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

RESOLVED, The United States should not adopt a flat tax rate of 10% and abandon its current tax system.

1) "The US fiscal crisis" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) - The US government's revenue from taxes is approximately 2.6 trillion dollars, with the majority coming from income and corporate taxes. If a flat tax rate of 10% is implemented, it would significantly reduce the government's tax revenue, potentially leading to a massive deficit. Assuming the flat tax applies to income and corporate taxes, the government's tax take would be reduced to about one-third of its current level. For the sake of calculation, let's say it would be cut in half. This would result in the government receiving only 1.3 trillion dollars in tax revenue, while spending in 2008 was 2.9 trillion dollars, with an additional 0.6 trillion dollars allocated for wars. Consequently, the existing 1 trillion dollar deficit would increase to a 2.3 trillion dollar deficit. Even if the government were to cut all discretionary spending and close down major departments such as defense, education, urban development, homeland security, and energy, the deficit would still be reduced to a 400 billion dollar deficit, with mandatory spending lowered to 1.78 trillion dollars. This would exacerbate the already existing 10 trillion dollar debt.

The Reagan era saw the end of the recession and a significant increase in spending, which tripled the national debt. This period marked the beginning of the ballooning national debt. Kennedy's tax cuts came during a time of economic growth, but so did Clinton's tax hikes, which resulted in a significant increase in revenues. In contrast, Bush's tax cuts, which also occurred during a time of growth, led to a recession and the transformation of surpluses into deficits. It appears that there is no discernible pattern linking tax cuts to economic growth. The fact that a low corporate tax rate attracts shell companies does not necessarily mean that it creates jobs. Instead, it often results in the establishment of a P.O. Box and the reporting of large sums of money on paper to avoid paying taxes. This is not a genuine influx of businesses but rather a scheme that the US has not yet eliminated.

The majority of people can easily file their taxes by claiming the standard deduction and entering their W-2 information. Misunderstanding the tax code does not typically result in legal trouble, unless there is clear intent to defraud the government.

Rebuttals “FDR imposed tax rates of 90% and America’s economy was fine!” [1] The post-World War II era was an irregular situation in world history. The United States was an economic superpower, producing 1/3rd of global output [2]. The major nations such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union – all were facing economic devastation. The United States had global economic hegemony, and the excessive tax rates – while harmful – were not painful enough to destroy America’s unique position. Also, the revenue system was entrenched with tax loopholes, which significantly reduced the effective marginal tax rates on the wealthy [3]. Furthermore, your argument doesn’t consider the impact of factors such as tremendous post-war savings and investment [4], the GI Bill, the deregulation of product and factor markets, and the reduction of the federal debt. So, you’re “post-WW2 argument” fails to hold water because: (1) The USA lacked global economic competition (2) Effective taxes were significantly lower (3) The economy thrived from different factors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R1: High Taxes are Immoral I utilized the terms “excessive” and “slight” simply as broad adjectives; I agree that how these adjectives are used is a subjective decision, but most people would agree that rates such as 90% would be “excessive”, while a rate of 5% would be “slight”. Unjustified Taxation The philosopher John Locke crafted a vision that the government’s singular function was to “protect people’s natural rights… those being the right to life, liberty, and property”. In fact, Locke’s philosophy was the foundation of the American government. When the government taxes individuals and redistributes income to different individuals, it fits the definition of theft. The definition of theft is "the removal of property through force", and redistribution fails to improve the common good, and instead simply deprives some for the benefit of others. Productivity and Wages Each worker's wage is linked to their marginal productivity. An individual's marginal contribution to the value of output is reflected in the worker's wage. This theory is almost universally accepted by economists [5] [6]. Therefore, the market's income distribution is fair, because people receive "wages that equal the value of their contribution to the economy's output" [6]. When the government redistributes income, it is depriving taxpayers of their earnings -- effectively discouraging them from being productive workers -- and rewarding the less productive workers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R2: High Taxes are Shortsighted First, your arguments about the "giant corporation" have no evidence to substantiate your claims. Now I'll show why higher taxes are bad. The President's Council of Economic Advisers have stated that every $1 in tax revenues corrodes the economy by $1.50, after including compliance costs [7]. The University of California in Berkeley provided empirical evidence that shows $1 in tax increases reduces the economy by $3 [8]. The National Bureau of Economic Research has provided large swaths of empirical data showing that "tax[es] [are] an obstacle to the growth of small businesses." Indeed, a 17% reduction in marginal tax rates was simulated to increase business size by 28% [9]. Furthermore, high-income taxpayers provide the savings and investment which fuels economic growth. The productive output the wealthy contribute fosters economic development... (1) their incomes spent on consumption generates demand that reverberates throughout the economy, (2) their savings are invested to grow small businesses (through financial securities), and (3) their funds which are invested through venture capitalism foster entrepreneurship, innovation, and R&D. Therefore, higher taxes are shortsighted: (1) Higher taxes will significantly reduce America's economy (GDP) and produce inefficiency (2) Higher taxes will kill jobs and middle-class livelihoods (3) Higher taxes will corrode entrepreneurship and small business growth (4) Higher taxes will diminish America's global competitiveness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R3: Redistribution Distorts Incentives Labor earnings are equivalent to their marginal productivity (see my first argument). The highly productive and skilled workers are paid well, while the uneducated are not. The market pays people fairly because they receive what they contribute to the economy. If we redistribute incomes, the whole system of incentives is altered. The government will discourage individuals from improving their education and from investing in innovative, new products. The government will instead encourage low productivity and idleness. Indeed, because income subsidies will fall as incomes rise, the payoff of higher wages will be shortcut. This is already the case, as implicit marginal tax rates (from welfare programs) sometimes make higher wages less advantageous. This system of incentives is terribly unhealthy for both the economy and America's culture. The culture of hard work and thrift will be damaged, and consequently, the economy will become grossly inefficient. People will become dependent on different people's income (production), and a culture of idleness will envelop among a segment of low-income workers, who will see living off the taxpayer's back as a better alternative than low-income jobs.Pro fails to explain why the successful and hard working taxpayers should sacrifice, even though they made the correct economic decisions in life.The poor will be encouraged to stay poor. The rewards from higher education and hard work would be eradicated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R4: Low-Income PeoplesExpanding Opportunity The accurate poverty rate is approximately 2% [9]. To be concise, material poverty "has been largely eradicated". Indeed, the bottom 5% of American citizens earn more than 95% of Indian citizens. The United States economy provides vast opportunity for citizens to climb the income ladder and earn a comfortable living. As I showed earlier, typical high school graduates earn enough to sustain themselves. The type of material poverty you visualized only exists because of behavioral choices, and therefore is the result of individual choice, not society's err. The market economy is the strongest engine for economic development and job growth in human history. A vibrant free market will generate the opportunities for all Americans to pursue their dreams and fulfill their livelihoods by earning an honest living, while also building a healthy economy. The pictures above also serve to validate this fact.Improving People's Wages The value of total production equals the value of incomes received throughout an economy [6]. Therefore, a healthy economy has growing productive capacity. The growth in GDP is very dependent on private investment, the majority of which is supplied by the wealthy. Thus, the high-income Americans provide the investment capital which serves to increase real wages throughout the economy. If we redistribute incomes away from the wealthy, this stream of funds will halt. Incomes will stagnate (contrary to popular beliefs, incomes have been rising with productivity, but employee benefits have supplanted earnings increases [11]). This picture shows that the vast majority of income for low-income Americans are from earnings. If we destroy the investments which increase overall productivity levels, it could very well harm the poor, in the form of reduced capital levels.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusions The vast plethora of Americans have a choice of their future. Those who graduate "high school, [are] married, had no more than two children, and worked full time" have a trivial poverty rate of 1%" [10]. Therefore, people should be free to pursue their dreams and make their own decisions. That is the essence of freedom that forms the foundation of America itself. Redistribution of incomes has a wide array of consequences, and could very well increase poverty, due to the distortion of incentives.Furthermore, if the government wants to augment the earnings among low-income peoples, it should promote productivity growth and capital accumulation, which would benefit everybody. So the consequences of redistribution include these: (1) A significant reduction in America's economy (2) A large increase in unemployment and industry underutilization (3) A reduction in entrepreneurship, innovation, and R&D, (4) A distortion of vital economic incentives and associated economic imbalance (5) A shattering of U.S. global competitiveness (6) A massive theft from the productive to the low-income classes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be." - Lao-Tzu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: [1] Paraphrased [2] (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...) [3] (http://flaglerlive.com...) [4] Gordon, John. An Empire of Wealth. 2004. 349-381. Print. [5] (http://www3.nd.edu...) [6] Browning, Edgar. Stealing From Each Other. 2008. 4-9. Print. [7] (http://eml.berkeley.edu...) [8] Economic Report of the President (2003), p.77. [9] (http://www.forbes.com...) [10] Sawhill, "Behavioral Aspects of Poverty," p. 83. [11] Reynolds, Arnold. Income and Wealth. Greenwood Press, 2006. 64. Print.

1. If children are rich because of their parents, They are not legally obliged to jobs, So therefore they would inherit money or be spoiled, But they don't have a job themselves. 2. Different jobs and different companies give different pay. All industries get different pay, And it all depends on demand of the job, And how much the employer pays. For example, Renovators and construction is probably more common than programming computers and tech and stuff like that. 3. The rich are the ones who can get more money, Therefore being able to use that money to pay more and expand jobs to people. With more money, The rich and business owners are able to make more jobs for more Americans. "And I'm saying a proportionally even amount of money should be taken from everyone, Not a bigger percentage from the rich, That isn't fair. " So your saying everyone should be taken away the same percentage of money and not a bigger percentage from the rich? That's sort of what you were trying to argue against. I am for this.

Employers have to compete for workers the same way they have to compete for customers. If Ben's Carwash charges $10.00, and Kristina's Carwash charges $7.50, Kristina will take Ben's customers. If Ben's Carwash starts at $10.00 an hour, and Kristina's Carwash starts at $7.50 an hour, Ben will take Kristina's workers. My opponent mentioned people who are so down and out and desperate for work that they will accept any job without even knowing what the rate of pay is. What my opponent is overlooking is that when the government mandates a higher wage, employers will hire fewer of these desperate people. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 an hour worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7.00 an hour, even if the government demands it. The law of supply and demand, which is going to operate no matter how hard the government fights it, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.

When it comes to change, people are naturally a little weary. Such has been the case with most major social dynamics concerning the economy and the Job market. Anything that people feel like will result in the loss of jobs, people will automatically become a bit skeptical. The same dynamic is seen toward immigration, and significant economical changes in a specific state. Well, my goal in this debate it to quell those worries by showing how technology will help, rather than hurt the job market! I will be covering my opponents arguments within my own arguments.1) Technology works alongside humans, and creates more work!My opponent posts a video of a car factory busy at work mass producing vehicles. What you may also have noticed in the video is a couple of humans walking by in some of the frames assisting with some of the work. It is simply impossible right now to have a business run on pure technology, and that is because the human aspect will almost always be needed in conjunction with the technology, especially in a warehouse environment. The machine helps with the work, but without multiple people to tell it exactly what to do, it doesn't operate nearly as effectively. As someone who works in a warehouse, let me elaborate a little more clearly on how this works. Let's take a Wal-Mart distribution center, that has some of the coolest technology working to ship out the hundreds of thousands of different boxes being sent out to each of it's distributors daily. Most have 15-20 miles (1) of conveyor systems, a couple hundred fork lifts, computer systems used to properly convey all information accurately, and an advance computer scanning system that finds labels and sends each box to it's specific store automatically as a box passes through. The technology is incredible, but what is more incredible is the need of a human to operate and control all of this equipment, which leaves wal-mart distribution centers almost always hiring. They need someone on these forklifts pulling pallets from trucks to load on the conveyor belt. People labeling boxes appropriately and sending them to staples stock, or to break-pack employees who pick out individual items a store requests. They need supervisors, managers, and HR representatives for all the employees in these individual areas, that leaves distribution centers constantly hiring. The best part is some of these jobs that have higher responsibility in maintaining this expensive technology, also end up paying higher. Let's take your average distribution warehouse job- In Utah, it pays out starting at 16.50 and hour, and is an exceptionally easy job to get as long as you meet the physical requirements. Distribution centers around the states also pay competitively according to the states individual economy. Now let's get back to the car factory point, because it may be true that some companies use technology in a way that requires less humans than others. If you look at the description in my opponent's first video however, it says the following: "In answer to the many who have commented "how many people have these robots put out of work" the answer is 0. The factory was built in a town which had high unemployment after the Soviets left, and the production line is a small part of a plant which employs several thousand."Also whenever new technology is created, it requires people building this technology. That is a whole other job market that opens itself up for potential jobless people looking for careers. It's easy to see a small portion of a company where technology advancement looks amazing, and jump to the conclusion that the robots are taking over. The same could be said from someone taking a tour of a wal-mart distribution center looking at the amazing conveyor/scanning technology, but at the end of the day, great technology works best in the hands of great employees. 2) Are machines a feasible replacement to humans?Jonbonbon in the last round points out some benefits machines have to humans, which can be true, but there are also a lot of benefits humans have over machines. Machines that are used constantly or frequently get wear and tear, or break down. This requires human assistance to provide maintenance. This maintenance can be costly, especially if repairs are needed or parts need replacements. Also Burger Bot won't make the best burger; To have a machine move parts of a sandwich around is interesting, but it's not the most enticing principle ever. When I go to a burger joint, I choose where I go based on the taste and quality of the patty. How many people are interested in paying for a burger that was just thrown together without a human to verify it is the right temperature, the vegetables were in good condition and not rotted, the ketchup/mustard bottles are full and actually giving the right amount of sauce, etc, etc. Leaving a machine in charge of making food can be a very dangerous idea when talking about FDA inspections and customer service relations. Technology can potentially cost more than an employee. Let's use the burger bot example again, and say you had to pay a pretty penny to get the technology in the first place. Is buying the technology for let's say 50k, spending all the money constantly doing maintenance, and funding all the extra electricity bills, and potentially having messed up burgers. It is worth the money to do this when you can pay a fast food employee less than 25k a year, give them proper training to add the human touch?3) Customer Service RelationshipsHow does this play in customer service roles? Let's talk about Sophia. How many times have you yelled at your GPS because it is taking you a route that you know is longer, or doesn't account for construction in certain areas? How many times do we blame our phones for auto-correct messing up a sext and ruining our date? My opponent points out that phone operating companies being automated makes a smoother process, but how many times have you tried to use your voice with an operator system to tell it what you need so it can try to direct you where to go, just for it to push you through to the wrong department because it 'mis-heard you' or asks you annoyingly to repeat yourself many multiple times? Quite simply, while technology like Sophia is very interesting, it is bound to run into many of the same problem areas other technology quite often runs into. In the video with Sophia posted by my opponent, it's easy to see that Sophia is answering interview questions with typed out lines, fed by the producers. But how would this work realistically in a stake n shake? I tell the machine "I want a Caramel Shake with French fries", and it potentially hears "I want a Caramel Shake with extra ice". It's going to be a problem without a human presence to verify that everything is working properly. The logistics behind how this can work flawlessly are ultimately unknown by my opponent and myself, as much of this technology is only being tested and not released. But in the customer service industry, this may bring up a lot of problems. Imagine the impact technology will have on the technology impaired, or the elderly! People being forced to talk to computers when they have difficulty understanding them and how they operate. While having technology is awesome for people in the wal-mart or McDonald's checkout line that want to stream line the process with the machines, it remains un-realistic to think the human option of customer service will be completely ruled out from the endeavors. With all these potential errors that technology can provide (and often does, again referring to the GPS and cell-phone examples), is it really accurate to predict self-driving cars and machines that perform heart surgery are going to be flawless and provide less accidents? Further would you as a consumer trust yourself in the hands of a licensed profession surgeon who has done what he/she has done for years and has a degree, or a machine that can have any number of things go wrong with it. All it takes is for the power to go out and the patient is screwed, where as a doctor with knowledge and expertise in his field can improvise and use tools that don't require technology to perform the surgery. While it is easy to fantasize about the wonders of technology, we also have to be realistic in how we approach them and their over-use in the modern day world. A human presence will not become obsolete, and while it is true that technology is impacting the world, I am a firm believer that technology will only ever work alongside humans effectively.1. http://www.mwpvl.com...

In terms of tax reduction you would prefer reducing the taxes of the top 1%? How would that improve the economic state of the country? It wouldn't. Also, Obama could not reduce taxes on the bottom 2 quintiles because that would not have been permitted by Congress. He barely got the stimulus package passed. And that did help the workers much more than doing nothing.In terms of being black his mere existence in the White House has provoked an immense amount of racism and fear throughout the white community. The fact that he has withstood rude attacks that would never have happened had he been white is truly impressive. And in spite of that, the country is in better shape than it was in 2008.How do you manage to absolve Bush from any complicity in the Great Recession? Don't ignore the 2 unpaid for wars. Don't ignore Medicare Part D? Don't ignore his ignoring the deregulation of the financial industry. You mention the loss of wealth that led to spending cutbacks. How did that wealth loss occur? Who caused it? Bush and his lackeys. You list stats for jobs loss but you do not give the cause. Do you want to look at the repeal of Glass - Steagle? Do you want to cite the securitzation of the mortgage industry under Bush and the evisceration of the financial regulators to oversee what was happening with the derivatives? You gloss over these very important occurrences to indict Obama. That won't wash.You say a bubble burst. What bubble was that? The housing bubble? Tell us more about that.Now in terms of the stimulus package. You are right Obama and his people went out on a limb and made a bold projection. Foolish. He should have stayed mum and waited. It is now just above 6%. The stimulus turned the economy around and maybe have gotten unemployment down to 8% if he had made the stimulus 3 billion instead of under 1 billion. But Congress would never have permitted a 3 billion dollar stimulus. The deficits did rise considerably the first 2 years but how the deficit is declining. They rose becuse it tookat least 2 years for the economy to improve and government spending was used to stimulate the economy ala Keynesian Economic theory.So far you haven't given me some valid criticisms of Obama. I await them.

I would like to mention you failed to reply to the fact that the National Sales Tax has not been applied to an national level in any nation state. I just wanted to remind you and others. C1 R3: You misunderstood my interpretation of income inequality, I'll rephrase it for you, if the National Sales Tax were to take place there would be an astronomical wealth inequality, this, the government can effect. Why is this a harm? It is a harm due to the fact that the rich already make a large sum of money, and if they made more this would only lead to a creation of a false democracy. The elite will have more money to lobby our politics and corrupt our politicians. You state "Four hundred dollars might seem like a minuscule amount to a rich person; however, to a middle class worker or family, the 400 dollars they would save is a bonanza that would enable them to improve their economic condition" this is horrifically wrong in so many ways. One, 400 dollars is a big save to a MIDDLE class family or person? HA! This is nothing for a middle class family, I know this, because I come from a middle class family! Two, an average middle class family wouldn't save 400 dollars, they would save almost none. Three, it is the minimum wage worker that will save 400 dollars, not the middle class family or person. Don't forget, the rich will save upwards of 50k if they have an income of 100k or higher. That right there, displays wealth inequality. C2 R3: The Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare does not replace Medicare or Medicaid, the ACA takes money directly from its users while the Medicare and Medicaid programs are basically free. When I say free, once you hit the age you start using social security, at the same time you will be using medicare/medicaid, the government will simply deduct the cost of medicare from your social security benefit each month. Where is your source for CBO "saying" that the government spent a trillion in federal subsidies? What duplicate programs will congress just eliminate like the programs were nothing? Everything the federal government spends money on has a purpose you know. Your statement on how defense spending will be untouched is wrong, if anything is to go first, it would be defense spending. When the Obama administration took office, they cut a total of 120 billion dollars from military funding in under 4 years. Now imagine what the would do if they had to deal with a huge reduction in tax income. C3 R3: My opponent also states that a "true" National Sales Tax will be able to dodge the fact that business to business sales will not be incorporated into the tax. This is false. Reason being? My opponent is going beyond the realm of the debate and is fabricating a fake NST, this is a topicality issue, you can not imply that there is a "true" National Sales Tax. We are talking about the National Sales Tax that was written on a bill in 1999, and that National Sales tax says nothing of how it will be able to tax business to business purchases. Furthermore, a National Sales Tax will eliminate many taxes, as seen in the definition of the National Sales Tax (Rezamee R2). I hope you have an answer on to how these taxes will be replaced, without significantly hurting the government's budget or rupturing the economy. C4 R3: Pro has explained a drop in prices if the corporate tax would be eliminated by the National Sales Tax. This is simply not the case. I don't know if you know this or not, but most major corporations find huge tax loopholes letting them not pay a dime. For example CBS corp has a net income of 1.8 billion, and they pay ZERO taxes. You know what this means if you were to implement the NST, there would be no significant difference in prices rendering your theory dull. The government will still lose huge amounts of revenue from the removal of the income tax. Primarily due to the wealthy (100k to 500k a year, not the people in the millions of dollars of income. They dodge taxes through loopholes.) paying the brunt of the taxes according to the Pew Research Center, so if they were to start paying less, the government will be in a huge problem. There will still be a giant wealth inequality dilemma, also corporate already pays zero taxes, so do millionaires and billionaires making the tax break on them completely useless. You'll only be justifying lawbreakers with the idea of no taxes on corporate. Not only that, but the lower middle class will be heavily burdened by a flat tax of 23%, especially the single people, which accounts for 50% of the american population. Also you never mention how a 13 percent tax rate will be applicable without severe consequences, it was never even proposed to be a 13% rate. Prices might go up and down due to a fluctuating consumer demand, which primarily consists of people below 100k in income. That isn't healthy for a market and may lead to an economic bust. Sources: https://www.govtrack.us... http://moneymorning.com... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.pewresearch.org... http://taxfoundation.org... http://www.csmonitor.com...

Focusing first on your claim that the redistribution of wealth (or, more generally, resources) would somehow inherently destroy all incentive to work on the part of those from whom resources were taken, this is just patently untrue. It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e.g., about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives, CEOs still make out like bandits, the populace as a whole is no less likely to prosper (than under comparably low corporate tax rates), and nobody just abandons a highly profitable business model or product/service concept and moves to Tahiti to escape fiscal oppression. This logic applies to individuals as much as it does corporations; realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with "only" a paltry, say, $78,000,000. That's just pure nonsense, hogwash, bunkum on its face, and we need only common human experience and a child's understanding of economic realities to see that. It's of course an entirely empirical question what the exact "tipping point" would be, i.e., the rate of taxation or seizure of capital (or however you care to define it) at which incentive actually would begin to appreciably suffer, but what is beyond rational debate is that a considerable percentage of the income and assets currently earned/held by the nation's wealthiest citizens could indeed be redistributed to some particular or general demographic (e.g., the country's neediest citizens [defined in some precise way] whether employed or not, those gainfully employed but earning less than $35,000/yr., those earning less than a certain amount who also have at least two dependents [spouse and one child], those recently laid off after 20 or 25 or 30 years, whatever; the specifics hardly matter at the outset of this debate) without their incentive to do exactly what they're doing now, and have done to generate such incredible wealth in the first place, being even marginally tangibly affected. Your move.

Yes, there will always be unemployment because there will always be people who don't want to work and people who are transitioning from one job to another. No one is denying that. Just because there "will always be unemployment," we can't stop examining the various reasons for it and just hope for the best with an increase in minimum wage. There's a lack of positions for even the working-poor class; nevermind the fact that these jobs make people want to kill themselves. The jobs provided for this class of people are generally provided by corporations who have massive, multi-billion dollar net profits every quarter. We need to examine the circumstances that have made it possible for these corporations to make such huge profit margins without competition that would lower their commodity prices and keep our dollar's buying power up. When you look at a corporation in America that posts multi-billion dollar profits and decimates it's competition, you usually see a few common issues. Most of these companies are profiteering from foreign labor. If you look at my original post, I went over why this is possible in detail, but no single person can quantify the actual implications of it all -- that's a job that I'd love to see our government doing. The government, however, isn't expressing much interest in bringing these issues to light. Large corporations fund successful elections. They make sizable donations to tax exempt foundations that are often run by politicians; when they aren't run by politicians, they're run by people who invest large amounts of money in lobbying as well. It's plain to see why the government might turn a blind eye to tackling the underlying issues for falling wages. I've seen some politicians try to run a campaign on this issue; they are often blasted by the media as isolationists if they get any media attention at all. It's hard to succeed without big funding, particularly when your message is directly against whatever these people are trying to buy with their "donations." You're making big generalizations like "the fact is, there will always be unemployment" and "there will always be a race to the bottom for wages." This is verbatim from the very people who are dodging the underlying issues that actually cause unemployment and a race to the bottom for wages. These are issues that are very much connected to our governance of the market. We inflict expensive regulations upon our domestic labor and do nothing to equalize foreign labor expenses. You can't hire American labor without providing expensive social programs, minimum living wages, and special accommodations for race, religion, special needs, gender equality, etc. These are good things. And let me emphasize; I'm not saying these things should be given up. However, if we continue to trade freely with foreign countries that do not need to incur these expenses, our domestic companies will undoubtedly fail. Anyone who can't identify this issue is ignorant, and anyone who denies it is delusional. Politicians that don't talk about it aren't stupid; when they're forced to talk about it, the way they deflect and warp the topic is quite intelligent. Albeit, when most topic debates are limited to the attention span of your average American (30 seconds or so,) it's not terribly difficult to get out of it unscathed. Say, for example, if Apple wants to make an iPhone; why would they buy American metals, plastics, or glass? All those raw materials can be produced more cheaply in foreign countries. Why would they take those materials and mold components from them? It can be done cheaper elsewhere. Why would they use American laborers for assembly? It's cheaper elsewhere. Even the shipment from foreign nations is cheaper when provided by said nations. Even foreign oil is cheaper to provide energy for all levels of industry. If we can't impose our price fixing on oil, our artificially profitable oil companies fail. If we can't buy patents and inventive employees from foreign countries, we lose our price fixing on products like smart phones. Our economy isn't only suffering on the bottom, but at the top there's a lot of speculation about how long we can continue profiting while producing nothing of actual material worth. Half our market is contingent on loans acquired from speculation. How long can it go on? Brewing a coffee, frying a burger, or ringing through an item does not produce any material wealth. We're outsourcing far too much actual industry, and the world undoubtedly notices that most of us only work to facilitate each others' consumption of foreign goods. Increasing minimum wage under these circumstances is not a solution. Just think about all the jobs that have been removed from American soil lending to any single product that you might go out and purchase. American corporations profit almost entirely from foreigners. The jobs remaining in America that produce actual material worth are extremely difficult to profit from, and it's not hard to see why. So is the solution to simply increase minimum wage? I think not. Increasing minimum wage just serves to perpetuate this problem. It does means that corporations will pay a bit more to their working-poor class. Any corporation would be absolutely silly not to recognize that they can increase prices, at that point, and it will not result in new competition. The corporations are not paying people enough. That's clear, when you see their gigantic profit margins. Take the annual net profit of a large utility, energy, fast-food, or what have you; divide their annual net profit by the number of employees. You'll be shocked at just how much money is produced from each person in comparison to how much is paid out to them. Most of the money goes to already-rich shareholders and lenders. Does it make sense to generate wealth without producing anything of actual substance? Make the corporations pay more to their employees, and what will happen? They'll charge more. They "compete" with a shared reluctance to dip below multi-billion dollar profit margins. Increase their operating expenses, and they'll increase their prices. I can't give you a solution. If I had one, I'd be running for office and probably failing because I'd never get the kind of money required to run an election. Who'd pay for it? What party would accept me? Democrats and Republicans both get the funding for their elections and the funding for their tax-exempt foundations from this system. To have your voice heard in America as a political candidate, you need money, charisma and you need to maneuver around political landmines like being touted as "against a minimum wage increase." What I can illustrate for you, is why minimum wage increases are totally and completely pointless. And that's what this debate is about.

I understand I have a limited amount of characters, so as this is my last chance to prove my point I am going to keep my rebuttal as short as possible and may not be able to rebuttal every single point but will do my best. By keeping my rebuttal short, I will be able to provide you with a conclusion and the evidence that PRO has called on me to provide. In Pro's opening statements he says that I admit my first two statements contradict, however let me make it clear that they only contradict where they must co-exist, and like I stated, I was not suggesting they co-exist, I was instead suggesting the one of them (either inflation or job loss) would happen should minimum wage be increased. I believe that Pro does understand that, however I wanted to make it clear to the audience. Moving on, Pro states that the price increases which he admitted would happen are negligible. But if you refer back to my definition of inflation in round 2, you will notice that it does not say that any amount of price increase is required for inflation to happen, all it requires is a general price increase no matter how much. However, lets consider the minimum wage increase is what Pro suggests (from $7.25 to $10.10 or a $2.85 increase) which by all means is not a modest increase. (I understand Pro said he new that in the last round, however in the first round he stated $10.10 WAS a modest increase, therefore making him contradict himself. That in fact is why I had assumed he wasn't using the federal wage because an increase to $10.10 from $7.25 is not a modest increase as he had suggested it was. ) Now back to my point, considering the minimum wage increase is from $7.25 to $10.10 in order to balance out for the fact that they are now paying their employees more they must raise the prices by more of a significant amount than what Pro is suggesting. Now that I have clarified that whether on a large scale or not inflation would to happen (given unemployment does not0 it is important for me to make clear the problem with inflation- it devalues the dollar in comparison to other currencies. I would now like to give an example of why this is bad, I could go on a larger scale ( trade with foreign nations) but because of my limits in characters, I find it simpler to give you an example based on one person in a single foreign nation. Say inflation occurs to such an extent that the dollar is only worth approximately 6.5 pesos instead of approximately 13. Say someone in Mexico is selling a doll for 13 pesos. Before inflation you could by it with $1, now after inflation (keep in mind prices would not go up in Mexico because they would not be affected by the same inflation as us because the minimum wage increase only affects those in the U.S.) you must pay $2 to by a doll. Trade on a large scale with foreign nations is affected in the same manner. Now, I am not suggesting such a drastic devaluation in the dollar WOULD happen. Depending on how much the minimum wage increases it may be less drastic, however inflation does result in the devaluation of money as stated in the definition. And no matter how much the dollar is devalued, that little amount WILL add up over time having a negative effect on our economy and trade (though it may not be seen for a long time). In regards to Pro's challenge against my statement that most humans look out for their best interest over others, unfortunately I have no concrete proof of that, so I challenge you personally, as the observer of this debate, to answer the call to proof through yourself. Would you take a cut in your own earnings so that you would not have to lay off your employees, or would you look after your own interests first? Pro again suggests that increase in minimum wage increases worker productivity. But he fails to prove this. Incentive is what increases productivity. Not what has already been given. Ask yourself which is more productive: A donkey dragging a plow who has been given a carrot to eat, or a donkey dragging a plow with a carrot being held in front of him but not yet given to him. I understand this is hypothetical but these conclusions are reached using logic just as you reach the answer to a math problem using logic. But for those who require evidence, despair not, it is coming. Unfortunately at this time I must cut my rebuttal short so that I can provide the evidence Pro has been asking for, I do believe however I have rebuttal the most important points. Now for evidence. First of all, evidence has already been provided that inflation will happen, as I stated in the last round, through the research that Pro has brought up (as you will note in the last round I brought up a couple of quotes he used that suggested that prices will indeed rise). And yes while Pro has stated that if the minimum wage increase amount is modest then prices won't rise by much- they will still rise which will still cause inflation which by definition will cause devaluation of the dollar, and even if it's only a fraction of an amount, that devaluation will add up on a large scale (just like 1 penny doesn't seem like much unless you put every penny you have in a jar for years and one day realize you have a few hundred dollars), causing a negative effect. In conclusion, Pro has proved for me that minimum wage increase does cause inflation by proving that it does cause companies to raise their prices- which I have proved by definition is what causes inflation. So the question is not whether inflation is caused by minimum wage increase, but how significant, and as I stated, even the smallest amount of inflation becomes significant over time and accumulation. Now as I stated, inflation can be avoided by the alternative- unemployment, and upon research, I have find evidence that contradicts Pro's belief that more often then not it is inflation that happens as supposed to unemployment. An article on forbes.com reads: "In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase." But whether we can agree on the fact that minimum wage increase causes unemployment more often then inflation, we can conclude that it has happened in instances in the past. (Note I do suggest that inflation and unemployment HAVE both been results in the past, but not co-existing so as not to be able to contradict each other, but rather in separate instances whether it be in the economies of separate states having different minimum wages or whether it be in different time periods in the history of the U.S.). According to CNN.com in 2009 the minimum wage increased from $6.55 an hour to $7.25. According to infoplease.com the unemployment rate went up by .3% the following year, this could be deemed a coincidence, but other research will show that the unemployment rate tends to go up with inflation in more then just a few instances. For example, looking at it from a different angle, in Hawaii, the unemployment rate is 4.4% and in Oregon it is 6.9% according to bls.gov. And minimum wage is lower in Hawaii then in Oregon by $1.85 according to ncsl.org. Further examination of the charts on these sites will show that states with higher unemployment rates than others also tend to have higher minimum wages proving that higher minimum wages cause higher unemployment rates. The last thing I would like to do is prove that contrary to what pro says, minimum wage would not be higher today if it had kept up with inflation according to research from forbes.com: "..the argument that, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would already be above $9 an hour. But inflation rates can both rise and fall, which means a minimum wage that truly kept up with inflation since its inception in 1938 would only be $4.12 today"not the current $7.25." *Sources to be listed in comments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R1: Excessive Taxation has Disadvantages "It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e. g. , about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives" First, effective corporate income taxes haven't exceeded 50% [1]. This exorbitant rate was also when the U. S. economy was a global behemoth, accounting for almost 1/3rd of global GDP [2]. Second, the extreme tax rates you are talking about applied to individuals, not corporations. "realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with "only" a paltry, say, $78,000,000" Capitalism is fueled by the profit motive. Enterprises and individuals supply each other with goods and services because of the rewards provided by the market. Individuals and enterprises take risks all the time. Profit is the payoff of sound risk management. If a large corporation or a taxpayer had to pay 90% of their income to the government, profitable ventures would be less likely to occur. The potential payoff would be significantly lower, which would encourage investors to direct their funds towards stable, blue-chip accounts. Consequently, awe-inspiring yet unproven ventures would suffer because the reward (say, 9% of the profit after your proposed taxes) would not justify the potential risks. I'll lay out my basic arguments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C1: High Taxes are Immoral The market economy rewards enterprises and individuals with equivalent earnings. When the government imposes excessive taxes, it is essentially robbing the individual of their earnings, and instead consuming the fruit of the man's labor for its selfish purposes. A slight degree of taxation is indeed justified, but when a government decides to tax excessively, it robs its citizens of their livelihood, and therefore degrades a man of his dignity and his freedom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C2: High Taxes are Shortsighted The 21st century has an interdependent global economy. Capital (human, financial, physical) is highly movable. Let's compare two nations, the United States and China. The U. S. has a corporate income tax of 35%, while China has a corporate income tax of 25% [3]. A nation's corporate income tax rate heavily influences corporate headquarters location. If Apple moved its corporate headquarters to China, it would essentially get paid $4.7 billion by the Chinese government (let's call it a corporate tax refund) [4]. If the U. S. decides to impose sky-high taxes, individuals and corporations will leave our nation, depriving America of both tax revenues, human capital, and innovation. Indeed, since 2012, over 21 U. S. companies have relocated their corporate headquarters outside of America [5]. America's personal income tax system has reached this point. However, California can provide a microsized example of what could happen -- more individuals are leaving this state than moving in [6]. Nations such as Great Britain and France are losing their most-talented workers because of their comparatively high income taxes [7]. I feel like my opponent won't respond, so I'll summarize my case with my arguments against redistribtion: - High Taxes are Immoral - High Taxes generate perverse incentives - High Taxes encourage "Brain Drain" - High Taxes suffocate Economic Growth - High Taxes obstruct entrepreneurship and innovation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources [1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [2] (. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...) [3] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [4] (. http://www.techtimes.com...) [5] (. http://washpost.bloomberg.com...) [6] (. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) [7] (. http://reason.com...)


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

Resolved: The US government should implement comprehensive tax cuts for both individual and corporate tax brackets.

C1) We should lower the corporate tax rate to remain competitive in the global economy. In a globalized market, the ease of shifting investment capital between regions makes tax rates a crucial factor in attracting or deterring investment. High corporate taxes, such as the US's top statutory rate of 39.1%, which is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%, discourage investment and stifle economic growth. The negative impacts of high corporate taxes are evident in economic performance. Johansson et al.'s OECD-published research indicates that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are most detrimental to economic growth. A 1% shift from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes could increase long-term GDP per capita by 0.25 – 1%. Johansson also observed that statutory corporate tax rates above 30 to 35% reduce investment by 1.9%. Lowering corporate tax rates would benefit dynamic and profitable firms, contributing significantly to GDP growth, as they rely on retained earnings for expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold corroborates these findings, emphasizing the negative effect of corporate taxes on GDP per capita. Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon found that a 10% cut in the corporate tax rate could boost economic growth by 1 to 2%. The high corporate tax rate in the US compromises international competitiveness, causing companies to shift $50 billion from the US to countries with lower corporate taxes. Despite the high tax rate, corporate income tax revenue comprises only 2.2% of US GDP, compared to the OECD average of 3.4%. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset determined that the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%, indicating that rates above this level would decrease revenue.

C2) Lower income taxes promote economic growth. Lower income taxes, including for the wealthy, are beneficial. The majority of tax revenue comes from the top income bracket, which pays more to the government than it consumes in services. There is a strong correlation between lower local tax revenues and faster GSP growth rates, with 40% of the variance in growth rates determined by tax burden. The benefits of Reagan-era tax cuts were long-term, fostering innovation and contributing to the growth of the 1990s. Progressive tax systems, where the wealthy pay more than the poor, negatively impact economic growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve

My opponent never showed how in sourcing and outsourcing directly correlate, simply why not just insource the and jobs and don't outsource jobs? Also my opponent claims we would only gain better like computer 'programming'. Hate to break it to you, but the top 1% of Americans in programming are equal to the top 50% of programmers coming out of India (talk to Google, the company). Basically, even if the people are paid out of the US (but really, jobs like programming can be done anywhere in the world they have Internet access) that doesn't mean Americans are getting jobs. When they 'insource' these jobs they bring the laborers with them. Jobs insourced to America aren't even with American companies, "includ[ing] plants that assemble German and Japanese automobiles" (NCPA). When Americans start doing grunt jobs for other countries that's 'cause we're no longer a top tier country, and we have lost that edge because of outsourcing.

No you have to prove successful mitigation, meaning the expectatons of the act come true with prove from evidence, you have not proven this, because what are the expectation, you said a 100 billion dollar injection causes 700,000 jobs, but it is a 150 billion dollar act, so you are advocating lower than expectations of the bill. Get your facts right, why because if you do not look to this definition then the aff can just say hey If one person spends 1 dollar that is mitigation to the economic slowdowns. It's abusive. "Now my first argument is not there to prove that there was a successful mitigation but to just say that under the most extreme of conditions that a stimulus act still has a positive impact. the facts don't lie and they clearly state that there was a mitigation of economic slowdown.", Yes a mitigation, but do you have prove that the act is doing what the advocates said it was going to do. YOu have given no evidence to what the advocates of the bill said it would do. You don't win, by just proving some mitigation, you have to prove a successful mitigation. "My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending." Now this answer is two fold. The success of the economic stimulus act will come from multiple facets of the actual act. The main factor is yes consumer spending but as said in my third point it is also investment., yes but do you know that 110 billion dollars of a 150 billion dollar act is going to spending. So if it is half of 110 billion dollars, then that is just wasted money. The housing market has had a downturn over a span since 1955 actually, the debt continued in the housing market and guess who get s hurt by the housing market banks and people that get faulty loans, like sub prime. So debt continues and when the banks aren't happy in a economy, nobody is happy. Yes, but like you said, shoulda, coulda, woulda, no evidence to prove otherwise or to prove what would have happened without 9/11. Vote NEg.

Ok, for my final rebuttal. First off, I should win by means of topicality. The Fair tax is supposed to be fair. I.e. the same for all. That is obviously being done because the government is not punishing someone for making more money. It's not a fault if someone has become rich. Next, I'll go through his last points: 1) Increases income gap. ---> No it doesn't, the trickle-down effect will eventually lead the money from the top to the bottom. 2) Not as many tax breaks as rich get. ---> That actually hasent been determined, it has been said that the upper and middle will get tax breaks, not sure yet. Your making an assumption. 3) Promotes market, only for the rich. ---> This is totally false. The trickle-down effect, plus the tax breaks will help stimulate the middle class to spend more into the system. Also, you have already conceded that the poor get "prebates" so its helping them too. 4) Eliminates all taxes for an outrageous one ---> Thats the point, its fair for all classes. It takes away the pointless ones. 5) The Fair tax helps corporations. ---> which therefore helps the middle class, and then the poor. 6) It stimulates corporations which higher middle class people, but doesn't stimulate the middle class economy. ---> you keep on saying this, but you are forgetting my TDE point,a and tax breaks. All of which stimulate both the upper and middle economies. ============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) I win the topicality debate 2) Trickle-down effect helps all classes. 3) Fair Tax comes with many tax breaks 4) Overall the Fair tax is fair because it doesn't discriminate. Everyone is equal when it comes to paying taxes.

First of all, I do recognize that statement 1 and 2 contradict each other, so please allow me to make myself clearer, these are two separate scenarios that could happen. 1 of which is bound to happen if the other doesn"t, but no, both scenarios would not co-exist. Next I have numbered each category to correspond with the title PRO has given it. I. I would first like to note the Pro does not specify what the original minimum wage was when he mentioned a modest increase to $10.10 an hour. I will assume however, being that he said modest, and using the closest rounded number, he meant from $10 an hour therefore talking about a ten cent increase in the minimum wage. Please note otherwise if I have assumed wrong. But seeing as this is all I have to go off for now, I will. If the purpose of raising the minimum wage is to provide workers with more money (which is why many people are in favor of raising the minimum wage) what is the point of such a small increase? Now I do understand that over a very large period of time an extra 10 cents an hour does become a significant amount, but it would take a long time (we"re talking years). Therefore making it pointless to raise the minimum wage and quite frankly a waste of time. But if it is raised a significant amount (with a goal to provide the workers more money), I stand when I say that it could result in the laying off of some workers. You see, con has failed to take something very important into account here: human nature. Yes employers CAN reduce their own profits in order to be more efficient, but let"s face it the majority of people wouldn"t want to do that, they would rather look out for themselves then take a pay cut so that they can afford to keep their employees. Now I understand I said more employees means more efficiency which means more product- which means more money in the long run, however most people don"t look at the long run, they look at the short run. Therefore, while not all of them will, many employers will probably sooner lay off employees than reduce their profits. Now lets move on to Pro"s second solution: more efficient technologies. This would cost money just as keeping employees would. I understand it would cost less money, but it would still cost some money resulting in the loss of even more employees. -MPC From what I understand, PRO is saying that because people earning minimum wage tend to spend all or most of their income, earning more means they will spend more meaning more money in the employers will eventually get the money back, however this is a long term effect (and as I said before, most people look in the short run) therefore Employers are still likely to lay off employees. Even if there is a higher minimum wage, there are now less people earning it because there are now more unemployed, meaning that there is no boost in the economy because there isn"t extra money circulating the economy, because basically worker A is just earning their own wage plus part of worker B"s wage. The only difference being that less people are spending the money. -In response to what Pro said about paying poverty level wages: Pro refuses to realize something here: Setting a minimum wage in order to assure people get paid the right amount for their labor is difficult" why? Because every type of labor is different" therefore if this was really the problem minimum wage was trying to solve then each specific job would require a different minimum wage than others. Therefore we must recognize that minimum wage is not going to keep workers from being employed below their marginal product of labor. Therefore we must conclude that the point of minimum wage is not what PRO has stated it is (to keep people from being employed below their marginal product of labor). Therefore, if we raised the minimum wage with PRO"s reasoning in mind, it would be impossible to achieve such a goal as I have stated because you would have to look at each job individually. -In regards to what pro said about employees being more productive if minimum wage was increased, what makes employees productive is incentive, not what has already been given them. If they are given a raise just because their employers are required to they are not going to be more productive, just like a child won"t clean their room just because their parents got them a new toy, however the child would be more likely to clean their room if the parents told them they would get them a new toy AFTER it was clean. In the same way, if a worker wants to be paid more they will be more productive, they however will not just decide to be more productive because they are being paid more- after all they can"t be threatened to be paid less because their "raise" (which is actually a raise in minimum wage) can"t be taken away. II. I would like to point out that I did indeed mean the law of supply and demand, because they go hand in hand, and I actually did refer to the law of supply (if you will note I said "if the demand goes up, price must go up because of the limited amount of supply") This is why it is called the law of supply and demand because it refers to how the demand has affected the supply (requiring a change in price in order to reach equilibrium). As you will note if you look back to my first statement in round 2, I have cleared up the contradiction so I will now move to the next section. III.I would like to take a moment to point everyone"s attention back to the topic of the argument. The topic was about Increasing Minimum wage, not having a minimum wage itself, so the question which is the third point presented by PRO is irrelevant. My statement was not the minimum wage creates inflation, it was that increasing it will. Reading on though, PRO does seem to address my original statement that INCREASING the minimum wage creates inflation. However the statement that PRO used from Sara Lemos in his argument only proves my point (please refer back to it at this point as I do not have enough characters to repeat it). The very definition of inflation according to investipedia.com is: "The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling." I understand, however, that PRO mentioned they were referring to my concern of reduction in employment, therefore, that statement should have been mentioned in the first category and is irrelevant to this category. Taking that statement, however, and disregarding that it was put in the wrong category, PRO has basically just admitted that one of my two theories of what would happen should we increase the minimum wage is correct (the inflation theory.). IV. PRO is correct, I am merely offering a hypothetical scenario, and am using small numbers (that aren"t realistic) in order to make the scenario easier to comprehend. However the scenario has been set up in such a manner to project what would indeed happen in reality so it steal stands applicable. I understand Pro has brought up the contradiction again, therefore I again point you to the first statement I made in round 2 in order to solve this dilemma (in case you have forgotten, otherwise please continue). Next I stand my ground on inflation which I previously defended. Third, Pro is refusing here to recognize the law of supply and demand which is when demand goes up price must go up, there is a limited amount of supply, therefore you cannot not always increase supply to meet demand, therefore you must increase the price. V.First of all, I would again like to point out we are not arguing minimum wage itself, just raising it. So I would like to deem the part of his argument that address minimum wage itself irrelevant. As for the part addressing minimum wage INCREASE, if you refer to pro"s last quotation it only proves my point. You see as I cleared up in my first statement, either employment or inflation would happen in the case of minimum wage increase,which PRO proves through his quotes.

Here is why the minimum wage will not boost economic growth: The. minimum wage has a negative effect on the American economy, because: 1. Jobs will be cut. 2. Prices on everyday goods will go up. 3. Price inflation will result. 4. Interest rates will increase. 5. Fewer businesses will start. 6. Savings diminish in value. 7. Less money will be spent. 8. More jobs will be cut. 9. This goes on and on. 1. If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will not be able to afford as many employees. [1][2] 2. 3. If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will be forced to raise their prices to compensate. In the long run, this cancels all of the benefits of the minimum wage. When goods cost more, the cost of everything goes up. This is called price inflation. Such inflation can weaken the economy. [3] 4. Because banks lend money to make money, when the value of their loans decreases do to the inflation described above, they must make more money to compensate for this. They do this by increasing interest rates on loans. [4] 5. With higher interest rates, it is harder for businesses to start, as they have to make a larger initial risk. Also, with higher interest rates, it is harder for a business to stay afloat. [5] 6. Because interest rates will be less than the rate of inflation (banks have to make money), the stronger inflation is, the quicker the value of a savings account deteriorates. [6] 7. When people have less savings, they spend less. Also, they feel less secure. [7] 8. With less people spending, fewer companies can sustain themselves. Also, with less spending, the economy is weaker. [8] 9. This really does go on. Raising the minimum wage can severely weaken an economy, and that certainly isn't what we need right now. Another measure is to determine overall increases in GDP or an overall effect on the economy. "In this new study, Dr. Joseph J. Sabia (United States Military Academy at West Point) uses data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis to measure the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment response associated with an increase in the minimum wage. Sabia shows that increases in the minimum wage can actually have a negative effect on GDP"specifically, GDP generated by lower-skilled industries. Sabia first examines whether increases in State and Federal minimum wages between 1997 and 2007 have decreased low-skilled employment (defined here as the employment-to-population ratio for 16-to-19 year-olds). Controlling for economic performance and other unmeasured state employment trends, Sabia finds that each 10 percent increase in a state"s minimum wage decreased employment for the group by 3.6 percent. And because these employment losses were not accompanied by an increase in school enrollment, they suggest that job loss caused by wage hikes is not offset by long-term productivity gains. After determining that increases in states minimum wages did decrease employment, Sabia looks at data on economic growth to determine whether job loss associated with a higher minimum wage has had a negative impact on GDP; he focuses specifically on GDP generated by those industries affected most by minimum wage increases. This includes low-skilled industries like wholesale trade, manufacturing of durables, warehousing and storage, rental and leasing services, and administrative and waste services. Sabia finds that each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a two to four percent decline in state GDP generated by these lower-skilled industries. Broadening the analysis to examine national GDP, Sabia finds that increases in the minimum wage between 1997 and 2007 had a small, insignificant negative effect on the national economy overall. This means mandated wage increases are far from the economic "shot in the arm" advocates claim them to be. "[9] However, most of this is measuring increases in the minimum wage. Not on the elimination of it (although the above arguments are still very relevant). Here is what another study concludes: "The effect of a minimum wage is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. Minimum wages create unemployment: At above-market prices people want to supply more labor than employers wish to hire. Repealing the minimum wage would have two effects. First, it would create job opportunities, particularly for teenagers, and the chance to acquire experience today that can translate into higher future earnings. Second, it would send a powerful message to employers, employees and investors that they can hire and invest without fear of punishment. "[10] Logic can also conclude: "If the owner makes $10 per hour off my work and pays me $8 per hour, then the owner makes $2 profit. If the minimum wage increases to $11 per hour, the owner loses $1 per hour by keeping me employed and will lay me off. The most productive employees will probably keep their jobs, but there will be far fewer employees to do the same amount of work. Many people say that "owners will pay their workers $2 per hour if there isn"t a minimum wage. " This is a ridiculous statement if logic is applied. You have to ask yourself, would you work for $2 per hour? Probably not. Do you know anyone that wants to work for $2 per hour? Probably not. "[11] Therefore, eliminating the minimum wage would spur economic growth. Through my argument, readers can conclude two things: One, that the minimum wage, harms the economy, and two, that eliminating the minimum wage would help economic growth. Sources: [1]: . http://www.frbsf.org... [2]: . http://www.heritage.org... [3]: . http://www.onlineathens.com... [4]: . http://www.foxnews.com... [5]: . http://www.westportresources.com... [6]: . http://www.bankrate.com... [7]: . http://www.iht.com... [8]: . http://www.coloradoan.com... [9]: . http://epionline.org... [10]: . http://www.forbes.com... [11]: . http://dailyorange.com...

when you talk about things like immigration, you are talking about things incidental to economics. it's not a main point. but onto your points. simplifying the tax code he's just going to lower taxes, that doesn't change the tiered structure or really simply anything over how it is now securing our border if you are for free trade you should be for open borders. most conservativses are inconsistent here. you can pay a Mexican a dollar an hour to make pillows in san diego with open borders, or you can pay a Mexican a dollar an hour to make pillows actually in mexico. it's the same thing essentially. ,ending awful trade agreements, he wants protectionism, which again most conservatives don't like so again this does't count for something they should back him for. putting manufacturing back to work this is vague and doesn't say how he would. he's given no plans except if you think tax cuts will put people back to work. putting ethnic minorities back to work he has no plan on this it's just random of you to say reforming our government and getting rid of costly bureaucrats and pushing a lot of programs back to the states will save trillions over 10 years. where do you come up with that number? he has no plan to get rid of costly programs. anything he says he wants to cut is a drop in the bucket. most people including you probably don't realize how big our deficit is and how hard it is to cut thigns. he doesn't even make a significant effort. "On top of the added job growth by his 15% corporate tax will spur job growth and investment in the US alleviating tax burdens on large corporations and small business's. " there might be some job growth from tax cuts as I admitted some economic boom. but this is assuming there's more that you get than from cutting. if bob gets his taxes cut in half, then hires someone and pockets the rest, that's necessarily less revenue the government will get cause he kept a lot of the money. it's overall bad for the economy. "When has tickle down economics been proven wrong? It worked in the 1980's and 1990's which saw massive economic growth" trickle down and growth are two different things. trickle down didn't work cause poor people's wages didn't increase and number of jobs just went up and down over that time. as per growth of course there will be some but that's at the cost of going into debt massively as Reagan and bush and to some extent Clinton did. the conservatives are the ones that did it at the cost of debt. that's not good overall for the economy. it's a short term solution. it shows weak leadership of Reagan and bush. wages just decreased since the 80s. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

I argue that it's pointless to directly, legally increase the minimum wage in the US. We must correctly identify the cause of low wages before aiming to raise them. The first issue I'd like to bring into this discussion is the job losses for manufacturing of material goods. "Made in the USA" products were once quite prevalent. Jobs related to these products were the backbone of our middle class. These jobs were generally quite plentiful and could be performed with minimal education. Today, these jobs are rare. Profiting from something of actual material worth in America is incredibly difficult. The reasons for this effect most jobs in America, but the manufacturing sector has been hit hardest and is the best example. Some reasons for this are as follows: Environmental Regulation: Good or bad, this is expensive. The businesses that profiteer from the legal requirements of this are often more profitable than the businesses they are pro-actively investigating (or regulating, if you want to call it that.) Fines against businesses for breaching these regulations are very hefty and often fail to scale to the size of the business. Legal fees and lobbying for certain exemptions are also things that influence the survivability of fresh competition. Less competition means higher profitability for larger corporations but less job-market competition in related or similar fields. Workers Rights: Human resources, safety inspections, disability taxes, safety meetings and regulation requirements, hazard analysis, swaths of legal documentation and court-preparedness, worker training, supervision, mandatory safety equipment from companies with patents or licensing fees, massive insurance payments and bigger penalties. I could go on for hours. Tax: 90,000 pages of tax code. IRS penalties. Legal costs. Cost of hiring tax experts. Special taxes that apply to your sector. Volatility due to political climate. Resources and waste management: Manufacturers often need to pay extra to use energy, water, attain resources, negotiate trade deals, manage waste on their own, provide their own infrastructure instead of utilizing services provided by the tax pool they pay into, and more. Shareholders, banks, and stock market management: This is crucial and at the heart of most successful business. Don't spend money developing good practice in these places, and you will be out-played by the companies who excel in these fruitless games. Yet another thing that produces zero material use for society. I mean, I could probably go on for days, but I'm not quite an expert. I'd hire an expert if I had the kind of money required to start a business that has any hope of succeeding. Now as I said, much of these things are actually good. Many are horrible, but well-intended. All of these things cost a lot of money on the government level and the corporate level. Tax payers (workers) pay for the government side of things, corporations pay for both. Let's even go ahead and say we keep all of this and don't even analyze the actual cost of all the governmental de-stabilization of the free market (can we still call it free?) What happens when we start freeing up trade with China, or India, or Taiwan. Japan, Africa, Korea. What do you think should happen, when we trade with almost anyway and we can't make their markets adhere to the same standards that ours do? Well, we'll probably get the cheapest goods from the countries who can trade with us as efficiently as possible. I'll tell you, it won't only have to do with the skill and efficiency of their work force. It'll probably have more to do with their total lack of caution for the well-being of their workers, the environment, common-wealth, and anything you can consider good business practice other than what's good for profitability. So after we've done all this to improve our business ethic by governing the market, we go and open up that market to the entire world and let our businesses try to compete. When they fail, we blame it on mysterious "economic crises." Now, after decades of building on all of this, the job market is extremely competitive. Not for the people hiring, but for the people looking to be hired. People are seeking higher education to evade the growing number of jobs for our "working poor" class. They're gambling on their ability to be better than the next person, hoping for better schools, grades, or trades. All of which require more investment at the younger ages, and a great deal more stress. Meanwhile, the jobs available for these educated people are showing no sign of increasing. This means more people with more debt, still finding themselves in the "working poor" class. These people actually generate less tangible earnings than those who give up entirely on education. Wealth that builds over generations, such as that earned by property (or at least not lost to loan penalties) is diminishing as well; and we know that poverty transcends generations. These are big problems. Of course, the root issue is the lack of jobs. The lack of jobs appears to be due to the volatility of our government impacting our free market in-proportionately to the markets we trade with. Trading with foreign countries is a privilege that is generally reserved for the richest corporations. Corporations that have copyrights, patents, and other mechanisms to restrict the free market through law. They even have funds to lobby for politicians, and pay for campaigns necessary to run elections. In the end, none of it seems to serve the common American worker. Our politicians are asking for our vote with the promise of a minimum wage increase; is this the solution? I don't think so. I think a minimum wage increase is a bandaid that will actually harm the worker more over time. We haven't even covered inflation. Inflation of our currency, cost of goods, the every-increasing cost of borrowing on a national level.. Does it make sense to simply force businesses to pay more to employees, when the climate that resulted in this abuse has yet to be reformed? A say minimum wage increases are just political tools. They serve to do nothing to fix the root issues, and may actually harm us more in the long run. Minimum wage increases have only served to buy temporary calm from the people of this nation. It's being touted around as something to save single moms, college students, and struggling low-economic areas. It's none of these things. Minimum wage is just a fresh carrot for a very tired horse. I think it's about time people realized that.

Ok first I will go through some extensions of my case: 1) He failed to attack my 3 rebuttal points, so you can extend that through the entire round. 2) He failed to throughly attack my trickle down effect point, so extend this. Now I'll make my responses: My opponent makes only 1 valid claim, which is warranted: His claim about people between the rich and poor, i.e. the middle class. H agrees that the poor would also get tax exemptions with the fair tax. My Response: I argue that the middle class are the ones most helped by the fair tax. The middle class are the ones who pay the most taxes. By implementing the fair tax then the government is taking the brunt off the middle class. The Fair tax is one straight tax, i.e. its not dependent on all the little necessities and buys here and there. The middle class stimulates the economy because they are the ones most active in the market. They would be spurred on too buy more because all the little taxes are gone. My opponent uses a lot of math to back his point up, but if u notice his math it is too narrow-minded. He is not looking at all the other factors. Plus, the fair tax also has tax breaks FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. The deciding factor of this round is: who helps the middle class. Here is why the Fair Tax does: 1) Is in cohesion with the trickle-down effect, which has been proven true. 2) The Fair Tax includes tax breaks for the middle class. 3) The Fair Tax promotes a more healthy market, which leads to the Middle Class. 4) The Tax eliminates all the other taxes which hinder the middle class. I.e. estate, clothing, etc. 5) The Fair tax helps the family owned businesses. I.e. businesses owned by middle class people. 6) It stimulates corporations which hire middle class people.

Thank you for the response. R1: Would not effect Small business Actually business owners say it would increase their costs significantly. [1] Business owners say if the minimum wage rises they will lay off current workers and have to try to hire other workers worth the wage. [1] In new york business owners say the raise in the minimum wage will lead to their demise. [2]My opponents argument goes against all economic theory. Any increase in costs lead to workers being fired, this is simple economics. This article written by a business owner states a minimum wage raise would increase costs forcing him to lay of workers. [3] Your argument is against all economic theory. Also he said 86% say it wouldn't effect them, this means 14% get effected badly, that's still enough to raise unemployment. So basically his argument says it HAS NO effect, well he conceded 14% GET EFFECTED, so No =/= 14%, he conceded his case. a 14% change is bad.R2: American lawmakersThis is a way to buy votes good sir. This non scientific poll shows 70% of people want to raise the min wage. [4] But in a poll they asked: "would you support a minimum wage raise if you heard it destroyed jobs" only 46% say yes. [5] So in reality if the truth where told the politicians woudl flip flop for votes. R3: doesn't effect jobsI already refuted this last round, that study was disproved! DISPROVED."Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study done by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These economists claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment. In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and attempted to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted to replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs." [5]They never proved and remade the results. Then next paragraph they state it was DISPROVEN by economic science. [5]R4: Inflation Actually raising the minimum wage with inflation raises teen unemployment. [6] Defense or args:Rc1: Teenage unemloymentread my source:"The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. " [7]It said the minimum wage actually has an effect, and it is worse with the bad economy. It links both as a reason, it never singles it out into either or. It stated IT AS THE ECOMOMY AND THE MINIMUM WAGE! You misread the source. Also the graph I provided proves my point, min wage goes up, teen unemployment does too. It goes down, unemploymnt drops. "Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs." [7]Point pressed on. Rc2: Overall unemployment You still do not see the point, in economics the same data applies as buisness when it comes to costs stays the same. More costs = more unemployment. As my opponent is eager for a neer source, this time with a graph: source: http://www.foxbusiness.com...minimum wage raise = more unemployment. Rc3: DropoutsWould you rather leave school when you get a wage of 10$ or 5$? 10. But as I stated this actually doesn't mean the get a job, and they likely do not get a job. They dropout, with sadening results. The statistics are on my side: Minimum wage raises = more dropouts. [8]Rc4: Priceshe actualy does not refute this, just says in makes no sense. The source in my interpretation means that you spend that much per day/week. It also may be per item like on banannas. As I have stated the minimum wagincreases cost ----> less employment and well higher prices to gain money. As yu have not refuted my main points I extend the argument. Conclusion: The minimum wage, if increased, will have detrimental effects on prices, employment, and in turn the economy. I have proved a minimum wage is bad, and refuted my oppooents case and kept mine alive with facts. I urge a CON vote. sources: http://www.nypost.com... [1]http://newyork.cbslocal.com... [2]http://rightremedy.org... [3]http://libn.com... [4]http://www.house.gov... [5]http://washingtonexaminer.com... [6]http://online.wsj.com... [7]http://www.heritage.org... [8]

My RefutationsPresident ReaganI. Economic Policy"My opponent said that Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, however, supply-side ecnomics has proven a failure after three decades [1]." The idea that supply-side economics (also known Laffer curve) has proven to be a failure is false to the highest degree. My opponent claims that Reaganomics are inferior to the economic policies of Bill Clinton and BO (Clinton is irrelevant since this is a debate between President Reagan and BO). Let's compare President Reagan and Clinton anyway by economic growth, since according to my opponent's first source. The economy after the 1993 tax increases increased growth. However, this is false. Economic growth under President Reagan was at 3.2% while economic growth under Clinton was at 2.6%. [1]Still not convinced? How about the fact that Clinton actually signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997. This dramatically increase growth under his presidency. What about the signing of NAFTA? That's free trade, one of the foundations of the supply-side strategy. [2]Not enoguh yet? How about this:1. Median household incomes increased by $4,000 under President Reagan. Incomes during the 1990s fell by over $1,400.2. Over 17 million jobs were produced by President Reagan's policies. During the 1990s, the US only managed 1.3 million jobs per year.3. Inflation started at 13.5% during the Reagan presidency would go down to 6.2% by the start of his second term. [1]To say that supply-side economics does not work is highly foolish since supply is the start of economic growth. "My opponent shows a chart of the unemployment rate during Reagan's presidency, however you can see on the chart yourself that in his first term he raised the unemployment by three percent! Sure, he lowered it again, but many jobs were lost from 82 to 84, regardless of whether they were created later."My opponent attacks President Reagan's record by saying that unemployment rose during it. This was not the president's fault. Everyone knows that a recession peaks at some time. This was just the peak of the recession. President Reagan's 1981 tax cut went into full effect by then and unemployment decreased. My opponent then attacks my source, but I only showed the source to show where the graph came from. It isn't an opinion, its just a fact."My opponent says that Apple started under Reagan, so Reagan is responsible for Apple. This is selective and falacious. Apple seems to be doing pretty fine under Barack Obama too... I would also like to mention that my opponent has not cited any of Reagan's "policies" that magically created Apple."I cited a book that discusses how President Reagan's economic policies helped create Apple. Also, did my opponent just say Apple is doing fine under BO. They have been mostly losing a lot in the stock market more recently. [4]In the end, President Ronald Reagan saved the American economy.II. Cold War and other Foreign Policy IssuesI explained the three reasons why the USSR crumbled AND I cited Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the country opposing President Reagan. While the USSR did not fall during President Reagan's policies, it fell as a result to them. It just took a little time. Next up is the Iran-Contra affair where my opponent cites the most accurate source he can find. Wait is that "American Dad"? Nevermind. I don't need to even cite a source because it is common sense that President Reagan was not found to have done anything wrong. He did take responsibility however, and the public greatly supported him for it.BOI. Economic Policy"The chart he shows for Barack Obama shows the exact same thing for Reagan. The unemployment rate raised, and then lowered again. We are at a moot point. He also says that the unemployment rate drop is 1% less than Reagan's, however, we are not looking at drops. We have to look at the hard facts, and even by looking at your charts we can see the unemployment rate was lower under Obama's presidency."This is because BO did not have to deal with such a bad recession compared to President Reagan, the greatest man to ever live. Like I said before, the recession peaks at some point and then the recovery begins. However, BO had less of an economic recession than President Reagan and the unemployment rate is going down much slower compared to the 1980 recession. Currently, President Reagan's drop in unemployment is 1.3% more than BO's and this is in the four year two month span. I have no idea where my opponent got his second argument that spending is better in recessions. We are comparing the President Reagan recovery vs. the BO recovery. The BO recovery is much weaker and he has spent trillions on bank bailouts and stimulus packages.II. Foreign PolicyThe BO administration and the State Department did not have adequate protection for four men in Libya. We did not have enough security there and the result was there deaths. That is the fault of him, his administration, and the State Department.I then ROFL at my opponent's question of why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing. Newsflash: They hate us! I did provide a source by the way.Just because Egypt has not dictator does not mean good things are happening because of the radical groups in Egypt. Remember they were considering destroying the Pyramids? We wasted billions of dollars, tanks, and fighters to this new country that we are not familiar with. All BO and his administration does is trust, not verify, like what President Reagan would do.ConclusionI have proven that President Ronald Reagan was a much better president than BO economically and in foreign policy. I have much more sources. Win one more for the gipper!Sources1. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato Institute. N.p., 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.3. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.4. http://www.google.com...