, because it's the better tax policy. [1] http://money.cnn.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://reason.com...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] http://www.heritage.org...[6] http://www.heritage.org...

positive: The united states should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts That is a very nice arguement but these taxes will not benefit us citizens. (To shorten this because im lazy im going to list facts that will generally refute your case. If theres a specific arguement or impact i will tell you) "The confluence of fiscal policy changes scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 " sometimes referred to as the "fiscal cliff" " poses serious challenges for policy makers. One area of disagreement is the increase in tax rates for high-income taxpayers resulting in part due to the sunset of elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. President Obama has called for the reinstatement of the higher top tax rates in his budget submission to the Congress, while key Republican members of Congress have called for their extension. The increase in the Medicare tax and its expansion to unearned income for high-income earners under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) further contributes to the increase in top tax rates. The concern over the top individual tax rates has been a focus, in part, because of the prominent role played by flow-through businesses " S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships " in the US economy and the large fraction of flow-through income that is subject to the top two individual income tax rates. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector work force and pay 44% of federal business income taxes.1 The number of workers employed by large flow-through businesses is also significant: more than 20 million workers are employed by flow-through businesses with more than 100 employees. This report uses the EY General Equilibrium Model of the US Economy to examine the impact of the increase in the top tax rates in the long-run. While a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examined the near-term effects of all of the federal government fiscal policies under scrutiny at the end of 2012 and found them to be of sufficient size to push the economy into recession at the beginning of 2013, this report focuses on the long-run effects of the increase in the top tax rates. This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates:  The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%.  The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision).  The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%.  The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains. With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% in 2012 to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%. These higher tax rates result in a significant increase in the average marginal tax rates (AMTR) on business, wage, and investment income, as well as the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new business investment. This report finds that the AMTR increases significantly for wages (5.0%), flow-through business income (6.4%), interest (16.5%), dividends (157.1%) and capital gains (39.3%). The METR on new business investment increases by 15.8% for the corporate sector and 15.6% for flow-through businesses. This report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending. Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013 ii Through lower after-tax rewards to work, the higher tax rates on wages reduce work effort and labor force participation. The higher tax rates on capital gains and dividend increase the cost of equity capital, which discourages savings and reduces investment. Capital investment falls, which reduces labor productivity and means lower output and living standards in the long-run.  Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3%, or $200 billion, in today‟s economy.  Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5% or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today‟s economy.++  Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively.  Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8%, reflecting a decline in workers‟ living standards relative to what would have occurred otherwise." http://waysandmeans.house.gov... Now i would like you focus on the 3 to last point that has + after it. This tax increase on the rich buisnesses and the average american will result in 710,000 jobs. Now this is better then my opponents because this facts that my opponent has given is from a organization, yes this organization is out there to help people with no profit but mine is a government website. Also the reason why we are not letting our nation go over this fiscal cliff is to avoid these tax increases and its affects which i show through my one fact.

positive: The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed 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.

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

positive: Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation Calling me a liar isuncalled for and I demand an immediate apology, and I think that name calling is needed in a debate. Sorry imabench it is comon edikite. Also please quote msaying all jos come from big companys, because I said small companys make the jobs and proved that a flat tax would help them. "Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place."Link? Scource? Please prove your point before making assumptions. 1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money. My dad doesnt own a company, he's a doctor. So his office is a small buissness. He faors a flat tax because he says: "A flt tax would lower tases, and I want to hire more people, and even if I have mor emoney and have enough workers, I will inveest in stocks ich will also stimulate the economy" So right there 2 ways that help his profit and stimulate the economy, and what is a dinus. I can't refite a work that looks like a probalble insult I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 planWell your plan has the numbers because you are using the current plan, so I need that on my side to hae a similar argument quality as yours, so that being said, the 999 plan is bad how? I think simplicity is the key, your plan has 80,000 me pages right? That sounds simple, not. A flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they ownWrong the burden is on evryone, and still you need to prove thata progressive tax is better, and you still havent proven how yours is benificial for making jobs, so before reticuling me you still need to prove the ecoomic benifits. And my points still stand, more jobs = everyone richer. Lessining the amount of poor. but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivityWrong! rich people want to get richer so they will eand, if you want to prove this give me a reliable scource, then we can cubut. A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.... nothing garentees jobs, but I have providd more proof then you on this topic, so please give me a credile scource on this topic. A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt. A flat tax does not create jobs,Still need scources that are written by educated politicians or economists, like mine. Forbe ran for predident in 2000. ANd the other scources are experts in the feild, and the reascources for those sites are credibal also. A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor, Nope ot shares the burde, and since my flat tax makes more jobs then there will be less poor. A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would......Great that means less spending onuseless things, and they will only spend on vital tings sx: roads, bridges, armed force, etc. There are still even more benifits to a flat tax. It is mor esimpleor fines hidden behind 80,000 pages of legislation, a flat tax is easy to comprehend, so the only way to break it's laws is to not pay the small tax. One tax system that’s easier to comply with would be a flat tax system that features one low rate and many fewer deductions and credits. Why doesn’t Congress adopt such a system? Probably because that would mean abandoning the idea of using the tax code to advance social agendas, and politicians like the idea of trying to change people’s behaviors. (1)Compared to traditional tax systems, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households get only one exemption -a generous allowance based on family size - and then pay a low rate on any income above that amount. (2)How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts (how much revenue came in) and then subtract their costs (salaries, cost of raw materials, and expenses for new tools and machinery). (2)There are two principal arguments for a flat tax- growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because current tax systems, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduce growth, destroy jobs and lower income. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax bias against saving and investment, it would boost an economy's performance. (2)If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits, including: Faster economic growth. A flat tax would spur increased work, saving and investment. By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy's long-term growth rate. Instant wealth creation. All income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate. Simplicity. Complexity is a hidden tax that requires record-keeping, form preparation, lawyers, accountants and other resources to comply with the current system. Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. (2)http://www.youtube.com...http://blog.heritage.org... (1)http://www.heritage.org... (2)

positive: Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. We have only three rounds to debate, so I will ask him to only rebut my main argument, and not my rebuttal to his main argument. It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul’s economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama’s economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I’ll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School. Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble’s collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well. Keynesian School: Interventionist “economics” that stems from John Maynard Keynes’ views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal)[4], economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking[5]. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, “Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine. ” That’s because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is[6]. Ron Paul thinks the government’s role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth. Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It’s much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business’ profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences. Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama’s socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and “stimulus,” Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world. Conclusion: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. [1] www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/11/14/this-guy-predicted-the-fi_n_143965. html[2]paulitifact. com/2011/07/08/claim-ron-paul-predicted-the-growth-and-burst-of-the-housing-bubble/[3]www. mymoneycalculator. com. au/news/2011/09/the-european-sovereign-debt-crisis-explained-greece-and-co/[4]. http://truthandliberty.com...[5] . http://www.tommullen.net...

positive: Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul’s economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama’s economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I’ll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School. Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble’s collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well. Keynesian School: Interventionist “economics” that stems from John Maynard Keynes’ views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal)[4], economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking[5]. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, “Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine. ” That’s because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is[6]. Ron Paul thinks the government’s role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth. Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It’s much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business’ profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences. Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama’s socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and “stimulus,” Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world. Conclusion: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. [6]Barack Obama has tripled the national debt, increased regulations, and made it more difficult to start a business in the United States while contributing to inflation/dollar devaluation. [7][1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] . http://paulitifact.com...[3] . http://www.mymoneycalculator.com.au...[4] . http://truthandliberty.com...[5] . http://www.tommullen.net...[6] . http://www.ronpaul2012.com...[7] . http://blog.heritage.org...

positive: Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. I disagree with your definitions of Keynesian and Austrian economics, the ones you put are strict definitions. I will put my simpler definitions down:Austrian School Economics: Economic theory that is strongly opposed to government intervention in business affairs. Against all government intervention besides the core libertarian beliefs of property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement. [1]Keynesian Economics: Economic theory that believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation. [2]Plus, although Keynesian Economics may support warfare (warfarism is not a real word) and support corporate welfare, modern Keynesian supporters DO NOT support these policies, since their politics are progressive. Contention 1: Obama is pro-small business and job creation as wellObama has ordered a federal review of all government regulations. [3] This is to help small businesses grow with less a burden. Plus, Obama has passed tax cuts for small businesses to help spur job creation in this area, in fact 17 times. Obama has also passed as we know the Affordable Care Act, and helps small businesses give their employers health insurance with no change in costs since before the Act. The Act also gives small businesses tax credits for purchasing health insurance for their employers. [4] [5]Contention 2: Obama saved the Auto Industry, unlike Ron Paul's plan (wouldn't of)Obama supported the unpopular auto bailouts, which saved over 1.4 MILLION jobs. Doing nothing would've costed about 3 million jobs. [6] It also saved $97 billion in personal income in 2009 and 2010. Now, they have are creating many new jobs, an economic depression was averted, and the companies have paid back most of their debts, and are also becoming much more competitive, as well as for the first time in years, all companies that received the bailout -- are posting profits. [5] [6] None of this would've happened under a Ron Paul administration. Contention 3: Economic Stimulus was needed to avert a depressionThe stimulus saved about 224,000 jobs in 2010 alone, and increased GDP by 1.7-4.5%, increased total employment by about 1.4-3.3 million jobs, and compared to doing NOTHING increased employment by 2-4.8 million jobs. Also lowered unemployment rate by 0.7-3.8 percentage points, and gave 95% of working families tax cuts. [7] [5] Without the stimulus, history would again show us that the recession would last longer, and the Great Recession would of became a depression. [8] Job growth also began and a recovery was able to appear, although slowly, but you cannot expect much after an economy about reached a depression status. [8]Contention 4: Wall Street Reform was a good ideaThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act makes Wall Street now serve not just short term growth, but long term investments in growth, and gives Wall Street more accountability and regulates it in a way that is better for the economy. It ends Wall Street bailouts, "too big to fail" firms, and separates proprietary trading from the business of banking, making Wall Street accountable. Also set up a Consumer Protection Agency to protect consumers from illegal business practices, including Predatory lending. [9] In all, new rules were made to restore accountability and responsibility in corporate offices.Contention 5: Put the USA back on recoveryThe USA missed landing in a depression, but many tax incentives and credits helped the renewable energy in the USA to skyrocket. The USA went from producing 2% of lithium car batteries to 40%. [10] Also, renewable energy now provides 14% of total energy used (campaign promise was 10%). [11] Plus, because of green energy investments, 250,000 - 850,000 green jobs were created since Obama took office until the end of his first term. Renewable energy sources from the USA puts money back into the USA, being a common-sense economic benefit. [12] Plus, job growth, although is still not fully robust, is certain and is much better than it was during the last months of the Bush Administration. New jobs per month is now around 200,000, compared to negative 700,000 a month when Obama started his term. [13] Plus, the patent system has been reformed, and tourism is easier now in the USA, leading to massive potential for "mini-tourist" stimulus packages for the economy. [14] Contention 6: American Jobs Act is a great economic ideaObama's proposed Jobs Act would, according to some economists, "put a significant dent in unemployment" [15]. This Act gives 98% of small businesses tax cuts, tax holidays for new jobs, and cuts regulations for small businesses. The act modernizes about 35,000 schools, prevents up to 280,000+ teacher, firefighter, and police officer layoffs, strongly works on modernizing America's infrastructure, puts heavy investments in promoting businesses that re-hire long term unemployed workers, lets more American families refinance their mortgages, allowing more than $2000 for each family through savings, improves job training for low income youths and adults, and is FULLY PAID FOR. [16] It would also increase GDP growth per quarter by an estimated full percentage point."None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - GoetheSources: [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://www.investopedia.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://www.urban.org... [5] http://www.barackobama.com... [6] http://autos.aol.com... [7] http://cboblog.cbo.gov... [8] http://www.nytimes.com... [9] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [10] "Back to Work" by Bill Clinton. Nov. 2011 [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://www.politifact.com... [13] http://www.facebook.com... [14] http://abcnews.go.com... [15] http://www.npr.org... [16] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [17] http://thinkprogress.org...

positive: Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama We are now in the refutations period. Reagan's growth vs. Obama's growthMy opponent argues that one of the main reasons the economy go so better was because of the Federal Reserve's policy and high government spending:"Many say the growth was due to supply side economics; however, I’m going to prove it was primarily due to the actions of the Federal Reserve and high government spending during the Reagan administrations. I will also show why growth under Obama is due to similar purposes, but why he is a more fiscally responsible president. "He shows Fed interest rates and explains how that led to a defeat of inflation. Finally, the Fed dropped rates after two years and the unemployment rate started to head down. There's a problem that my opponent misses, which is that this IS the monetary policy of Reaganomics, as I explained before, but will explain again:"Reaganomics consisted of four key elements to reverse the high-inflation, slow-growth economic record of the 1970s: (1) a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation; (2) a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut enacted (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency; (3) a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint; and (4) an agenda to roll back government regulation. " [1]Since restrictive monetary policy is part of Reaganomics and that is what the Fed did, the credit must be given to Ronald Reagan. It is important to remember the unprecedented amount of defense Reagan gave politically to the Federal Reserve and Chairman Paul Volcker:"What Reagan provided was political protection. The Fed's previous failures to stifle inflation reflected its unwillingness to maintain tight-money policies long enough to purge inflationary psychology. Successive presidents preferred a different approach: the wage-price policies built on the pleasing (but unrealistic) premise that these could quell inflation without jeopardizing full employment. Reagan rejected this futile path. As the gruesome social costs of Volcker's policies mounted -- the monthly unemployment rate would ultimately rise to a post-World War II high of 10.8 percent -- Reagan's approval ratings plunged. In May of 1981, they were 68 percent; by January 1983, 35 percent. " [2]Reagan's policy required restraint in domestic spending. That was upheld. Annual percentage increase in billions for the government domestically only grew by 1 percent during the Reagan years. This is much lower than the domestic government growth of 3.5 percent during the Jimmy Carter years. [1]As a percentage of GDP, federal outlways were lower when Reagan left office from he entered it. In 1981, federal outlays were 22.2 percent of GDP and in 1989 they were 21.2 percent of GDP. We have now concluded that spending was limited during the Reagan years, but mainly on the domestic side as Reaganomics argues. Naturally defense spending increases during a time of war. [3]My opponent argues that Reagan lowered taxes, but that he also raised taxes as well. The Reagan years are known for the era of supply-side economics when taxes collapsed to help the economy. This is true because as a whole, economists recognize that taxes were much lower when Reagan left office from when he entered it. The whole point of supply-side economics is to lower tax rates while cutting deductions in order for a more transparent tax system. It's also important to keep in mind that Reagan's important 1981 tax bill was put into effect over years and far outweighs the 1986 increase:"Critics charge that the tax cuts caused higher deficits, but they misread the evidence. The Reagan tax cut, though approved in 1981, was phased in over several years. As a result, bracket creep (indexing was not implemented until 1985) and payroll tax increases completely swamped Reagan's 1.25 percent tax cut in 1981 and effectively canceled out the portion of the tax cut which went into effect in 1982. The economy received an unambiguous tax cut only as of January 1983. Thereafter, personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). " [4]This was followed by Reagan's 1986 tax cut, which brought the top rate down from 50% to 28%. When he entered office the top rate as 70%. Finally it is important to remember that the deficit was expected to continue to decline when Reagan left office. The deficit, at $141 billion when Reagan left office, was on track to decline every year in CBO projections. In 1990 it would be $110 billion. What happened was that George H. W. Bush raised taxes and ruined the fiscal situation. [1]My opponent looks to stop market growth, but this is flawed. Stock market growth really doesn't accurately reflect the economy:"We're buying companies, not economies. So if companies manage their debt, cash, resources, etc. better than the overall economy, then stocks can go up while the economy does not. " [11]Additionally, companies in the stock market have greater corporate earnings than before. It also very critical to remember that companies worked internationally. My opponent has to prove that the stock market is doing well from Obama's policy and not by policies in the rest of the world. [11]Finally, the deficit was not Ronald Reagan's fault. Fiscal policy was pretty sound, the deficit problem goes to Volcker, although it was needed to get out of the recession. Economist J. W. Mason is working on such a paper:"One interesting thing I discovered working on it is that, despite what we all think we know, the increase in federal borrowing during the 1980s was mostly due to higher interest rate, not tax and spending decisions. Add to the Volcker rate hikes the deep recession of the early 1980s and the disinflation later in the decade, and you’ve explained the entire rise in the debt-GDP ratio under Reagan. What’s funny is that this is a straightforward matter of historical fact and yet nobody seems to be aware of it. " [5]HealthcareThis policy has been a disaster for the Obama administration and Obamacare isn't working. In a survey 77 percent of businesses have reported an increase in healthcare costs following Obamacare. It's a disaster for the health of the American economy. There are still many legal issues ahead:"Republican lawmakers have sued over delays in requiring employers to provide insurance. Some Indiana schools say it's unconstitutional to force them to provide coverage. Another suit says Congress violated a little-known section of the Constitution about which chamber must introduce tax bills first. Others challenge the requirement that insurance cover contraception. " [7] Moore reports the big problems with health care costs and that Obamacare really isn't working:"In 2013, as Obamacare’s policies were phasing in, nearly 5 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued. This doesn’t include nearly 20 states that weren’t tracking these numbers so the total could have been several million more. In California alone, 1.1 million policies were canceled. In March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Obamacare will result in a total of 1 million fewer people enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2015, increasing to 8 million fewer enrolled in employment-based covered by 2018. That’s a lot of people who haven’t been able to keep the health insurance that they like. " [8]Now we must remember the big lie given by Obama that you can keep your healthcare plan. It has been proven false. Foreign PolicyKeep in mind that everything Reagan did during the Cold War was to support the fall of the Soviet Union. You are looking at foreign policy after the Soviet Union, which was thanks to Reagan's defeat of communism. A man cannot be ahead of his time. Foreign policy is primarily focused on gigantic, major opponents. Today that is ISIS, decades ago that was the USSR. What happens if Reagan doesn't fund these people? Then the Soviets win the Cold War and the fight against freedom in the western world. Before Reagan we lost:1. South Vietnam2. Cambodia3. Laos4. South Yemen5. Angola6. Mozambique7. Ethiopia8. Grenada9. NicaraguaThen when Reagan entered, we won in:1. Bolivia2. Honduras3. Argentina4. Grenada5. El Salvador6. Uruguay7. Brazil8. Guatemala9. The Philippines [10]That is thanks to his great foreign policy that defeated the Soviet Union. Sources1. Niskanen, William, and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record. " (n. d. ): n. pag. Cato. org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. Samuelson, Robert. "Volcker, Reagan & History. " RealClearPolitics. RealClear Holdings LLC, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.3. . http://www.census.gov...4. Mitchell, Daniel J. "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 19 July 1996. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.5. Mason, J. W. "The Myth of Reagan's Debt. " J W Mason. N. p. , 06 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.6. "SHRM Survey Findings: Health Care Reform - 2015 Update. " SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.7. Heath, Brad. "More Legal Challenges Ahead for Obamacare. " USA Today. Gannett, 25 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.8. Moore, Stephen. "The Fantasy That ObamaCare Is Working. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 12 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.9. Jacobson, Louis. "Barack Obama Says That What He'd Said Was You Could Keep Your Plan 'if It Hasn't Changed since the Law Passed'" PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times, 06 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.10. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.11. Hyman, Sean. "Why Stocks Don't Reflect the Economy. " Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

positive: RESOLVED, The United States should abandon the current tax system and adopt a flat tax rate of 10% 1) "The US goes bankrupt" http://en.wikipedia.org... The US government takes in 2.6 trillion dollars from taxes (98% from taxes). Most from Income taxes and large additional chunks from corporate. Assuming your ten percent is income and corporate (some advocates of flat taxes insist on only income to avoid double taxation) then because the bulk of that is paid at a rate of 35-33% you'd be cutting the tax take home of the government to about 1/3rd. But, let's just say half for the sake of calculations. That means the government is going to take in 1.3 trillion. Assuming ofcourse that there are still social security and corporate taxes. The spending in 2008 was 2.9 trillion with an additional .6 trillion for the wars. So the 1 trillion dollar deficit will instantly increase to 2.3 trillion dollar drain. If we shut down the government for the most part we could drop that to a 400 billion dollar deficit with a complete cut of all discretionary spending (lowering us to the 1.78 trillion of mandatory spending) and closing down (the department of defense, education, urban development, homeland security, energy etc.). This is on top of the 10 trillion dollar hole we are already in. We'd be bankrupt. ---- The Reagan years were marked with the end of the recession and a massive increase in spending which tripled the national debt. It started the ballooning of the national debt. Kennedy's cuts came at a time of growth as well. However, Clinton's tax hikes came at a time of growth too and the revenues also skyrocketed. Whereas Bush's massive tax cuts came at a time of growth and the economy tanked and all of the surpluses turned to deficits. And oddly, he did the same thing Reagan did. It's almost like there's no pattern at all. The fact that a low tax rate brings in shell companies doesn't mean there's jobs there. It means there's a P.O. Box there and a lot of money on paper being taxed there to avoid paying taxes. It isn't a massive influx of business, it's a scam that the US hasn't done away with. The vast majority of people can take a standard deduction and enter their W-2s. You don't get in trouble for misunderstanding the tax code, you really have to be a jerk or obviously intending to defraud them to get any trouble at all. Your claim that if you lower the tax rates then tax cheats will stop cheating the system. I have another idea, let's make it so they can't cheat the system anyway. Sure you can cheat the system to save yourself 3 million dollars, but it's not worth it for 1 million. There's no actual evidence that tax cheats cheat less at lower tax rates. There's every indicator that the tax rate and GDP have everything to do with tax revenues. The tax cuts you suggest happened during times of economic uptick when the revenues were going up. However, right now we're in a pretty bad recession (though hopefully at rock bottom now). "The economic booms were unrelated? ...my opponent says that when Clinton raised taxes on the rich there was a surplus. But this simply does not have the backing of a pattern like my point does, for example George Bush passed a record number of tax cuts and still did not have a surplus." You first question my claims that the economic booms were not caused by the tax cuts (in some case the tax cuts were caused by the booms, we tend to lower taxes when we can). Then you note that the Clinton tax increase and surplus and Bush tax cut and deficit don't fit your suggested pattern. Ofcourse they don't fit your "pattern", there is no pattern. Tax cuts don't lead to increased revenues. "There are other companies besides American ones who can invest in America." The US economy is larger than most of the rest of the G8. With the exception of China and Japan there aren't that many large multinational non-American companies. And those in China and Japan are already here! Oh, and what is Japan's corporate tax rate? 30%. -- In short, 10% will collapse the government, the government is the largest employer and will dutifully collapse the economy that is, at present, almost stabilized. The tax code isn't that hard to follow and doesn't require a lawyer. Most small businesses do perfectly fine filing their own taxes. Taxes are hard to figure out so let's bankrupt the US government. -- Most of my argument thus far has been pointing out that the number you gave is too low. Let's not rest on just that. You are also proposing a huge tax hike on the poor. The poor in this country at present make less than $20,000 a year, and you will be directly taxing them $2,000 dollars. At present they pay less than nothing. Not only do they have no tax burden but they often collect the EIC and other credits. You will be wiping that out and forcing them to pay 10% of their income to the government. This is a massive tax hike to the people who can afford it the least. While at the same time you'll be giving a massive 25% tax cut to the superrich. So the Bill Gates of this country gets billions of dollar of tax cuts while the average Joe living paycheck to paycheck is going to be hit the hardest. -- Massive tax cut to the superrich, massive tax increase on the poor, and you bankrupt the country.

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

negative: The GOP Tax Cuts will, on average, not help the middle class. Very recently, the U. S. House of Representatives, then the Senate, and then President Trump signed into law tax cuts for corporate America (rich people). Supposedly, this money is supposed to be reinvested into the economy and trickle down to the middle class. My position that I'll be arguing is that these tax cuts will, on average, negatively affect the middle and lower classes. You will argue that they are beneficial.

negative: Liberals favor large federal government over state govt Dan Shafer. "Liberal Philosophy, Conservative Philosophy and the Great American Center." OneMind. May 21, 2010: "liberals favor a large and strong central government that can equalize and homogenize policy and practice across state borders."

negative: Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned I will be arguing that Citizens United v. The FEC should be overturned, while my opponent will argue that it should not be. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Opening Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Remarks -- without new arguments, though clarifications are permissible. With that said, I await a fascinating debate.

negative: “After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,” The Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%,[i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed. [i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment

negative: Static Tax Rate Kasper.....did you even read the debate question? Unless you can answer in a sensible and intelligent way you should really think about removing yourself from this forum!!

negative: How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2 All I see from you is more and more government, more and more taxes, more and more regulations, more and more spending. You don't understand capitalism and wealth formation. Wealth is created in the private sector. Businesses are crushed by overregulation and ObamaCare and are shedding jobs because of it. We need the private sector to create jobs and the public sector needs to get out of the way for that to happen.

negative: income tax = not unconstitutional Vote for me! A vote for Con is a vote not against refusing to use double negatives! (yay min. word limits!)

negative: That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year Regardless of how many of the products are made in the U.S., the money still benefits the U.S. economy. Not all of the revenue goes to foreign producers, it is still needed for employees' salaries in the U.S., and even foreign companies have plants in the U.S. Speaking of which, the Act also provides incentives for small businesses in the U.S. According to the IRS, "These incentives include a special 50-percent depreciation allowance for 2008 purchases and an increase in the small business expensing limitation for tax years beginning in 2008." So the Act is putting money back into the economy, even if the rebates are spent on foreign products. Yeah you should win since i just forfeited like 2 rounds.... sorry :)

negative: Flat Tax Rate I cannot dedicate enough time to thus debate for it to be accurate and concise with my thoughts. Currently I'm on vacation, and I'm having loads of trouble Copying and Pasting on my phone, as well as using the Spanish keyboards. I will be back home next Saturday, but from then on I won't be able to debate. I will create another, and will continue with the same opponent with the same argument. Again, many apologies, and please don't vote on this. Have a Great day.

negative: Flat Tax Rate I mean this is gonna be b*tchy but idc. I don't see why I should have a debate tied simply because my opponent cannot refute my case for whatever reason. Had he PM'd me, maybe I would be chill. Actually I probably would have if he told me when he first needed to FF. But now we have gone multiple rounds and I am the only one who presented a strong case. I urge a Pro vote.

negative: American Jobs Act Jobs Act creates 2m jobs for unemployed construction workers.

negative: American Jobs Act American Jobs Act cuts payroll tax, relieves working families.

negative: Governments of resource-rich nations should impose high taxes on mining and extraction High Mining Taxes would Balance the Economy

negative: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts. ... and that concludes the debate. (:

negative: Taxes and the U.S. Government 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)

negative: a progressive tax rate The ability to orchestrate a progressive taxation regime gives undue and dangerous power to the state

negative: a progressive tax rate Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance

negative: a progressive tax rate Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society

negative: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Round 1: Pro posts rules and structure, Con posts opening argument Round 2: Pro posts opening argument, Con posts rebuttal Round 3: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 4: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 5: Pro finishes final rebuttal, while Con will not post a round out of fairness This gives each debater the same amount of argument time.

negative: Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate I'll argue that we should have a limited government that fulfills its legitimate, consitutional functions. With such a small government, the taxes imposed on the citizens would be relatively light. Thus, when faced with the choice of maximizing revenues or operating a limited, constrained government, the second option should be taken.

negative: Take money out of Politics With Abolishing the Income Tax for a VAT consumption tax you also take much of the corruption that is abused to reward friends and punish enemies of a politician through the income tax codes. It also reduces the amount of money contributed to politicians for special favors for tax breaks. If a corporation is not paying corporate income tax there is no reason to pander to the politicians. The politicians then have to find other sources to run their campaigns and will not be as beholden to corporate interest.

negative: The US should reform its Corporate Tax 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.

negative: Progressive tax vs. flat tax Progressive taxes recognize each wealthy dollar has less utility.

negative: Progressive tax vs. flat tax Progressive taxation reduces the savings rate in a society

negative: Progressive tax vs. flat tax Progressive taxation helps combat extreme poverty

negative: Flat tax increases revenue by reducing compliance costs and tax evasion Tax evasion through the many loopholes created in progressive systems costs the state a substantial amount of revenue. A flat tax would eliminate this lost revenue.

negative: Progressive tax vs. flat tax Progressive taxes help increase employment rate

negative: flat tax Rebuttal and Analysis "Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink" This has nothing to do with our debate. It does not affirm the topic nor negate any of my contentions. "100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time." A flat tax can be any rate as long as "taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income" so it is irrelevant if our government would implement a 100% income tax or not. What is relevant is that a flat tax could call for 100% of an individual’s income. "Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away?" No. Nobody's income should be taxed. "Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it." All of these things are generally funded by local and state governments and not the federal income tax so a flat tax would do little to fix this problem. "if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law!" Using this logic wouldn't 0% spark even more economic growth than 10%? If we assume that lowering income taxes improves economic growth, a 0% income tax rate would always beat a 10% tax rate. "Well, It is not economically sound." Exactly. "Also it is still economically sound" How can something be not economically sound and still be economically sound? "a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now." That is not the debate. "If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about." Not exactly. Capitalism- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[10] "I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want?" When you get down to the basics, it is either one of two things; either the government owns 100% of your income and allows you to keep a percentage of it or they steal a percentage of your income. "Well they do that now don't they? Just saying." If you are implying I support the current tax system you are mistaken. If you are not implying that, this argument has no validity in this debate. "A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it." It is absurd to claim that a system with no income tax is terrible and then give an example of why it is terrible with systems that have income taxes. Also, a sales tax is no more manipulatable than a flat tax. "You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not." The more local a tax is the more power citizens have over that tax so I don't understand where you are coming from when you claim the Federal government would have to interfere with state taxation to keep it from getting out of control. It is far more likely for Federal taxes to get out of hand.[10]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

negative: Progressive Tax Rate It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...

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

negative: The flat tax sustains economic growth Despite the superficial image of the flat-tax maintaining equity across all economic sectors, the reality is that the system rather impacts various sectors differently. On the surface the concrete rates look universal and simple. However the end result is that the lack of flexibility puts the same rates on strictly different things. The flat tax places the same rates of taxation on all products and services as well. Under the seductively simple veil of so-called equity, products of luxury are wrongfully given the same rates as cheaper alternatives, for example, schoolbooks would be given the same rates as pornographic novels. The flat tax is also a problem as it simply shifts administrative costs to onto businesses. The flat tax, as seen in Australia, will target smaller businesses harder than larger corporations.[[http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new]] As for general economic growth, such a system also does not allow for the incentives and flexibility that attracts foreign investors. The progressive tax however establishes a buffer for the lower class in which allows them to be protected from the customs and sales tax that tends to hit lower-income groups more so than the rich. Regarding economic growth, a proportionately lower tax for the poorer allow them for more room to invest in both entrepreneurship opportunities and for important home investments like home improvement, child nutrition and health, and child education. Moreover, more jobs do not necessary mean a narrower wealth gap; the Opposition makes a naive mistake of equating more jobs with higher wages. As economic growth continues, the higher income groups, a great majority corporations, will profit more than the lower income groups do, furthering the wealth gap.[[http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2562]] The Proposition stresses once again: economic growth does not automatically narrow the wealth gap. In fact, research shows that throughout history it has worsened it. Flat tax is not the solution.

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