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

A progressive tax structure is superior to a flat tax for economic stimulation.

The assertion that a flat tax is superior to a progressive tax system in terms of job creation and economic benefits is questionable. The current progressive tax system allows for a more equitable distribution of the tax burden, ensuring that those with greater financial resources contribute a larger portion of their income, which can then be used to fund public services and infrastructure that are essential for job creation and economic growth.

In a flat tax system, the tax burden is shifted from the wealthy to the middle and lower income brackets, potentially leading to a decrease in consumer spending and a negative impact on the economy. The wealthy, who may already have a high standard of living, may not necessarily use their tax savings to create jobs or invest in the economy. Instead, they might save or invest their money in ways that do not necessarily stimulate job growth.

On the other hand, a progressive tax system ensures that those who can afford to pay more do so, which can be used to fund programs that directly benefit the middle and lower income brackets, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This, in turn, can lead to a more educated workforce, better health outcomes, and improved infrastructure, all of which are essential for job creation and economic growth.

Furthermore, a progressive tax system can help to reduce income inequality, which has been linked to slower economic growth. When income inequality is high, the middle and lower income brackets may not have the purchasing power to drive consumer spending, which can lead to a decrease in demand for goods and services and, ultimately, job losses.

In conclusion, while a flat tax system may seem appealing in terms of simplicity and fairness, it may not necessarily lead to job creation and economic growth. A progressive tax system, on the other hand, can ensure that those who can afford to pay more do so, which can be used to fund programs that directly benefit the middle and lower income brackets and lead to job creation and economic growth.

"First the definition of mitigate according to Black laws dictionary is to make less severe or to reduce. This proves that the affirmative only has to show that the 2008 economic stimulus plan will lessen the slowing down economy sometime within the next year.", no you have to prove successful mitigation.The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in the next year. You do not win simply by showing that there was some mitigation. If the government spends enough money it's sure to have some effect. It has to be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations/goals of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year 2009. "Our first argument is that it is historically proven direct economic stimulus will jumpstart the economy within a year. According to Rachael Beck from the associated press, During the 2001 recession, one-time rebates were paid starting in the third quarter, and consumer spending rose at a 7 percent rate in the fourth quarter, the economy grew at 1.6 percent annual rate in that quarter and 1.4 percent in the following quarter. This goes to prove that a direct stimulus plan will and does give the economy a boost that can lead to a more productive economy. Now we are not saying this is a miracle worker and it will solve all of our economic problems, but what we have just proven is that in the short term it does mitigate economic slowdown. ", This does nothing, because you are going off the facts of a one person and mitigation, t=you the affirmative must prove their was a successfull mitigation. "Our second point is that the economic stimulus plan will boost the GDP and create jobs. According to Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings institute, "A temporary stimulus plan of 100 billion dollars would boost the annualized the GDP growth by between .8 percent to 3 percent". Also said by Zhandi an economist in an article titled "Stimulus package will boost GDP" that the package agreed upon by house negotiators will be enough to boost the economy by 1.5 percentage points the second half of this year and .5 percent in the first half of 2009. that translates into 700,000 jobs more than what be crated in that time. Other economists are also forecasting a boost in the economy and jobs due to increased consumer spending which counts for two thirds of economic growth. ", My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending. That is all I want to know before I rebut. "Our third argument is that the economic stimulus act of 2008 treats the causes of the recession not the symptoms. A recession is caused by several factors such as a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment as stated by Richard pettinger and deduced from the Gross Domestic Product equation. (GDP=C + I + G + (X – M)) If we look at each of these causes of a recession or a slowing economy we can clearly see that the economic stimulus act of 2008 will treat the core causes of the problem. For example the unemployment rate has been increasing which means that there is less money given to the consumer to spend. Two factors that lead to a recession. However this stimulus act gives money directly to the consumer to increase consumer spending and over the next year it will create 700,000 additional jobs as we stated in our second argument. Also another key part is the investment. Without investment our economy slows, but there are provisions in the stimulus that will boost the investments of the small business's. such as the 50% depreciation and the 250,000 dollar write offs. This leaves one other factor. The interest rates. The stimulus act does not have anything to do with the interest rates but as we know the interest rates were recently lowered by the federal reserve spurring more investment in the private sector. This macro economic policy along with the micro economic stimulus plan effectively eliminates all the causes of a economic slowdown or recession.", The factor in the recession, the root of the probelm is the Housing Market according to Eric Tymoigne, you have mentioned nothing about that thus it does not help the root of the probelm, so yes there will be mitigation in 2008, but in 2009 it will be rollercoaster ride. "The Cons one main argument is an anology between 2001 and 2008. However, this analogy breaks down because of the use of Post Hoc by the Con. In 2001 the economy was devastated by the 9/11 attacks which is responsible for the economic stagnation the Con claims. Consequently without the 9/11 attack the stimulus package probably would have worked.", Before 2001, in fact in 2000, the entire election focused on the economy, because a recession was going to happen. 9/11 was a factor, but whether or not 9/11 happened would not have changed the events that were about to happen. Now a few questions: In general dont tax cuts increase economic activity? yes

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

I would like to note that the title displays "Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy". In your third paragraph (round 2) you tried to clear up my "stray" off topic, it isn't off topic, your question clearly states that the tax code will affect the economy; therefore, my claims on how the tax code will affect budget, and prices are justifiable due to chain events. Throwing that aside, I wish you luck again! Definitions Economy: An economy or economic system consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. The economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. (hence distribution and consumption) National Sales Tax: The idea is to tear up the federal income tax system, scrap it for good, and replace it with a national sales tax. Here's how it would work, and why every citizen ought to give it serious thought. The individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the estate and gift taxes would all be eliminated. (Hence government revenue would be hindered due to elimination of certain taxes) C1: You state that the government can't affect income inequality, this is completely absurd. It's quite simple, with the current tax code, rich people create less capitol than with the NST (National Sales Tax), while a person on the bottom of the chain could save around 400 dollars if an 13% NST took place. It's quite obvious to see the income inequality, rich people would save thousands upon thousands while your average minimum wage worker would save 400 dollars. In summary, the gap would be even larger and tax revenues would shrink. C2: (counter to Cameron P3, R2) I hope you know that a National Sales Tax has never been used among any nation-state on the planet and it's for good reason. One the income inequality would be immense with any rate, if it's too low the rich are heavily favored and can save upwards of 50,000 dollars, too high and minimum wage workers are living under the poverty line, a reasonable person wouldn't want either. Two, the government would be in a budget crisis, in turn, they might take more loans.. not good and your idea of reducing government( Cameron, Third Paragraph Round 2) spending even further is effectively ludicrous, our government needs the money it gets and cutting the budget would just make our state on the planet worse (less military spending, less space exploration, less federal workers). Just to remind you, this does correlate to the tax code, a NST would be detrimental to government stature and will cause the unemployment of federal workers which can be linked to families/students. C3: (counter to Cameron P2, R2) Unless you do not fully understand what a NST is I provided a definition of it higher up on my argument. You state "The title of the debate begins with "Replacing the Current Tax Code"", meaning that there won"t be another federal tax levied besides the national sales tax. There would be no other taxes that the federal government could raise. The single tax would create a simple, stable tax policy that would enable consumers to boost the economy through increased sales activity." This is completely untrue a National Sales Tax will bring changes to other taxing methods. For one, if the federal government wants to make up the lost tax revenue they would, due to it being the most logical, raise the taxes on consumer goods, this is a widely accepted fact about the NST theory. Another thing you mentioned "Use the following example: A person who spends $100,000 per year will pay $13,000 in total sales tax while a person who spends $20,000 per year will pay $2600 in total sales tax. They are paying the same percentage of taxes but the rich person is paying $10,400 more in taxes than the poor person is." This is undoubtedly true; however, it only proves that the income of wealthy folks would be significantly higher due to them originally (with the income tax) paying 50 k plus! Thus proving my point that the income gap between rich and poor would be even higher. Some points I would like to add, a 13% tax is preposterous and no member of congress would ever vote to pass a bill containing such a rate, the 23% tax rate has seen light in a bill and would more likely pass in congress. Also you fail to realize that a National Sales Tax wont apply to all transactions making it more of a burden than an omnipotent solution. For example, a NST will only be applied to business to household purchases, there wont be taxes on business to business purchases. I would like to mention that a sales tax will create capitol for the average consumer, but this comes with a cost. One companies can dodge out of this, two it will create vast income inequality with the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, three the government is too big for it to take any budget hits now; especially with the rise of China and other powers we need our government to do the best it can.

Yes, I stand by all I have claimed. Reforming the laws in the way which you want to reform them is not the solution to the problem. Making a law stricter towards criminals will reduce criminal activity, but you want to make the law less strict, which would make many people happier, including criminals. Reforming the system which enforces the law of the land is indeed better than reforming the original law. The system that enforces the law (in this case, the police) did not create the law, so the law is not the system. Actually, if police officers are trained properly then there are no loopholes because according to you and your new source, it is the officers who are the problem. So once again, the federal government's authority has little to do with the faults of the police officers who cannot properly enforce the law of the land. The federal government created the law for the people, not to abuse them. It is not responsible if the state governments have corrupt officers working for the police departments. Thus, there is no reason for its authority to be decreased. Unfortunately this is the last round so you will not be able to explain to me how the federal government is at fault with how that individual officer (working for the state government, not the federal) cruelly arrested the girl. What happened would not have happened if a reasonable, properly trained officer stopped her so is the federal government's authority to blame? Not at all. It is that one officer who decided to ruin the girl's life and his supervisors are also the responsibility of the state government, not the federal. The policy being redundantly "very complex and complicated" does not make it relevant. My previous argument stands as to why stop and frisk is irrelevant to this particular debate. Current situations of countries: 1) Nation's debt: yes, every time Obama smiles it increases by $100B. However, decreasing the authority of the federal government will not help lower it. In fact, if the authority of the federal government increased then the national debt would have more of a chance of going down. For example, if the federal government enforced much higher taxes nationwide then the taxpayers would go far in helping the nation's financial status (yes I know this sounds horrible and would cause riots, but it would work). 2) The unemployment rate is dropping, so the federal government must be doing something right, right? Right. 3) Your source does not measure economic stand. It measures economic freedom. A higher economic freedom does not mean a better economy or economic stand. If that was the case then Estonia would have a better economy than the U.S. I think we can agree that Estonia does not have a higher economic stand, just more economic freedom. 4) Based on more recent figures, the rates of people without health care are dropping. Another point for the federal government. http://www.census.gov... http://www.census.gov... Based on the evidence that both you and I provided, the amount of authority that the federal government currently possesses is not harming the nation. My original premise stands: the authority of the federal government helps the nation run smoothly and properly. There is no guarantee based on anything you said that indicates that substantially decreasing the federal government's authority would be beneficial. There is no evidence provided of the federal government abusing its power, only of police institutions which are the responsibility of state governments. There is also no evidence of anyone involved in the federal government abusing their power for own's beneficiary. Each of your arguments spoke of policing issues, not those of the federal government. For the final time, the NYPD is the New York State's responsibility, not the federal government's. Instead of reforming the entire national legal system just so NY cops can be competent at their jobs, the issue must be addressed by NY state itself. C) The U.S. federal government should not substantially decrease its authority.

Rebuttal and Analysis"Um my stance thing isnt negateing anything. I'm clarifiyng things."Passing a tax rate with a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with whether or not a flat tax is the best tax system. "This is not true because I make a billion dollars the goverment takes away lets say 20%, but then the poor people get 20% taken awat too. thats not 100%."That is if the tax rate is 20%. Since we are not arguing a specific rate and we are arguing a flat tax in general, it could possibly be 100%."Your for a national sales tax instead."No, I'm not and I never claimed to be. I am for states and local governments deciding their own forms of taxation as long as they don't tax income. The federal government would be funded by a tax on the states rather than a direct tax on the people. "You 0% plan still doesnt work, they have to buy supplies aka your sales tax. So either way you can gelp or hurt them."The difference between an income tax and a sales tax is, a sales tax is an optional tax and an income tax is not. You decide to pay a sales tax by buying goods."They only own a percentage of the income, you own the rest."Is it not immoral for government to own money you worked for?"A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc."I am not advocating for a national sales tax so it doesn't matter if it could raise enough money."Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Need more examples?"In an article, "The naked stimulus: Why savings stimulate more than spending," on CNNMoney the author explains why savings are more beneficial to the economy then spending, "Over long periods, it's savings––not consumer spending––that finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth. "President Obama keeps saying that only consumption counts," says Allan Meltzer, the distinguished economist at Carnegie Mellon. "It's foolish. Of course the money that people save doesn't go under the mattress. It goes to individuals to buy a house, or to businesses to build a plant."Let's examine how savings translate into investments, and hence into a crucial source of spending––for the future, the most crucial. When people save, they either purchase stocks or bonds, or they deposit the cash in the banking system. When they buy newly-issued securities, those savers provide companies with the cash to purchase equipment, or buy factories and call centers via acquisitions. When they buy CDs or deposit money in savings accounts, the bank typically lends that money either to corporate customers that spend it to expand, or to the government by purchasing treasuries––and once again, the funds are quickly spent."[11]"E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution."First of all, I was not debating this point. I was just pointing to the fact that most of the corruption in government comes at the federal level but if corruption does come about in state government, it is much easier to correct than at the federal level. Since pro brought this up, I will debate it. Pro is referring to article 6 of the constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[12] This clearly says that the federal government only has power over the states on matters delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The tenth amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"[13] gives the states the right to the powers not delegated to the federal government so in some cases the federal government can trump state law but not in the case of tax rates. [11]http://finance.fortune.cnn.com...[12]http://www.usconstitution.net...[13]http://www.usconstitution.net...

As this is the final round, I will refrain from introducing new sources and arguments. My opponent's only rebuttal to my arguments addresses my refutation of his argument that the rich hire people. My opponent did not use his round to address several of my points. My opponent completely dropped my refutation to his first point that a flat tax system is more fair than a progressive tax system. I cannot further respond to any argument on this point he might make in this round; therefore he concedes this argument. My opponent completely drops my contention that a progressive tax helps reduce income inequality. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent completely drops my contention that excessive income inequality is economically inefficient. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent drops my arguments regarding progressive taxation's benefits to the economy, such as increased revenue, faster growth, and less volatility. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this argument. My opponent concedes my argument regarding that many rich (68% of millionaires) believe in progressive taxation. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent has argued that the rich make the companies who hire people. In making this argument, my opponent drops my arguments regarding the effects the middle and lower classes have on the economy and my argument that the rich still have plenty of profit left and thus still have plenty of incentive to continue hiring people. We must conclude that my opponent drops both these arguments.

As this argument is about how good Wal-Mart is for America, I would like to focus on America as a whole. While you may be correct in stating that Wal-Mart offers low wages and poor benefits, this is an issue with employment. Remember that Wal-Mart is not obligated to provide the country with jobs. Wal-Mart is obligated to provide the country with goods and services in exchange for profit. In addition, people seeking employment do not necessarily have to choose Wal-Mart. They may seek employment elsewhere. Your point about the poverty line rising seems to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Do you have any information that shows a legitimate and indisputable correlation? I'm not quite sure where Huntington is, but if Wal-mart built a new store outside Huntington, it is probably still within the jurisdiction of some other county. It still pays taxes, just not the same taxes, and not to Huntington. I have addressed your arguments and will present mine. Capitalism is a fairly simple economic system. A free market in which appealing to the public will earn profit. The fact that Wal-Mart is doing well as a business in and of itself shows that the American public is benefiting from it. Otherwise, the damage would be reflected in the stock market and sales figures. Wal-mart generates money, and that money doesn't simply sit in a vault. The money is used to enhance the corporation in order to provide better service so that they can make even *more* money. In this case, everyone wins except the people who, as you say, work at Wal-mart. But as I have responded, those people are more than welcome to work elsewhere.

" W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs" That's not relevant, since neither does welfare. "it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things," At the cost of taxpayers being enslaved in the name of the program. "so they can learn to make more themselves" No, contradiction. If you required government aid that you did not pay for to begin doing a thing, it's continuation is not "making more yourself." It's inertia. "finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k). " Fudged statistics. The relevant amount is not the specific money allocated to "welfare programs," it is the total unearned money stolen by way of taxation, both now and in the long-term. The short-term savings are proportionally negligible (Government tax revenue was 2.6 trillion in this country in 2007, we'll multiply your statistical difference by 50 to see the short term effects of complete adaptation of your plan, and come up with about 4.6 million, and thus with a .0002% difference in short term taxation). The long term costs, of lengthening the number of times thefts on the scale of trillions of dollars are perpetrated, are massive compared to that. " Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government. " Just because something is currently a common practice and has an interest group behind it (bureaucrats, dictators, lobbyists, legislators, and the like) does not mean it is "inevitable." Burning dung was once a major cooking-energy provider for every human being. Now, however, we have better fuels. There are numerous potential funding mechanisms that are sufficient to displace taxes in a government reduced to it's legitimate functions of law enforcement, national defense, and dispute resolution (that is, police, military, and the courts). Such mechanisms include charges for registering a contract at the court (to make it legally enforceable,) charges for installing emergency phone lines, charges for registering property claims with the court, etc. People will, when offered the choice, choose to fund a legitimate government function, out of self-interest, but not an illegitimate one. The factory owner, for instance, is rational to fund a government for the act of preventing sabotage to his machinery- but rationally he would not pay for a subsidy to his competitor who produces an inferior product, and rationally that's bad for the consumer too. In order to achieve liberty from taxation, then, it is necessary that such programs as "W-2" and "AFDC" be eliminated. Since AFDC is less efficient, it is easier to eliminate, i.e. it is easier to convince voters to stop supporting it. As such it is the lesser evil. Efficiency is only a virtue for producers of goods, it is a vice for producers of "bads." Hitler, for example, was far more efficient than Jack the Ripper- which is why we are more concerned with the evil of the former.

Thanks! Firstly, eliminating minimum wage creates more jobs with a lower pay. If there wasn't a minimum wage, business owners could pay as much money as they want. They could pay them $1.00 an hour so they wouldn't have to pay much money, but the workers wouldn't make enough money to pay for all of their needs. The reason minimum wage was made according to http://letjusticeroll.org...;, was to ensure workers received a fair rate of pay for their labor. The reason there is a minimum wage is because the governments of nations that have them calculate the minimum income required to live a life that is just above what would be considered impoverished.The minimum wage of a country is for human beings to ensure that the human being who is getting paid is not living in absolute poverty.If you make $1 an hour you would nearly starve yourself, and not pay for rent. You wouldn't be able to pay for sports, clothing, taxes, shopping, and other activities that require more money.The minimum wage that we have now would allow us to have enough money to pay for those needs.

1)Bush policies that wasted money A)The Iraq war. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to say that bombing Iraq was a waste of money (ill only include money spent up till 2007). Around 350billion waste http://zfacts.com... B)Medicare advantage. Medicare advantage is a Bush era policy that gave insurance companies free money for no added benefits. This free corporate subsidies wasted 100 billion dollars from 2003-2006. http://www.cbo.gov... C)Medicare part D. The part of Medicare Part D that wastes money is its inability to negotiate prices; meaning its essentially giving drug companies free subsides, because of this costs are 58% higher than they should be meaning from 2006-2009 this wasted 116 billion dollars. http://azstarnet.com... https://www.cms.gov... Total dollar amount of money wasted due to Bush policies is around 565 billion dollars 2)Obama policy effects on jobs. A)Cash for clunkers created 60,000 jobs by increase auto sales and increasing energy efficiency http://www.prnewswire.com... B)Green energy loan guarantees so far have created 60,000 jobs. By expanding more efficient energy technologies. http://thinkprogress.org... C)He increased cars/trucks MPG standards which will create 700,000 jobs up to 2030 by increasing energy efficiency. http://thinkprogress.org... D)New EPA regulations under Obama will result in the creation of around 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years, in order to modernize power plants. http://thinkprogress.org... E)The PACA will create at least 250,000 new jobs. by expanding health access and reducing wasteful expenditures. http://www.americanprogress.org... F)Increased head start funding which is education funding for young children will result in the creation of 90,000 jobs. http://news.prnewswire.com...= G)Obamas 50 billion investment into rail and other public transportation will create 1.3 million jobs. http://www.apta.com... H)The stimulus act is reported to have created 2.9 million jobs. http://www.reuters.com... I)Small business lending support, and increased SB lending estimated to create 500,000 jobs. http://money.cnn.com... Total jobs created 7.36 million. 3)Obama polices that reduced wasteful spending. A)Requiring energy companies to use more clean energy sources will save 15 billion dollars by reducing pollution. http://www.ucsusa.org... B)Weatherization assistant program, which helps make homes more energy efficient will save 13 billion dollars in a ten year period. http://www1.eere.energy.gov... C)Obama increased cars/truck mpg standards which will save consumers 150billion by 2030 by lowering gas costs. http://thinkprogress.org... D)Cash for clunkers (sourced above) will save consumers 7 billion dollars in ten years by lowering gas costs. E)New EPA regulations that reduce pollution (sourced above) will save 140 billion dollars by lowering health costs. F)The PACCA reduces wasteful spending by reducing Medicare advantage spending, switching to a more bundled payment system, investing into comparative effectiveness research, reducing drug patents, decreased medical loss ratios and some other things. This is estimated to save 500 billion dollars (the CBO estimated 500 in savings but private research says more money than that will be saved however I'll stick with the CBO's numbers) http://www.americanprogress.org... http://thinkprogress.org... http://voices.washingtonpost.com... G)Increases in OSHA safety standards will result in 90 billion in savesing in ten years by reducing workplace injuries. http://www.corporatewellness.com... H)Obama eliminated the white house's helicopter fleet saving 11 billion dollars. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... I)Expanded head start funding which creates 9 dollars in benefit for every dollar spent (sourced above) saves the country 40 billion dollars. J)Obama reformed federal student loans removing banks from the process saving 60 billion dollars. http://www.uspirg.org... K)His 50billion investments into high speed rail and other public transportation measures create $2 in benefits for every dollar spent by reducing congestion, pollution, and commute times (sourced above) L)Expanded AmeriCorps funding by 4 billion which will create 8 billion in economic benefits. http://www.dlc.org... M)Stimulus investments. The stimulus act has a long list of investments that save the economy lots of money over time. The investments include, computerized records (1trillion), Community health centers(30 billion), pre-school funding(100 billion), the MEP(70 billion), WIC(8 billion), NASA(10 billion), science/other research, updating the electricity grid (2 trillion), and alternative/clean energy (50 billion). http://www.rand.org... http://www.americanprogress.org... http://americanmanufacturing.org... http://thinkprogress.org... http://useconomy.about.com... http://www.reuters.com... Obama policies will save 4.3 trillion dollars.


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

The economic policies of Ron Paul are more beneficial for job creation and small businesses compared to Barack Obama's policies. In this debate, we will focus on the main argument that Ron Paul's policies, rooted in Austrian Economics, are superior to Obama's Keynesian-based policies, which have led to the current state of the US economy. Austrian Economics, characterized by sound money, free markets, private property rights, and civil liberties, is scientific and has accurately predicted economic crises such as the housing bubble collapse, the Great Depression, and stagflation. In contrast, Keynesian Economics, which advocates for government intervention, has been responsible for economic failures in various countries.

Ron Paul's vision for the government's role in the economy includes providing sound money, protecting consumers, and fostering genuine economic growth. He supports small businesses and job creation by simplifying the tax code, reducing corporate taxes, decreasing regulations, and establishing sound fiscal and monetary policies. This includes abolishing the minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, and federal workplace anti-discrimination laws, which he believes create inefficiencies and discourage employment opportunities. Additionally, Paul aims to reduce the national debt, cut federal spending, and return the country to solvency.

In conclusion, Ron Paul's economic policies, which prioritize small business growth, job creation, fiscal responsibility, and sound monetary policy, are the most effective solution for the current economic challenges faced by the United States.

My CasePresident: Ronald Wilson ReaganParty: RepublicanIn Office: 1981 to 1989I. Economic PolicyThe first place we should look at in the presidency of Ronald Reagan would be his economic policy. President Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, the idea that the economic growth could be stimulated through lower taxes, less government regulations, less government intervention, and less government spending. First we will look into unemployment and because President Reagan's opponent has only been in office for four years and two months. We will look at the unemployment rate under Reagan from January 1981 to February 1985. Here it is: From January 1981 to February 1985, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% and then went down to 7.2%. What his means is that the unemployment rate under President Reagan's first four years and two months in office went down by 3.6%. This is quite impressive for the start of a recovery. [1]However that is not just it, federal revenue had been declining at 2.8% per year and after President Reagan's tax cuts it grew at 2.7% per year. In addition, real GDP growth was averaging at 0.9% before the tax cuts and 4.8% after. [2] Finally, Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie write that:"During this period, promising technology companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft launched initial public offerings of stock, while others such as Cisco Systems and Compaq (later acquired by Hewlett-Packard) received expansion capital and later went public." [2]This is because of a capital gains tax cut signed by President Reagan. It allowed the creation of companies like Apples. Think about it, you might have an apple in your house. How would it feel if Ronald Reagan had never become president. His policies that brought the creation of Apple and other companies would have never happened and thus these companies would have trouble growing.Reagan's succesful policies eventually were nicknamed Reaganomics. When the Heritage Foundation looks are Reagan's record, it finds that:"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending." [3]Mr. Sperry notes that Preisdent Reagan's economic boom lasted for 92 months without a recession. This period was from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime. The growth from the President Reagan's boom lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War 2. [3]II. Cold WarNow let's move on to one of the president's greatest achievements: defeating the USSR, the greatest threat to our country ever. There were three factors that brought down the Evil Empire:1. Military Strategy - When President Reagan entered office, military morale was low and so was the pay. President Carter had cut a lot of programs in the military. Under the Reagan Administration, military spending skyrocketed in the crusade against communism. This included the famous SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) programs and several over and covert missions to aid anti-communists guerrilla forces in Central America, South America, Africa, and Afghanistan.2. Economic Strategy - Yes, Reaganomics helped win the Cold War. The recovering economy helped President Reagan's military buildup. The free market capitalist United States was too much for the USSR which had an its inefficient command-directed communist economic system.3. Political Strategy - Politics played a role to in defeating the reds. With a strong ally in British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Reagan launched a global political form of blitzkrieg on the USSR and other communist political leaders. The reds had seriously underestimated the American president and saw him as a "warmonger".Together, these strategies defeated the USSR and by January 1989 when President Reagan left office the USSR was in great trouble. In 1991, the USSR would collapse. Soviet Head of State Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (re-structuring) and glasnost (openness) proved too little, too late. Gorbachev told the History Channel in 2002, "I don't know what would have happened had [Reagan] not been there." [4,5]President: Barack Hussein ObamaParty: DemocratIn Office: 2009 to the PresentBO (Barack Obama for short) was elected after the 2008 economic recession. Like Franklin Roosevelt, BO lived in a magical liberal fairy tale (see my Reagan vs. FDR debate) where a demand-side strategy could save the economy and the top 50% could take care of the poor 50%. BO passed a bailout for the big banks and a stimulus package to save the economy from a terrible recession, but instead we are in a terrible recession, let's look at his unemployment rate: The unemployment rate peaked at 10% during his presidency. Now its at 7.7% which means that unemployment under him has dropped by 2.3%, a very weak showing when compared to the gipper. [6] For more, watch the video. Don't worry, were not done yet: BO's record in real GDP sucks too and then we have the national debt. Under President Reagan, the debt went from $1 trillion to $2.6 trillion, but under BO it goes from $12 trillion to well around $16.5 trillion by now. He practically has made it impossible to pay back in our times. [7]II. Foreign Policy Despite the death of Osama Bin Laden and other leading terrorists, mistake over mistake over mistake have been made many times. Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Instead of verifying, BO seems to just trust. Let's look at the record.Libya - The BO administration and the State Department put faith in a bunch of local militias to protect our embassy rather than the Marines. The result? Four Americans dead, including an ambassador, when our embassy and a CIA post were attacked. [8]Syria - The BO administration put Saudi Arabia and the Qataris in charge of supplying the rebels against the Assad regime, but rather these two nations don't want pro-democracy forces in charge of Syria. Instead they supply radical Muslim factions that hate the US. [8]Egypt - The BO administration trusted Muslim radicals to build a fair democratic government. Instead, they plugged in sharia law and we did nothing. Billions in wasteful US aid has continued without being interrupted. [8]Pakistan - The BO administration has failed again here when they continue to pay billions to a regime that supports the killing of US troops and shields terrorists. BO and his allies pretend that they are our friends while they cash the checks for their military. [8]Trust is for your wife, not diplomacy.ConclusionI have proven that Ronald Reagan is a better president economically and in foreign policy to BO. Team Reagan! Sources1. http://portalseven.com...2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.3. Sperry, Peter B. "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.4. Gaffney, Dennis and Peter Gaffney. The Seven Day-Scholar: The Presidents. 2012.5. Morelock, Jerry D. "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." Armchair General IX.5 (2012): 18-19. 6. http://portalseven.com...7. http://www.skymachines.com...8. Peters, Ralph. "Trust Isn't a Strategy." Armchair General X.2 (2013): 8. http://www.youtube.com...

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

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.

The war on poverty follows the same time line as the "Reaganomics" so there is no real way to know which policy was the failure. I've have been trying to find information on how tax policies helped the Russian Federation, but I have a life to live as well. I'm not sure what your trying to defend. I can only assume you think government spending is necessary based on your arguments. I also see some equality issues. The government consumes large quantities of money in order to provide any sort of service. Business have to pay large sums of money to comply with any form of regulation. All business pass the cost on to the consumer. They have to or they would not exist. I think anyone that thinks the role of the government is to create wealth is nuts. The government might want to increase it's revenue, but it sole purpose is to hold us back. That really is the whole point of any economic model. It was to decide who gets use of limited resources.

Flat Tax- A system under which all taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income.[1]Immoral- Conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles .[2]Sound- Free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension.[3] Theft- the act of stealing[4]Steal- to take the property of another[5]Better- more advantageous or effective [6]I negate the flat tax and offer 3 contentions:1. A flat tax is immoral.2. A flat tax is not economically sound.3. A system with no income tax is better than a flat tax system. 1. A Flat Tax is ImmoralWith a flat tax, we must assume that the government owns 100% of our income and allows us to keep a certain percentage of it or it is government theft. Is it not immoral for government to own the property you worked for or if they don't own that property is it not immoral that they can forcibly take the property? Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar, who made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory[7] said, "the flattaxers seem to make the implicit assumption that the government really owns, or should be owning, all of what everyone makes, at least up to some arbitrary percentage decided by the government. Hence, any failure of government to confiscate everyone’s property up to that amount is somehow a moral blot that needs to be rectified. But to me it is far from self-evident that the government, rather than we ourselves, should have the primary right to our own earnings."[8] 2. A Flat Tax is Not Economically SoundWe are debating the flat tax in general and not a specific flat tax, such as the 9% rate. A tax rate of 90% for everyone is still a flat tax and would effectively eliminate the free market but let’s just assume that the flat tax is 9%. In 2011, 46% of Americans were exempt from paying income tax.[9] With a flat tax of 9%, half of the country would see a tax increase on income. This could have disastrous effects on the economy as those who are already struggling to make ends meet are forced to give up a larger percentage of income.3. A system with No Income Tax is Better Than A Flat Tax SystemA system with no income tax is the only moral system because individuals keep all of their income without threat of government theft. The economy would thrive because every person would keep all of their income enabling them to save more, invest more and buy more goods. Also charitable giving would likely increase as people would have more disposable income. When speaking of assumed tax cuts, Pro states, "Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy." Wouldn't this be furthered by no income tax?Rebuttal"It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers"Not if the tax rate is 90%.All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate.Not necessarily. Remember, we are debating the flat tax in general and not a specific flat tax. A flat tax could be anywhere from 1% to 100% of income.[1]http://www.investinganswers.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[7]http://mises.org...[8]http://mises.org...[9]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

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.

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

"The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00." That was the headline of an editorial in one of America's most prestigious newspapers. Can you guess which one? The Wall Street Journal, perhaps? Right city; wrong paper. This editorial appeared in the New York Times in 1987. "There's a virtual consensus among economists," the Times wrote, "that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed." So, economists and the liberal paper were on the same page (pun intended). Why? Because they understood that a minimum wage does not guarantee jobs. It guarantees only that those who get jobs will be paid at least that minimum. And that leads to two bad outcomes: unemployment and higher prices. I can best explain this by asking a simple question: What is a wage? A wage is the price of labour. Now, what happens if the price of labour rises, not because workers have become more productive, not because a business must pay higher wages to hold on to valuable employees, but only because the government requires it? When the minimum wage rises, employers will adjust. They will use less labour. They'll fire current employees or cut back on their hours. They will also raise prices for their goods or services. These are undesirable consequences. But let's also consider another bad effect Businesses will hire fewer workers, especially those with little or no job experience. Suppose you're young and haven't worked many jobs before. Maybe you've never had a job and are trying to land your first one. The work you can offer an employer may be worth only, say, $7 an hour. You agree. He agrees. And you have your first job. But what if the minimum wage set by the government is higher than $7? What if it's $10 or more? Well, you won't get the job. You may be willing to work for $7 an hour, but under minimum wage laws, it would be illegal for you to do so. This very point was made by Paul Samuelson, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century, and a prominent liberal. I paraphrase from his classic textbook Economics: "What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him a minimum wage if the fact that he must be paid that wage keeps him from getting a job?" And, that young person loses more than a paycheck. He also loses valuable work experience: learning to accept responsibility, dealing with a boss, getting along with co-workers -- all the things that demonstrate to an employer that he made the right choice in hiring; and all the things that will help that young person get a better paying job down the road. A recent study found that in some cities the unemployment rate for teens without a high school diploma approached 50%. Pricing these teens out of the labour market does them no favours. It's not doing the rest of society any favours, either. Teenagers who can't find jobs often find trouble. Advocates of a higher minimum wage argue that, while some young people might be priced out of the job market, this is outweighed by the fact that those who have minimum wage jobs will get a wage increase. But that doesn't mean they'd be better off.

What you are saying is that the government needs to take more from the rich and give to the poor. What needs to happen is keep what you earn instead of giving it to someone else. That will have less productivity, and more government. The private sector needs to grow to get more money to the government. More government jobs is going to lose social, and economic structures. More government equals less freedoms.

I accept! Im only too glad to debate on the intricacies of the tax code. Its very exciting. So I'll get right to it.1. Income Taxes provide a substancial source of revenue As the graph indicates, income taxes make up 41% of Federal Revenue. However, the constitution prevents a head tax, which the 16th amendment authorizes. The 16th amendment also allows for the payroll tax to exist. Compare the above graph to graph below and it will become apparent very quickly that the revenue doesnt exist currently to match our spending by 1.45 Trillion dollars. If we were to wipe out income taxes and payroll taxes, the deficit would be about 3.2 Trillion.If we wipe out the 16th amendment as my opponent suggests our fiscal policy becomes impossible to carry out. Even if we wiped out ALL medicare/medicaid/social security/defense and ALL discretionary spending, we would still be operating at a 300 Billion dollar deficit every year. I suspect my opponent knows all of these statistics, and has an alternative system. As a result, I dont have much more of a case until its presented. Thanks again! http://upload.wikimedia.org... www.gpoaccess.gov