Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

The claim that lowering taxes on the wealthy will lead to job creation is unfounded. Let's examine the facts. The assertion that federal government revenue has consistently been 19.5% of GDP since the 1950s is incorrect. The post-WWII average of tax revenue is actually 17.7% of GDP, with projections for 2013 placing it at just 16.9%. In 2009, tax receipts amounted to only 14.8% of GDP, the second lowest on record. It's important to note that tax revenues are projected to rise to 18% of GDP in the coming year due to the "fiscal cliff" tax increases and economic growth. These facts contradict conservative ideology, which claims that raising taxes should decrease revenue. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that revenue will continue to increase to 19.1% up to 2023. This is because we have not yet reached the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve, where revenue decreases with higher tax rates. In fact, revenue would maximize at a top effective rate of 68.7%, significantly higher than the current top marginal rate of 39.6%, and certainly higher than the rates that the wealthy actually pay. Many of them pay significantly less than middle- and lower-income individuals because they either earn their income through capital gains, receive special loopholes, or benefit from oil subsidies, which cost roughly $40 billion annually. Republicans continue to defend these subsidies, despite their negative impact on the economy. Mitt Romney, for instance, paid roughly 14% on millions in income, while the so-called "47 percent" he criticized pay higher percentages of their incomes due to sales taxes, payroll taxes, user fees, state and local taxes, property taxes, etc. In the wake of welfare reform in the 90s, pushed by a Gingrich-led Congress, their lives have worsened. This is exacerbated by record levels of income inequality, where CEOs now earn about 380 times the wage of an average worker, compared to 42 times in 1980. Moreover, their pay has increased since the financial crisis, while median incomes have decreased. In fact, 93% of the gains from the economic recovery have gone to the top 1%. This brings us to the issue of corporate welfare. If you claim to oppose corporate welfare

When I said: What is an indirect subsidy? A company either receives tax dollars or it does not. A tax break is not a subsidy. ...you said: By admitting that he doesn't know what an indirect subsidy is, my opponent's economic credibility implodes. I am afraid you missed the entire point of the question. It was more of a rhetorical question for anyone to ask themselves because an indirect subsidy is very close to being an oxymoron. A subsidy, by the most common and normal definition is: 1. a direct financial aid furnished by a government, as to a private commercial enterprise, an individual, or another government. 2. any grant or contribution of money. This is from thefreedictionary.com. Notice number one says "direct financial aid." There is nothing in the definition that even implies indirect because that would mean the opposite of direct. This is why I am saying that many dictionaries and politicians and yourself simply have it wrong. What was annoying was that you tried to subtly imply that I am too stupid to Google the definition of an indirect subsidy but instead was asking you to educate me. That was not the case. I was not "admitting" that I did not know the definition of an indirect subsidy. If a subsidy is a grant of some kind of payment, how can that be indirect? Money either is transferred or it is not. If we stick to that one premise as to whether or not money is transferred to the oil companies or not, this debate will go a lot smoother. I said: There is nothing especially allowed and "set aside" for oil companies but if you listen to Obama, you would think otherwise. The IRS does not give them special treatment. Flat out false. We have already seen that Big Oil enjoys multiple tax breaks customized for oil producers including Intangible Drilling Cost Deductions, Tertiary Injectants Deduction, royalty relief for Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Oil and Gas Production, etc. Okay, what I meant was, there are no taxpayer dollars set aside for oil companies. Sure, there are tax breaks for oil companies for the things you mention and they are unique to oil companies but that only makes sense. Walmart does not have tax breaks for drilling costs...because they don't drill for oil. Any big industry could have a unique "tax break" set aside for them. The correct economic term for the $16.6 billion figure is subsidy. The word subsidy does not necessarily mean that somebody gets a check. But that is precisely what everyone thinks. That is why Obama uses the phrase "taxpayer subsidies." Why do you think he throws in the word "taxpayer" along with subsidies? It is extremely obvious. He is working overtime to implant the idea that money comes out of your paycheck and goes to Exxon. My friend, who inspired me to start this debate, thinks exactly that. He spends his time at websites (usually leftist) that say exactly what politicians want them to think: Here is a white house link: http://www.whitehouse.gov... ...that says in the first paragraph in regard to the subsidies "which cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year." It does not cost the taxpayers one penny when oil companies pay less in taxes. That is not how taxes are collected. They don't decide to raise X amount of dollars where if oil companies pay less, we pay more. They tax on percentage of incomes. Another from http://www.nytimes.com... H "There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer." And one I mentioned from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "why some of the wealthiest oil companies in the world were being given a helping hand by the American people. " Here: http://www.momscleanairforce.org... "The question remains as to why our dollars are going to companies that are reaping billions in profits," http://www.motherjones.com... says right in the sub-headline: "One of America's most profitable industries banks billions in subsidies" How are they banking billions in subsidies? They earn money and are allowed to keep more of it. I am sorry but who earned that money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep more of it instead of giving it to a government that did not so much as lift a finger to earn it and already make more than the oil companies do on a gallon of gas. Okay, getting off topic. There is simply no question that most people think tax dollars go to oil companies when the premise of this debate is that that is not the case. This article is a great explanation of the truth of the matter. http://www.forbes.com... It is ridiculous that people think we the people would be so much better off financially if these oil companies did not receive these "special" tax breaks. Let's run the numbers. According to: http://demonocracy.info... ...our thrify governement spends about 10 billion dollars a day. Since the oil companies combined are allowed about 12 billion a year in tax breaks, let's say the government takes that money too. That is enough money to run the federal government for slightly more than one day. Sound like a plan? This debate is focused on the meaning of the word subsidy. It was not supposed to be. It is supposed to be about the nonexistence of handouts to the oil companies. I'm sure that the President is as partisan and clever in his word choices as any politician, but the mere use of the word subsidy is not an Obama conspiracy. I did not say it was just an Obama conspiracy. It does not make him less guilty just because others before him have said the same stuff. Tax breaks are not given. They are allowed....Tax breaks cannot be given. The wordage is totally incorrect. Wow, that's a lot of creepy doubletalk. "I'm not giving the dog this biscuit, I'm allowing the dog to have this biscuit. If I gave the dog this biscuit people would think I was spoiling him, so I'm allowing the dog this biscuit so people will understand that biscuits are good for dogs....See how different that is?" Nope, can't say that I do. The dog won't give a damn and the biscuit is still a subsidy. Creepy doubletalk? I completely demonstrated the difference between a tax break and a subsidy by the $1,000,000/2,000,000 analogy which you did not even attempt to refute. Now I will refute your dog biscuit analogy. If a dog is given a biscuit, he has a biscuit just like if you were given $100, you have $100. If the dog is allowed to keep a biscuit that he already has, he is not being given anything just like if you are allowe to keep $100 that you already have, you are not being given anything. However, the way you worded it, you made it sound like you allowing him to have a biscuit that he already had was the same as you giving him one. The oil companies earn their original money. They are not "allowed" their money like you tried to allow your dog to have a biscuit. They already had made their money. You conveniently left this out for your analogy. To hold any credibility, your dog starts off with a biscuit that he already had but you did not show that. You simply compared giving to allowing as the same thing and in your dog's case, it would be except a proper analogy starts with your dog already having a biscuit just like the oil companies already have made their money. Until you can demonstrate that 1,000,000 is the same as 2,000,000 dollars, a tax break and subsidy will never be the same thing. Let me reiterate so we can stick to the subject. The definition of subsidy is not up for debate here. I don't care how many dictionaries say what, it is fundamentally flawed to say that a subsidy can be both a direct and indirect payment. That is like saying up can be a little bit down or black can be a little bit white. The real question is regardless of the definition of "subsidy," do you believe that taxpayers fund (those 12 billion dollars) the oil companies, as so many people believe? It comes down to whether or not money is being transferred out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of oil companies.

I would like to start this round by stating my opponent's previous argument is completely flawed. My opponent blamed President Ronald Reagan for bad economics by telling only half of the story and using oversimplified facts to support his argument. I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration. As my opponent pointed out the income tax rate for the wealthy during this time period was approximately 70%. If that's not a high tax rate my friends then I don't know what is. Regardless of who you are and how much wealth you have you shouldn't be punished or held down by the government with high tax rates. The Democrats would like you to believe that cutting taxes only benefits the wealthy and creates a massive inequality problem. That is false. Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone. I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video: http://www.youtube.com... I would like to further point out that unemployment rates under the Carter administration hovered around 7.5% and increased to nearly 10.5% in the first few months of the Reagan administration due to the final effects being felt by Carter economics. Reagan was able to shift the economy back in gear and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4% when he left the white house. According to USA today, "the rest of Reagan's presidency was characterized by tremendous economic success. Inflation declined to 3.71 percent in 1983 and averaged 4.4 percent for the eight-year period. GDP growth turned positive and averaged about 3.8 percent per year. Much of this success was attributed to Reagan's position on taxes and the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982." It is clear that Ronald Reagan did the complete opposite of what my opponent claims and achieved substantial success for the economy. Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office. Further statistics show that barely half of college graduates can't find work today. In the country that is supposed to be the "land of opportunity" our own college graduates can't find work? That, to me, is disgusting. History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats. They spend more conservatively and ensure that there is always economic growth and opportunity for all.

NIRAMy opponent says unemployment did not increase by 17%, but I do ask my opponent to provide a source to prove this and until then I will deny that point as my evidense behind it actually has a source. We can see that FDR attempted to control the US economy and this law was unconstitutional as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Schechter Poultry Corp V. US case showing that the government had overstepped it's boundries into the lives of the average American. (http://www.oyez.org...) Keynesian Economics My opponent is once again incorrect. After World War 2 the US was once again on the verge of going back into the great depression as millions of Americans came back from the war and the factories had to lay off their workers to retool their factories.

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

At this point, I would like to remind Pro that he is to post "no round as agreed upon" for the final round to ensure that we both have the same amount of arguments. "I had no idea I was suppose to wright a research paper. This is a debate, and I have never seen a debate where people cite sources." There's a reason that one of the criteria for these debates is "most reliable sources." You cannot simply say that you found data on the Russian Federation, and expect both me and our voters to believe you. You need to back up your claims with facts, which you have not done. "First off you miss the point of the debate you challenged me to. " I trust the rich, before I trust the government ",said me." Actually, I did cover this point extensively. I pointed out in Round 1 that we've essentially been following the type of policies that you would advocate -- trusting the rich -- but yet, their wealths have increased whilst others have been doing progressively worse. You have not proved your point. "The Depression was caused in part by a banking collapse, but it was the dust bowl that that made things horrible. The "Dust Bowl " was a result of government policy failure." It's true that the Dust Bowl was a severe hardship in the 1930s, though you can hardly say that it, ipso facto, is what "made things horrible." You have not proved that. Moreover, how was it a result of policy failure? You haven't connected that point, either. Should the government have had policies in place in attempt to circumvent it -- by regulating the farming techniques that led to it (plow-based farming, largely)? Perhaps. But that is a case that is contrary to your argument because it involves trusting government. You're arguing for more government here, not less government, which significantly undercuts your case. Actually, most would not agree that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the Great Recession. Sure, they played a role. However, the main cause of the Recession w as deregulation -- that began under Ronald Reagan and continued through Clinton and Bush Jr. -- that deregulated derivatives and repealed the Glass-Steaggal Act (enacted in the 30s to separate commercial and investment banks so that banks couldn't become too large, too overleveraged, and gamble with depositor's money). Naturally -- and this is quite similar to the Great Depression, following the laissez-faire policies of Herbert Hoover -- banks extended credit to people who had no hope of repaying their mortgaged, using complex financial tools that they could not understand, and took on far too much risk. As a result, they blew up the global economy, and relied on a taxpayer bailout -- only to pay out large bonuses to themselves after the fact. Yes, the "rich" whom you trust clamored for a bailout, then paid themselves bonuses. "When ever the government get involved the people lose." Then explain to me why that didn't happen in the three decades following WWII, as I pointed out earlier. You have not refuted my counterexample. "Just ask the Soviets, or the North Korean citizens. China and Cuba and the Russian Federation are all going down the path that excludes social equality, and there economies grow ." This is a massive reductio ad absurdum. There is absolutely no comparison between the Soviet Union and North Korea, and the United States. You brought up China, Cuba, and Russia and of course have not backed up your arguments. I'd like to key in on Russia though, because it's an interesting case. There have been studies done on the Russian flat tax, actually, and there is no evidence that it led to a substantial productivity gain ). The only genuine finding was that it increased tax compliance, only because tax evasion was rampant prior to it. A main conclusion of the paper (http://www.eurekalert.org...) was this: "The adoption of a flat rate income tax is not expected to lead to significant increases in tax revenues because the productivity response is shown to be fairly small. However, if the economy is plagued by ubiquitous tax evasion, as was the case in Russia, the flat rate income tax reform can lead to substantial revenue gains via increases in voluntary compliance." Therefore, there is no evidence that the supply-side arguments for the flat tax hold. "I would consider the International Monentary Fund or IMF as the primary authority on repairing or growing economies. They do what is right, not what the people think is right." Actually, the IMF was a big proponent of austerity, until it saw the destruction it had on the eurozone periphery. They had an "oops, I guess we were wrong" moment. So, effectively, by endorsing the IMF, you're endorsing stimulus spending -- contrary to your position. Conclusion: You have not proven that putting the vast majority of money into the hands of rich people is better for the economy. You have no cited any sources in favor of your position, and I have disproven all of your arguments and provided you with a counterexample. Sources: http://economistsview.typepad.com... http://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.theguardian.com...

I wish to prove my case using four simple points. Before I begin, I will briefly address the comments from Con in Round 1. He asks how a "mandated minimum wage does more harm than a minimum wage without being mandated?" A non-mandated minimum wage, as defined, would be voluntary and thus have no impact as I will argue further. ----------------------------------------- 1) Minimum wages hurt employers. ----------------------------------------- One can anticipate with some certainty that the alleged greed of capitalists will be entered as proof for the need of a minimum wage. We are continually told that businesses need to be forced to raise the wages of the common worker, for they will never do so voluntarily. However, this runs contrary to logic. The key to understanding this is the awareness that no business will pay an employee more than the value of his contribution. As an employer is coerced into paying higher wages for his employees, he is forced to make one of two decisions to retain a satisfactory profit level. First, he could pass the escalated cost of labor on to the customer in the form of product price increases. Alternatively, he could reduce the cost of labor by reducing hours or laying off workers. If the circumstances do not allow either of these options the business owner would be forced to shut down and all parties involved would be the worse off. Ultimately, the employer loses either productivity or customers; or he loses both in extreme cases when he loses the entire business. ----------------------------------------- 2) Minimum wages hurt employees. ----------------------------------------- Advocates of the minimum wage rate contend that they are fighting for the betterment of the masses and generally the poor in particular. As I have shown above, this is a case of good intentions gone badly. In reality the minimum wage policy primarily hurts those it was designed to assist: teenagers and unskilled workers. When hiring a worker, an employer must take into account more than merely the hourly wage. In addition to the wage seen by the employee, there is a cornucopia of other mandated benefits such as the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment and worker compensation programs. These employer-provided benefits run as high as 30% of the hourly wage [1]. Therefore, a $7.25 minimum wage [2] turns into a liability in excess of $9 per hour. When faced with these costs, employers will only retain those employees which provide a value of $9 or more to the company. This generally does not include transient workers such as teenagers and unskilled menial laborers. The market tends toward wage rates which allow as many people who want work to be employed and for those who wish to hire workers as many employees as they need. Institutional unemployment is the result of the government coercing employers to pay wages higher than this natural level [3]. Economist Henry Hazlitt expertly brings this idea forward. "You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering" [4]. ----------------------------------------- 3) Minimum wages hurt customers. ----------------------------------------- Customers experience two effects from wages above the natural market wage rate. First, as briefly described above, price levels increase due to a natural tendency to pass higher costs on to the customer. Second, they experience a reduction in the standard of living. As the required minimum wage increases, so increases the funds available to those who were not among the unlucky pink slip recipients. One will already see higher prices in those labor intensive markets which were forced to pass on cost increases to the customer. However, in the other markets which were negligibly affected by the increased cost of labor the prices will still have a tendency to increase since the entire market has experienced a general increase in money supply. In other words, since customers potentially could have more money in their pockets they would be willing to pay higher prices for the goods they need and desire. At best they would experience negligible change, at worst a reduction in the standard of living. ----------------------------------------- 4) Minimum wages hurt society. ----------------------------------------- As a net result of the three aspects described above – employers, employees, and customers – society in general would experience a shortage of labor, increase in unemployment, increase in black market jobs, and decrease in standard of living. By arbitrarily mandating a minimum wage for labor, the government is denying the right to work from those people who are willing and capable of working for less than that amount. When a person is unable to work legally the option is to not work, thus drawing unemployment and being a further drain on society, or work in the black market. ----------------------------------------- References: ----------------------------------------- [1] At the Intersection of the Minimum Wage and Illegal Immigration, Howard Baetjer, The Freeman Volume 57, Issue 2 [2] Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (http://www.dol.gov...) [3] Human Action, Ludwig von Mises, Chapter 30, Part 3 [4]Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, Chapter 18

You used a lot of fancy charts that I didn't understand, so I'll simply base my debate off what you said. Before I begin, I find it amusing that Democrats always name Reaganomics after Ronald Reagan, but they refuse to name "Obamacare" after Barack Obama. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the debate. In your argument you said that every year taxes to the rich were cut the economy went bad. But is that the only factor? Did you know that there is another factor involved? In 1963 the Democrats held the majority in both houses. And then, in 2008 when the Recession hit, the Democrats were in charge again. As they were in the 1987 and 1989 congresses. In contrast, during the totally rad 90s, the Republicans were in charge from 1995 until 2001. This was a period of economic growth. So, either the democrats are doing tax cuts for the wealthy (unlikely) or this isn't as important an economic factor as you think it is. And let me put it this way: a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can't be as liberal as you think he is. I'm sorry if I didn't cover most of your points. But I didn't understand half of that. Then, you said that Reaganomics are economically immoral. But... John D. Rockefeller gave a lot of money to charity. My source for that claim is Wikipedia. J.C. Penney tithed 90% of his money. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both gave billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And ultimately, you are proven wrong in this point by "The Giving Pledge," a pledge for billionaires that they will give most of their money to charity. According to the Huffington Post (a ridiculously liberal newspaper), 81 billionaires have already signed the pledge. So are the wealthy stingy people who never give back? The answer to this is a resounding NO. So what is the difference between the rich giving freely and the rich being taxed by the government, you may ask? Well, when the rich give money to the Government, they're giving their money to an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt entity, which probably wastes 50% of the money it receives. But when the rich people do stuff, they do it efficiently. Corporations are ran by people with economic brains, people who think up new money-saving solutions in their sleep. The Government, on the other hand, would spend 200 billion dollars to try in vain to save an endangered species of rain forest monkeys. And also, when you were a teenager, if your mom told you to unload the dishwasher, it was a chore, right? But whenever you went to a friend's house and offered to unload the dishwasher for your friend's mom, it wasn't a chore. You did it more enthusiastically and you probably did a better job. It's that way with the wealthy giving to charity as well. Also, let me ask you: is it wrong for wealthy people to have their wealth, to make as much money as they do? I believe that if you simply inherit a company from somebody or you become the CEO of an already existing company, then you do not have the right to extract an unlimited amount of money from the company funds. It is not your right. However, if you created the company yourself, if you opened multiple businesses and it became a chain and you were the CEO of this business, then I believe you have the right to do whatever you want with the company, provided you pay your workers according to the contract between employer and employee. You are not oppressing your workers; you are giving them a job. You took a risk, you used your brain, and you established your businesses. Its tax percentage should not be more than that of a middle or lower class person. It should not be punished for being successful. Therefore, excessive taxes on the wealthy is unethical if the person you're taxing is the founder of the company. Perhaps it's okay to do so if they simply inherited the company or became its CEO through promotions. Finally, you said that Americans are getting poorer. That's simply not true! We have a higher standard of living today than we did 15 years ago! We have more sources of entertainment now than we did then. If Americans are as poor as you say they are, nobody would be buying all of this new stuff. P.S. Every one of your sources had a Left-Wing Bias. And with names like "faireconomy.org" and "thinkprogress.org" it's not an easy allegation to deny.

Will not post an argument. Will simply say in my previous argument, I meant to post a table showing GDP vs minimum wage for Tx vs NY, But the table formatting didn't come across. Here it is again: Texas Min Wage = $7. 25/hr State Income Tax = 0 GDP = $1. 65 Trillion NY Min Wage = $9. 7/hr to $11/hr State Income Tax = Varies from 4% to 8. 8% GDP $1. 61 Trillion

In this round I will post my contentions; in the next I will respond to pro's contentions.1. A flat tax system is more fair.In a flat tax system everyone gets taxed the same percentage.2. A flat tax system is better for the economy.It is those rich upper class people who hire people. If the upper class is taxed a greater percentage than the middle and lower class; then they won't be able to hire as many people; they won't be able to afford it. If all classes are taxed the same percentage then more people will be hired.

1. I've already pointed out to you how the Department of Health and Human Services could take it on if they are given competent leadership and adequate resources. They already run Social Security and Medicare, in addition to many other programs. Why wouldn't they be able to handle a restructuring of their priorities and administrate a new program? You give absolutely no reason explaining why my points in the previous round are not sufficient enough. Yes, you're right. There are three branches of government. They do have divisions within them, such as committees in Congress or individual agencies in the Executive branch. What does any of this have to do with proving a cabinet-level department can't run large programs when I've already given you plenty of examples to the contrary? There isn't much I can do if I give you examples proving my point, but you dismiss them out of hand based simply on your opinion without any evidence to back it up. 2. That isn't what I said at all. It's like you aren't even paying attention to my points and instead respond to what you wish I said. These taxes would be imposed on all of the payers from the outset. The parties that pay into the taxes for the program, the less they are for any one party. I haven't done a detailed analysis of how much would be needed down to the dollar, but based on the site I listed at the bottom of my last round, the country would save $350 billion on administrative costs alone. This is just one area where we would save lots of money with the single-payer system I mentioned, so I doubt if any taxes would be needed beyond what I mentioned before. The current recession is being lead by the housing market and the problems with credit associated with it. Banks around the world got caught up in our mortgage mess, and now they are all paying the price as well. A single-payer system would have nothing to do with this at all. It might cost some jobs in some areas, but create a lot of jobs in other areas, so that would either be neutral or be a positive. What rates are dropping? Insurance rates? Where did you get that from? I think you're confusing insurance rates with interest rates. The Fed cut interest rates. They have nothing to do cutting rates for health care at all. I wanted to debate universal health care, not educate you on the current state of the economy. Your lack of understanding the basics of our economy and the current state of it is dragging this debate down. 3. Why? Why can't you have universal coverage and private practices? You give absolutely no reasons to back up your claims. It's universal coverage, not universal provision. A single-payer system would be paid for by the government, but the payments would be made to private providers, just like how Medicare does it now. Again, your lack of understanding of the system is dragging this debate down. Some of medical inflation is due to the development of new medical devices and machinery. That is natural. Inflation due to the example I listed above wouldn't happen because HMOs would no longer be able to cut hospitals and doctors off at the knees. Also, the sales tax on the advertising and lobbying expenditures of pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers would also provide them with an incentive to cut their costs, thus cutting prices. Device manufacturers current spend billions of dollars on lobbying doctors to use their devices, regardless of whether they are the best devices or not. Drug companies only spend 13% of revenues on R&D while they take 17% in profits and over 30% on advertising. THIS IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO EXPENSIVE. Not only would the tax either drive these prices down or help the government pay for their price, but the government's enormous negotiating power would also force these companies to drive down their prices, as well as get hospitals to strip out the inflation they have added to the system. These reasons are why inflation would be cut and reversed under the system I advocate. What hospitals would be lost? Where did that come from? 4. Hospitals will be as poor as other countries? What? I already illustrated how hospitals would be paid much more regularly and at a fair rate. They wouldn't be undercut by greedy HMOs that only pay 30% of the bill presented to them. None of the arguments you've mentioned, at least the ones where I can figure out what it is you're trying to say, have addressed this. If public hospitals get reimbursed more, regardless from where it's coming from, they don't have to tax localities as much to keep themselves running. That's just common sense. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. 5. That's a nice article, but it doesn't explain much of anything. it only looks at our system. If our system is so efficient, then we would have the same numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality (among others) as other countries at the top of the WHO's list. Western Europeans, on average, live longer, have more children live through birth and infancy, have lower rates of disease and live healthier, all while spending FAR less than we do. Here, check this out: http://www.kff.org... We spend over $2 trillion on health care, but we get beat in just about every health category that matters. In just 7 years, that number is expected to double. And you're trying to tell me that our system is efficient and effective, especially after the numbers and examples I've given you about how inefficient our system is? 6. No, you didn't mention anything about trickle down economics above. Besides, what does that have to do with anything in this debate? Given the point in your life you're in, 25% doesn't mean anything to you. But once you're paying rent or a mortgage, paying for a car, utilities, food, credit card bills, etc., you'll understand what taking 25% of your income to pay for medical bills. Often times, its a lot worse than that. Sometimes it eats up everything they make, and thats when they have to file for bankruptcy. When this happens, everyone loses out: the hospital, the doctor, and everyone that person owed money to. When that happens, we all end up paying more to make up for what their creditors lost out on. We already pay for everyone else's inability to pay for medical care. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you're just going to keep dismissing that fact without any reason to back up your rationale. Just saying it doesn't make it so. 7. I have already explained repeatedly how doctors would be working in much better conditions than they do now. Yet, you continue to say it would be worse but don't give any reasons that I haven't already addressed as to why I'm wrong. Their wages would be the same, and they would get to keep much more of what they make since they wouldn't have to fight HMOs for every dollar they make. And no, getting paid for their services is not a trivial matter. You assuming there are other reasons for my NP friend paying for so many clerical staff does not mean there were. 8. Once again, you're ignoring what I said and continue to insist on your opinion without giving any evidence to back it up. 9. So you think that a rich person's life is more important to save just because they can pay for adequate care? Ok. 10. Did you even read the criteria? This is ho they judged the countries: "WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)." I'll address why you're wrong about Canada in my next round.


Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

The federal income tax for corporations should be eliminated. The high cost of labor often drives jobs to other countries. It's important to note that employers do not bear the burden of income taxes. In reality, sales taxes can be regressive, regardless of whether essential goods like food are exempted. Reduced spending does lead to lower GDP, which is a fundamental principle of economics. The formula for GDP includes net exports (NX), consumer spending, government spending (g), and investment (i). It's not sufficient to dismiss the correlation between spending and GDP by claiming correlation does not equal causation. Low spending does equate to low GDP, and that's a fact. How do you substantiate the claim that a certain tax rate would generate the same revenue as our current system? You can't, because there's no evidence to support that assertion.

My opponent's claims that wages will fall is illogical. "The argument [yours] is defective. It takes it for granted that the employers pocket the difference between the marginal-productivity wage rate and the lower monopoly rate as an extra monopoly gain and do not pass it on to the consumers in the form of a reduction in prices. For if they were to reduce prices according to the drop in costs of production, they, in their capacity as entrepreneurs and sellers of the products, would derive no advantage from cutting wages. The whole gain would go to the consumers and thereby also to the wage-earners in their capacity as buyers; the entrepreneurs themselves would be benefitted only as consumers. "[1]Here is additional evidence for the Marginal Productivity theory: "There prevails a tendency for wage rates to reach the point at which they are equal to the price of the marginal product of the kind of labor in question. If wage rates drop below this point, the gain derived from the employment of every [p. 598] additional worker will increase the demand for labor and thus make wage rates rise again. If wage rates rise above this point, the loss incurred from the employment of every worker will force the employers to discharge workers. The competition of the unemployed for jobs will create a tendency for wage rates to drop. "[1]In addition, my opponent's claims about the industrial revolution are actually misguided. [2] Therefore, wages stay close to marginal productivity because there is competition for those workers in the labor market. Next, my opponent attacks my unemployment arguments. Take this analogy: "Fast food restaurants employ low-skilled workers. Suppose a higher minimum wage is imposed. The restaurant then raises its prices to cover the costs. The laws of supply and demand dictate that there will be some customers who will pay the higher price, but that some others will not. The chain outlet in an upscale area may continue with only a small drop in business, however in a less affluent area business will drop more sharply. The people not buying hamburgers will bring their lunch or buy pre-packaged food from a convenience store. The outlets that are no longer profitable will be closed, or the hours reduced to prime selling periods. The net effect is that some of the employees will make more wages, but others will lose their jobs and the previous patrons of those outlets will not get hamburgers they can afford. "[3]Here is a graph showing how the minimum wage can effect unemployment: [4] Here is a better way to show the process: [6] Is there empirical evidence? Yes, there's more. I am going to focus more on low-skilled workers when I post my refutation. My opponent first claims that the correlation is false simply because of recessions. However, the trend can be traced further back: [5]Notice how the minimum wage is increased before the unemployment level rises. This indicates that the minimum wage does cause unemployment. Looking carefully at the graph in 1990 shows that the minimum wage was increased before the recession unemployment set in. There is even more. There is a mountain of empirical evidence showing that the minimum wage increases unemployment [7]particularly among teenagers. [8]Here are a few quotes: "Where most economists agree is that the higher minimum wage does not do much to relieve poverty. That is partly because many poor people would not gain (since they do not work); partly because some of the costs of higher minimum wages are shifted onto poor consumers; but mainly because many minimum-wage workers are not poor. "[9]". .. minimum wages do not achieve the main goals set forth by their supporters. They reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; they are not an effective means of reducing poverty; and they appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital. "[10]Then, my opponent attacks my inflation argument, but that too can fall easily:The natural price of a product is based on many factors and among these is labour. When the costs of labour increase, the price of its products increase as a result. When this happens market-wide (as it would with a minimum wage), it leads to this price inflation. This price inflation increases until the nominal value of labour is essentially what it was before [11]. Finally, my opponent claims that I have not really refuted his R2 argument; however, in the beginning of my R3 about how the minimum wage actually hurts the economy, I do refute it. Even so, I will expand upon it here. A minimum wage is not necessary to ensure that the employee can recieve wages necessary to meet the cost of living. I. Because the minimum wage law only outlaws jobs that drop below its standard [12], the employees are actually worse off than before. Being unemployed generally earns an individual less than being employed on any wage [13]. II. In addition to that, wages cannot drop below the "natural" minimum wage [14]. The "natural" minimum wage here refers to the natural minimum that an unregulated market will pay for labour. The natural minimum wage is equal to twice the subsistence of the labourer [15]. III. In addition, if workers do not make much more than what is required to subsist, they often unionize, shifting the bargaining power towards the employees [16]. Therefore, the minimum wage does not help workers or employment. I think I have effectively proven my case, but I will take this short amount of space to clear something up. I agree with my opponent that the resolution of this debate states whether or not the minimum wage should be abolished. However, he is wrong when he says that I have not touched on its abolition; only on its increase. I have provided enough evidence that concludes that the minimum wage both increases unemployment and prices. Take, for example, the minimum wage/unemployment correlation I posted a graph of earlier. Why can't it be inferred that greater reductions, and the eventual elimination of the minimum wage would lower unemployment further? The same goes for prices. Here is my final point (note, this isn't a new argument). It can also be inferred from my argument that if a minimum wage of, say $2 were implemented, it would be rather unneccessary. Therefore, it can be abolished simply because it is a waste of time and resources. I have proved that the minimum wage should be abolished as well. BoP is shared, and I have refuted my opponent's argument and produced my own. Thanks again to Magicr for the debate. Sources:[1]: . http://mises.org...[2]: . http://www.fee.org...[3]: . http://factspluslogic.com...[4]: . http://mises.org...[5]: . http://www.unc.edu...[6]: . http://web.archive.org...[7]: Mazumdar, Dipak. "The Marginal Productivity Theory of Wages and Disguised Unemployment. " The Review of Economic Studies 26.3 (Jun, 1959): pp. 190–197[8]: Brozen, Yale. "The Effect of Statutory Minimum Wage Increases on Teen-age Employment. " Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 12(April 1969): pp. 109–122[9]: . http://www.nd.edu...[10]: . http://mitpress.mit.edu...[11]: Smith, Adam. "The Wealth of Nations": Chapter VI: Of The Component Parts Of The Price of Commodities. [12]: . http://www.investorwords.com...[13]: Assuming that X is positive, X>0, . http://dictionary.reference.com..., Definition 23[14]: . http://econlib.org...[15]: . http://econlib.org...[16]: . http://www.wisegeek.com...;

1. Sampling Bias: Pro points out the problem of sampling bias, which comes down to ruling out variables. Obviously the bankers in Luxembourg will not serve as effective comparisons for national success, so we are in agreement. 2. Jurisdictional Competition: i) Theory: Immigration may serve as a check on governmental actions, but the significance is minimal. Most governments are subject to their voter base and legal structures. The success of these nations is largely dictated by wise social and economic policies, which then brings in higher rates of immigration as an after-effect. For example, if Sweden's government attempted to cut public services and lower tax-rates to theoretically bring in foreign investment, it would not happen because the voter base would not allow it. In fact, capital relocation is also largely dictated by political stability and economic profitability, which happens AFTER a nation dials in the right policies. And vice versa, if a nation is so unsuccessful that its citizens do not have the means to effectively relocate, then low immigration will correlate with undeveloped nations, but it's not the cause for success/failure. ii) Example: A) Individuals My opponent formulates a spreadsheet to demonstrate the correlation between high rates of immigration and national success, but the whole paper is widely generalized. Comparing developed nations in Europe to undeveloped nations in Africa, is in itself, comparing apples and oranges. African individuals will obviously not be very mobile, for there are few roads or cars to travel in. However, when comparing developed nations under equivalent circumstances, there isn't much of a correlation. For example, the top ten developed nations have an average immigrant population of 12.4%, the next ten have an average of 15.8%, and the next have an average of 11.7%. The correlation between success and immigration in these nations is negligible. As national success declines linearly, immigration rates fluctuate. Thus, the only notable difference can be found between undeveloped, developing, and developed countries. I extracted information from these sources and calculated the results myself. I left out oddball variables, such as Japan, Luxembourg, Andorra, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... B) Corporations Ireland certainly underwent some improvements over the last 20 years, but so has the rest of the world. Although average tax rates have fallen, that doesn't mean it's the cause behind modern economic growth. With some of the most successful nations currently having the highest tax rates -- Australia, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc -- it isn't accurate to attribute success to low tax rates. This is because costs are not the only factors corporate investors worry about, but instead profit (revenue - cost). Sales factor into investments, and thus long-term economic growth. Because the world's most successful nations have effectively distributed wealth to poor and middle-class citizens, increased consumption has given rise to larger profit margins, which initiates capital accumulation within these countries' borders. Such programs include subsidized education, healthcare, and employment -- all of which enhance the average citizen's disposable income. Without such programs, aggregate demand would diminish, and so would sales projections, thus capital investment. Instead, the excess resources would remain idle and unproductive. For instance, Armenia might have a low-cost business environment, but if there is nobody to sell goods and services to, then why bother investing there? There aren't going to be any profit opportunities. On the other hand, Denmark is currently one of the largest investment hubs in the world. This is because businesses are not attracted by costs alone, but also by infrastructure, an educated workforce, and aggregate demand. Taken together, these positive features cannot be incorporated under a low-tax environment. 3. Market Growth: i) Theory It is true that governments cannot discern market prices directly nor perfectly accurately, but they can make observations and act similar to markets. For instance, if a state authority wants to contract a private construction company to repair a road, it can auction off the employment opportunity by handing the job to the lowest bidder, which acts similar to markets. Not to mention, governments are not always supposed to act like markets; in fact, markets do not always produce optimal outcomes. The healthcare industry requires high educational and technological components to qualitatively function, which inevitably leads to high prices for consumers. In this scenario, the role of the government is to provide insurance for people that cannot afford basic health procedures, which circumvents the issue that markets naturally cause and cannot fix. Working examples include nearly every developed nation on Earth, so this theory does not adhere to a Nirvana Fallacy. ii) Examples For the rest of this topic, my opponent is explaining a mathematical model he used to predict GDP growth, but I'm not sure what the point of it is. He points out that economic growth from previous years will have an impact on current growth levels, but what this has to do with the resolution is beyond me. If my opponent is attempting to mathematically correlate economic prosperity with lower tax rates, then there is simply no way this can be done by anyone short of a professional statistician. Economic growth builds on itself, so exponential gains will take place, regardless of tax hikes or cuts. If changes in the tax code did have substantial effects on comparative growth rates, then a linear data correlation would trend with historical tax changes -- trends would also follow between nations based on comparative tax codes. But, this isn't the case, for Norway has considerably higher taxes and higher GDP per capita than the US does. Also, the USA's changing tax rates don't coincide with economic growth very much either... However, I'm not really sure if that was even what my opponent was getting at. Some elucidation would be helpful.

I am going to refute your refutes now. 3. Increased revenue American citizens will all take home more money. Thus they have more to spend. Actually, if all Americans spent the same with FairTax as they do now, almost every person of every socio-economic class would pay less in taxes by the end of his or her life. Yet, the government still makes more money because of the lack of loopholes. 4. Lowers unemployment I understand that your research into FairTax is not as extensive as mine and your knowledge on taxes may not be complete, as with most Americans. Yes, I know that taxes do not go to the businesses. Currently, businesses have to pay taxes when they get the products that they are going to sell to make a profit. With FairTax, no taxes would be paid on any good until the final consumer gets this product. With this, businesses would save money from not paying these taxes and it could go towards hiring people. 5. Deflation Again, with FairTax, businesses will not have to pay taxes when they receive the goods from the vendor as they do now. Thus, the products would be cheaper. 6. People choose how much taxes to pay The purpose of this point is to show that people would not be penalized for working hard. They could pay a lot or a little. Still, they would take home more money to spend. For example, a person who makes 60,000 dollars a year takes home only 45,000. With FairTax, they take home 60,000 dollars. People will not cut back because they have more money to spend. Now I will refute your claims. 1. The system will drive spending into the ground. People will not just take home a little more money, they will be taking home significantly larger amounts, as shown above. While, I grant you, the receipt may have a larger total number, their paychecks will have a much larger total number. 2. Who would pay for those checks? Easy, the people who get the checks pay for those checks. The equation is... poverty level spending for size of said household in a year X the sales tax rate / the twelve months...this is how much a family will get on a check in a month. The reasoning behind this is poverty level families spend money only on the basic necessities which these checks would cover. Now you have background. When Bob goes to the store and buys a tomato, the cost of the tomato is multiplied by the sales tax rate and that number is added to the cost of the tomato. This is a basic necessity, food, but it would still be taxed. The check simply ensures that the cost of the taxes on this necessity is cancelled out. The reason this system has these checks instead of not taxing the food and water is because the government can limit the amount of tax free food. I hope you can follow this because this part of this tax plan is hard to explain. 3. Discourage American businesses I have disproved the reasoning of this point already. At this time, I will include additional points. 1. Out of attempt to make you happy, I will say, for the purpose of this point, Fair Tax made national revenue the same. This system will help with real-estate sales, thrift stores, used car dealerships, and pawn shops. According to FairTax, the same item can only be taxed once. Therefore, any house that is not brand new would be tax free. This boosts the number of Real-Estate agents who will pay taxes with their new found money. Thrift stores will be completely tax free thus making stores like Goodwill more profitable. These places will get more employees who will pay taxes. Used car dealerships will benefit because the cars would be tax free. This will spark the car business and will encourage selling cars to the dealerships because the dealerships would be willing to pay more because they would need more inventory. Pawn shops would be the same. Even if, after all this, the national revenue did not change, the quality of life in the US would improve because more people would have money because they would have more jobs. 2. No loopholes I don't need to explain this any further. 3. Encourage hard work People would no longer be penalized due to the flawed tax bracket system for working harder. And these people would spend more. If, after all of this, you still find fault, please post what system America should go by for taxation(it bothers me when people shoot down one idea but does not provide an idea of his or her own). Go to fairtax.org for answers to any questions you may have about FairTax.

Many doubted the economy would ever be strong under President Trump; some still deny that the economy is strong under President Trump. If you are one of those that denies the economy is strong under President Trump, accept this challenge and make your case. And btw, if anybody wants to debate other issues involving President Trump, make a debate and challenge me. I am interested in having more debates about the job President Trump is doing, and I'm open to many different subjects. My case: The economy is strong under President Trump. 1) Unemployment Rate: The unemployment rate is down to 3.9%.[1] The last time the unemployment rate was lower was April of 2000, and if we can drop below that 3.8%, then we are in pre-1970's territory.[2] This advantage has spread out over the course of many groups, especially Blacks and Hispanics.[3] Many of these groups have the best unemployment numbers in decades. Long Term Unemployment Rate is way down.[7] Initial[8] and continuing[9] jobless claims are way down. 2) Full Time Jobs: The number of Full Time jobs are greater than they have ever been.[5] 3) Nonfarm Payroll Jobs: The number of nonfarm payroll jobs are the greatest they've been since at least 2008.[6] 4) Wages: Wage growth usually comes last, but we have seen them grow.[10] Living Wage Family is also at an all time high.[13] 5) GDP: GDP growth has been stable and growing (most easily seen in the 5Y).[11] 6) Productivity: Productivity is at an all time high.[12] 7) Confidence: The Consumer Confidence Index (CCI), Business Confidence Index (BCI), and Composite Leading Indicator (CLI) are all positive.[14] 8) Capital Spending: According to David Brooks (no fan of President Trump) of the New York Times and citing Bloomberg, President Trump's tax cuts have resulted in a 39% capital spending increase, which is better than he was expecting.[15] 9) Interest Rates: Due to strong growth, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates, something that hadn't been done since 2006.[16] Historical interest rate levels[17] 10) Stock Market: The stock market has grown extensively under President Trump.[18][19] 11) Manufacturing: The manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) is way up, a sign of economic health through manufacturing.[20] PMI considers manufacturing activity, inventory, and many other categories.[21] 12) Retail Sales: Retail sales have been healthy since President Trump took office.[22] 14) Building Permits: Building permits are rising.[23] 15) Housing Prices: Housing prices rose in 2017,[25] and continue to rise.[24] Rising prices is a sign of strong demand, which shows a strong economy. 16) Trade Deficit: The trade deficit has been declining sharply in 2018.[26] Overall, you can slice this economy just about any way you want, these economic numbers are healthy. Sources I have cited include journalists from the New York Times and Bloomberg admitting ecomoic health. I have shown the hard data in many different categories that are considered important to economic health. I've shown that the Federal Reserve finds this economy to be healthy, and the result is rising interest rates. To tie this all together, I have an article from Money Crashers explaining 16 major leading indicators of a healthy (or not) economy.[27] My argument shows that the ecomonic numbers under President Trump are favorable indicators for a healthy economy. The economy is strong under President Trump. Disagree with me? Then accept the challenge and make your case! NOTE: Dukeofpanda was quick to refute me in the comments, but they refused to debate me. Sources: [1] https://data.bls.gov...... [2] https://www.google.com...... [3] https://www.bls.gov...... [4] https://data.bls.gov...... [5] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [6] https://data.bls.gov...... [7] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [8] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [9] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [10] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [11] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [12] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [13] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [14] https://data.oecd.org...... [15] https://twitter.com...... [16] https://www.washingtonpost.com...... [17] https://www.moneycafe.com...... [18] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [19] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [20] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [21] https://www.investopedia.com...... [22] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [23] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [24] https://www.globalpropertyguide.com...... [25] http://fortune.com...... [26] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [27] https://www.moneycrashers.com......

I hope you realize that isn't going to fly. That is anecdotal evidence at best utter nonsense at worst. If that is the case, I'd love to see your tax returns. But you have yet to provide them or to cite any figures. Isn't that interesting? The CBO doesn't lie, and the CBO numbers are in stark contrast to what you have said. I wasn't speaking about where I live. I was giving you objective facts. You gave me nothing but inaccuracies, distortions, and anecdotes. Conclusion:Con has dropped all of my arguments and provided no facts whatsoever.

Note that Pro has the sole BOP in this round, and is nowhere close to meeting it. He has made two dubious claims, without a single shred of evidence for either. As a result, I will move into rebuttals immediately. I. "Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs."Firstly, this is completely unsourced, and is, therefore, an assertion. Secondly, any reduction in costs would not be equivalent to the reduction in wages. For example, note that for most fast food restaurants, labor is only 25% of costs [1]. This means that, with a roughly 85% reduction in labor costs, a burger that is $4 in the status quo will only drop, in cost, to $3.15, or around a 22% drop. This means that while products may be cheaper, the average person's ability to buy them will be diminished exponentially worse, meaning businesses will sell less, which will lower GDP, and, overall, cramp economic growth. This leads to a much worse standard of living for the average American. Thirdly, my opponent assumes, without merit, that a company will automatically lower prices significantly. A company could also invest the saved costs back into the company (a la Wal Mart), or simply take the profit [2]. Basic economics is simply insufficient with regards to the labor market. Thus, economically, this would be catastrophic. II. "The US Dollar will become stronger, because it will be able to buy more goods."This does not make sense. Again, firstly, this is unwarranted and without evidence. Secondly, currency strength is only partially related to the cost of goods [3]. Other things, like government interventions and economic shocks, are also involved. Thirdly, currency strength is but one measure, and does not mean that the country is economically strong [4]. Note, in my previous source, that 7 of the top 10 strongest currencies are not from countries that are economically strong in terms of standards of living. ConclusionMy opponent has only made assertions, without evidence, which cannot meet the BOP. Even besides this, his assertions are incorrect and irrelevant, respectively. He will need to do better. Sources:1. http://smallbusiness.chron.com...2. http://www.slate.com...3. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...4. http://www.foxnews24x7.com...

Re1: Labour Costs is Indeed 25-30% However, Pro Commits a Straw man Here Con claims I didn't contest his assertion that labour costs are 25-30%. I agree, I did not. Because objectively it is true, but what I did refute what that labour costs would increase as a result of an increase in MW. And if we have two similar companies (such as Walmart and Costco) and compare the two, we see that Costco saves a substantial amount of money due to a lack of turnover caused by paying more for labour. “Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average...let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs...total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million” Thus, when MW increases, we notice turnover dropping and costs saved. Which means in the short run it might be more expensive, however in the long run these firms do save money as a result, which means MW decreases labour costs, not increase them. That was my whole point, to which my opponent obviously missed. [http://hbr.org...] The committee lead by Warren noted only an 8 cent increase was supported by the Card and Kruger studies which noted prices did increase but only cents at a time (about 5). Both the study and the increase we're debating about increased wages about 18% found the same numbers. They have been consistent even with my opponents own numbers (20% is reasonable as he stated) so claiming it's more like $1.25 is outrageous and unsupported. That's only if his math is correct, but it again does not account for all variables (such as staff workers buying into McDonald’s themselves when they have more disposable income due to MW increases) I agree prices will rise, I disagree with how much they will rise. [http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...] Re2: MW Increases Do Not Eliminate Jobs No error in his source because the model in which he examines MW call for what we would generally predict in the economy, which again is not what we precisely see. This is only using the supply and demand model, which generalizes the economy, it does not precisely predict what happens. Just because there is no error in his source does not mean the methodology isn't flawed, and indeed as I showed it was made to find that MW would cost jobs. When we drop this model and go strictly on the basis of observation, we find this is simply untrue. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] In fact, my opponent cites the Newmark papers, which are heavily flawed. Originally, my opponents study actually agreed with the results of Card and Kruger before contradicting them. Card and Krugers (C&K) later studies were not only verified by T.D Stanley in 2005, but Meta-analysis of MW studies also verify C&K's studies as showing more employment increases with studies on increases of MW, and that the studies my opponent cite had heavy publication bias, and failed to meet the statistical reliability needed to justify their model and results (to be reliable studies have to have a 0.05 rating in the T-stat, opponents of MW had a score of 2, meaning they're junk science). [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Finally, one thing my opponent completely dropped was that when MW increases, more people will look for a job. Let's not forget to be considered unemployed you must meet the following conditions: 1) you must be actively looking for a job and 2) you must not have a job. So someone like a stay-at-home mother is not considered “unemployed” because she is not actively looking. Whereas someone fired and looking for work is considered. So, if labour force participation increases with increases in MW, then it's entirely possible under my opponents model to show increases of unemployed, yet MW increases still create more jobs; it's just that more people are encouraged to actively look for a job as a result, which is why his studies using supply and demand do not work, they cannot tell if it's more people entering the labour force or if firms are no longer hiring. [http://www.oecd.org...] Finally, my opponent claims that MW increase cannot stimulate the economy, this is nonsense, the poorest people in this country spend their money the most, if they have more disposable income and continue to spend they way they do, then increases of MW will in fact act like a stimulus for the economy. [http://www.ksl.com...] And no McDonald's will not automate everything even though MW increases because in the short run, those investments in tech are too costly, whereas people have the distinct advantage of having more skill in more than one area of work (promotions for example, or cooking more than one good, etc...) Besides, McDonald's when they were first founded were already automated to a certain degree, if MW increases have already happened and automation hasn't taken over completely, then this is an absurd argument by appealing to fear. They've been around since the 1940's and have seen numerous MW hikes, and yet they went from a self-serving type fast-food chain to an “assembly line” as my source notes. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Finally, my opponent states “no one knows more about the McDonald's trade offs than McDonald's” which is true, but we have to look at this policy from the economy as a whole and evaluate it, we're not debating if it ought to be implemented, thus we have to go by economists, and the C&K studies, not McDonald's, last time I checked, they're not experts on Macroeconomics, economists are. Also, I cited the Costco vs Walmart for a “controlled experiment” on the impacts of wage hikes. Which is why Roy doesn't want that to be considered; it shows without question the superiority of MW increases. Re3: MW is NOT Welfare My opponent concedes that MW is here to stay for at least some positive reason, he just doesn't want it to get “worse”, besides I already showed through MPL in a monopsonistic competition that wages are below, thus my opponent concedes here. My opponent then goes on to say we have to talk about advantages versus disadvantages, which is true, but it's been around since the 1800's internationally, and is still in 90% of the world. If we want to weight in the +/- consequences of this policy, then to empirically test it's soundness we must see what it's impacts are, and assume the government is involved with MW and violating the right to contract, otherwise his whole case around the empirical of MW losing jobs has to be tossed out as irrelevant, because he simply has no data to show, and concedes that his model is a bunch of generalities, not preciseness. The Gini coefficient is important, when inequality is reduced, crime decrease, social cohesion improves, quality of life improves, and economic incentives develop, all this by increasing MW, to which my opponent didn't contest and just claimed “it's a measure” yet the two are correlated, and show the "spin-off" effect of increases. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Drops: My opponent drops that MW has been around for years due to it's effectiveness, and it has been internationally accepted in other parts of the world. In fact, some parts it's socially employed not legally My opponent drops my monopsonistic argument favouring businesses unfairly My opponent drops that MW may cause tech improvements, and his contradicting claims in RD2(prices)Thank You

1) A) I find it odd that my opponent thinks that temporary jobs are useless, given that every job is temporary. If you build a house eventually that house will be built and the job is done with, if you harvest a crop when you are done that job is done with. Also CFC will result in millions in saving due to increased fuel economy. B) The facts still remain that C4C created over 40,000 jobs in America, increased GDP and will result in Consumers saving .7million a year because of increased fuel economy. How my opponent thinks those things are bad is beyond me. 2) A) First off some of the jobs created by Obama will be creased after 2011. For example increasing MPG standards will create 700,000 jobs up to 2030. B) Second my opponent is making the same logical fallacy that he made when he claimed that Bush was the cause of every job created in 2002-2007. You can't logical/honestly claim that ALL the jobs losses from 2009-2011 was Obama's fault, especially given the fact that for the first quarter of 2009 Obama's polices weren't even implemented yet. C) The Job loses that occurred from Jan 2009-Mar2010 occurred because of the popping of the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Now it is impossible for those two things to be Obama's fault considering they occurred while Bush was president. D) It is irrelevant how many jobs were lost from 2009-2011, because this debate isn't on how many jobs were lost/created during the presidency of Bush and Obama. The debate is on how many jobs were created due to policies implemented by both presidents 3) Also like I said in my last post that increases and decreases in the deficit does not mean increases or decreases in money saved. In order for a policy to save money it must show that the money spent results in more economic benefits then the money spent. For example money spent decreasing pollution results in lower health costs meaning money saved. 4) So to recap so far we have that Bush policies wasted 384billion, and created 0 jobs, and that Obama policies have/will save4.3 trillion dollars and create over 7 million jobs

i didn't say taxes would make people not work. i said they would go overseas and they have. that's where manufacturing jobs have gone. a sales tax is not regressive because there is a prebate that ensures that poor people are untaxed and many goods, like food, are exempted. spending does not mean bad economy. that is correlation not causation. to produce something it must be made. the tax is revenue-neutral so we can still pay for roads

This debate will be about which president since Carter has enacted the best job creation, and economic polices. Job creation generally means number of jobs created (Example: Policy A resulted in the creation of 5 jobs). We will define economic generally as how much money is saved (Example: Policy B resulted in $5 not being spent wastefully). Polices the government enacted from 1997-1981 would be considered Carters policies. Policies the government enacted from 1981-1989 would be Reagan's 1989-1993 Bush 1. 1993-2000 Clinton 2000-2008 Bush and for Obama we will only included years were Democrats controlled the house and Senate 2009-2011. The burden of proof will rest on both debaters. I must provide support for Obama, while my opponent must provide support for another president. My opponent can use examples of Obama polices that hurt the economy, while I can use policies his predecessors enacted. My opponent can either make the first argument or allow me to make the first argument.