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

Concepts for a corporate tax strategy to foster employment.

Consider this alternative: a 0% corporate tax rate, enabling businesses to retain more funds for job creation investments. Instead, levy taxes on individuals receiving dividends from corporate profits, thereby promoting job growth while ensuring revenue generation.

Learning experience for Nat quals Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Economic Stimulus Act of 2008-The bill provides temporary tax incentives for businesses to make investments in their companies so that we create new jobs this year. The bill provides individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates. These rebates will amount to as much as $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples, with additional rebates for families with children. It was signed into action by George Bush on Feb. 13, 2008. Mitigate-To become milder Economic slowdowns-When the economy begins slow its economic growth, e.g. jobs, consumer products. Con.1 Tax rebates Vs. Tax reductions Back in 2001, we had the same type of idea proposed by Bush, to give rebates to the economy to stimulate the economy, but what you must understand is this idea did not work until tax reductions across the board. According to Brian M. Riedl, "Tax cuts vs. tax rebates," Washington Times, January 16, 2008. " • Critics contend that rebates "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. • But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy (and even money borrowed from foreigners reduces net exports). • No new spending power is created; it is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Take the 2001 tax rebates, for example: • Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. • Predictably, consumer spending temporarily rose, and capital/investment spending temporarily fell by a corresponding amount. • This simple transfer of existing wealth did not encourage productive behavior; the economy remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002. It was not until the 2003 tax cuts -- which instead cut tax rates for workers and investors -- which the economy finally and immediately recovered: • In the previous 18 months, businesses investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs. • In the 18 months after the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and the economy created 5.3 million new jobs; overall economic growth doubled. ", What this means is that even though the rebates will go in, because the Government has to take money to give money, it does not do anything. You have to have tax reductions plus tax rebates, to get anything done. It won't mitigate the problem; because we did the same thing last time and nothing happened until we added tax reductions to the money we were giving. So, basically it won't do anything, but add to our debt, which will cause inflation, and yes, won't stop the slowdowns. Please somebody debate this who want to debate it.

The first main advantage of the flat tax is its simplicity. Our current tax bill is over one thousand page[1]. In our current tax system, the sheer complexity of the tax bill allows for dozens of loopholes that can prevent the wealthy from paying their share of taxes. Instead of having hundreds of forms, the flat tax would have two to file, which would eliminate not only stress associated with filing taxes, but also no longer require the IRS and eliminate these loopholes[2]. The stress comes in the form of the average of 28 hours 30 minutes just to find out what is owed because of deductions and other complications. This loss of time leads to about a $200 billion loss in productivity annually[4]. This money is either lost from the individual or is payed to a corporation who handles it. With a flat tax, those jobs wouldn't be necessary, and the money could be used to spend on more productive economic activities than just finding out how much taxes need to be payed. The IRS is not only ineffective, but it is also very expensive to run. Since the IRS expends about 41 cents for every $100 they collect, the collection alone costs us just under $1.3 billion in tax revenue every year, not including these employee's salaries[3]. The IRS is also unproductive, as a government study showed the IRS toll-free number provided its callers with the wrong amounts to pay 25% of the time, as even the government has difficulty understanding its tax code[4]. Tax preparers have also proven ineffectual. 45 different tax calculations were received from 45 different tax preparers for the same tax return[4]. Also, as previously stated rich individuals get out of paying most of their taxes. The fact that different calculations were found 45 time proves that unfair loopholes and deductions exist. For this reason, rich individuals can afford to pay for the best tax preparers who can exploit the most portions of the tax bill. This contributes to the second point: the unfairness of the current progressive tax. The flat tax would tax people a percentage of their income and therefore, the proportions of taxes payed would be equal across all income levels. It is unfair to engage in a progressive tax because it punishes individuals for attaining higher incomes. This inherently disincentivizes individuals to produce more for the economy, as their net worth increases more slowly the more they earn. The reason we have a progressive tax is for redistribution of wealth, which incentivizes the poor to work less, since they would receive less government benefits if they earned more money, resulting in, again, a slower increase in net worth. There is no reason for a progressive tax. Those who make more money do so almost always because they produce more for the economy, and should be allowed to keep their earnings. This more fair system with no loopholes would lead to higher tax compliance. In fact, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have experienced increased economic growth since they have implemented flat taxes[5]. This is because the flat tax increases tax compliance, incentivizes entrepreneurs and investors to contribute more to the economy, and encourage foreign business investment by the simplicity of their tax code. [1]https://thinkprogress.org... [2]https://www.usnews.com... [3]https://www.irs.gov... [4]https://www.thebalance.com... [5]https://www.investopedia.com...

Welcome to debate.org! Can you present yourself? You have nothing in your profile. How old are you? By the way, you are suppose to watch the video I post in my last round. I will keep debating anyway: If you want to live in a country where the taxes are very low for the rich, be my guess, take your stuff and move to russia which people live in even worse conditions than in the states. I don't know if it will be more fair to charge a flat income tax ration, what I'm sure is that 25% flat income tax will lead to great misery. Do you think unequal tax are unfair? I'm going to explain what is unfair: To be born with a genetic illness. To be born in a conflictive area. To not have enough money to pay a doctor. To be willing to work and not being able to find a job. To not be able to get proper scientific education. To have to go to the war when others do not. ... But if you want to argue in favor of a 80% flat tax percentage with a government that guaranties that every one will be able to have food, will page 80% of the rent of the house, unlimited health care, a proper army to make sure our security, free education like in europe, and guaranties jobs for everyone. Then in that case I will support your proposition and I will be the first one to emigrate to USA. You could also charge 0% tax and just print more money as you need it, but it is likely that people will stop using that currency very quickly. The idea that an entrepreneur will fire workers to save money is absurd, if you fire your workers you factory or restaurant or whatever will reduce its productivity and you will lose your clients and your income. And if your business goes well you only hire more people if you really need it. If you don't need it you just put your money in your pocket. Check it out, it is on my last video. Humanity needs to remember that money is just a tool, a piece of paper and if it doesn't serve its purpose you can use it in the toilet. For european people it is difficult to imagine a government as dysfunctional as the USA one, no other develop country has a health care system or educational system as bad as that, and now you want to reduce that taxes to the very reach people reducing the income of the government and making it even more dysfunctional. Really, it is a huge mistake to cut the taxes to the reach, if you become a president of the government don't do it. Do not base your decision in a funny feeling of fairness, base your decision in the consequences. by the way, I'm delighted to hear that you would exempt of paying taxes to the people how earn very little. I left you here a lecture on economic philosophy, I hope you will conclude that charging unequal taxes (%) if something good. http://www.youtube.com...

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.

I have tried to make this debate impossible to accept. If you are interested in accepting, please leave a comment. I maintain that, in the United States of America, a progressive tax system is more beneficial than a flat-rate tax system. BoP is shared. 1st Round is for acceptance only. 2nd Round is for constructing arguments only. 3rd Round is for rebuttals. 4th Round is for rebuilding your case (this includes responding to rebuttals in Round 3) and summarizing your main points. No new arguments or sources may be introduced in this round. Violation of any of these rules will result in a seven-point forfeiture.

I would like to mention that comparing Russia to America in terms of corruption is a quite flawed interpretation. Russia was the Soviet Union for nearly seventy years. This country is still suffering from the aftermath that the scourge, communism, had wrought upon them. They aren't even sure if the elections are legitimate, so of course Putin wouldn't follow the tax code in his undemocratic country. Also, if you would have checked my sources, you would have seen that filing taxes wouldn't be a problem with the flat tax, as only two forms would be necessary. Firms like H&R Block would no longer have a customer base, so they would go out of business. It is true that the government could do our taxes for us, but seeing how the IRS cannot make calculations correct 1/4 of the time, it is plain to see that having the government do our taxes for us is not the wisest course of action. A simple, citizen-filed system would be the best choice And I don't appreciate your attempt to strawman my argument. I don't believe that people will stop working merely because of wealth redistribution. I believe that people want to make the most amount of money relative to how much work they do. Since more welfare benefits are available for those who EARN less money , it essentially kills motivation to attain money through work. Also, when people realize that they will be taxed significantly for doing something such as creating a new and innovative product, the promise of keeping much less of that money kills economic drive. Instead, people need to keep more of what they earn I do agree that there is much government corruption, but it would be much more difficult to create loopholes in a flat tax system. When we have a complicated tax codes that confuse the public, it gives MORE power to this corrupt government and its bureaucrats. Progressive taxes are much more mutable. For example, in 1988, there were two tax brackets, but by 2013, there were seven. They increasingly multiply, something that would be impossible to achieve in a flat tax. Finally, your last point is unreasonable and just overall wrong. It is incredibly un-based to believe that tax rates have a direct impact on pacification of "stupid people" who are "the majority of the public" according to you. There is no correlation present. Also, there is no basis to your cynical view of American citizens, as you essentially described them as oafs. Fixing our tax code to a more fair and simplistic system is more likely to prevent chaos and governmental failure than having an unfair and unjust progressive tax. America will fail as a government the second we avoid passing productive legislation in order to appease leftist radicals and those who you consider "stupid". We must not adhere to the demands of the loud and violent minority, which are these SJWs. A flat tax is fair, simple, and it will save the government and citizens money. For these reasons, we must reform our tax code to abolish the progressive tax.

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.

In this round I will respond to Con's R2&3 arguments and defend my own case somewhat simultaneously.A key part of Con's case is that the minimum wage (MW) increases unemployment. To support this claim, Con presented both a hypothesis containing a false premise as well as data which is some of which is interpreted fallaciously and does not actually support Con's case. Con's hypothesis included the statement that workers' wages will likely be close to their marginal productivity because of competition for labor. While this sounds like it would be true in an economic dreamland utopia where supply and demand function perfectly and everyone has access to equal information and is subject to the same situations , reality does not necessarily work out that way. Many, if not most people who are most affected by MW laws are unskilled workers who desperately need a job to support themselves and/or their families. If the MW were to be abolished, a business would likely lower their wages below the marginal productivity of its workers, hoping to make bigger profits for the people on top. Other businesses might also lower wages for the same reasons. Uncertainty about finding a new job would cause workers to stay with current employment even though their wages had been cut. Over time, the difference between the marginal productivity of workers and their wages would certainly increase. If this type of situation seems fanciful, there is always history for a guide. During the industrial revolution up through the applications of the MW, workers were certainly paid extremely low wages for long hours of work. So why didn't they just leave in search of better paying employment? After all, don't businesses have to compete for these workers? Yes, they do have to compete, but if they're all paying similarly low wages, people will still be forced to work for less than their marginal productivity. A MW ensures some floor.A large problem with much of Con's case is that he merely addressed an increase in the MW as causing problems, not the existence of the MW itself. Con compared the state averages of those states that have MWs higher than the federal to those that only obey the federal law and found that the first group had higher unemployment. This comparison does nothing to support his case as it compares varying degrees of the MW, not with a MW and without one. More importantly, however, is the fact that just because Con can compare level of MW and unemployment does not mean that one causes the other as Con seems to assume. In fact, looking at Con's source, the level of unemployment appears to have more to do with a state's region that its MW laws.Next, he presented a graph. His graph only shows the years 2000-2010. It should be noted that unemployment is seen to increase while the MW stays flat in the beginning of the graph, and the increase in unemployment that happens to coincide with a raise in the MW also occurred at the same time as the Great Recession. Once again,it is fallacious to assume that MW effects unemployment.Con next addressed teenage unemployment, claiming a correlation between a raise in the MW and teen unemployment. The problem is that his hypothesis here is based on the false assumption that the MW causes unemployment and his data to prove this point suffers from the same Post Hoc inferences as the previously addressed data. Once again, we are presented with a graph that demonstrates unemployment increasing during the recession and this is blamed on the MW.This general claim is followed by a more specific claim regarding minorities, but once again there is no reason to believe that MW is more responsible for such things than the general state of the economy in general.R2 is concluded by Con with the claim that prices will rise as the MW rises. Once again, this only addresses an increase, not the existence of the MW as well as drawing conclusions with the Post Hoc fallacy. As Con went on in R3, his logic did not get any better. He continued debating whether the MW should be increased. This is exemplified in his statement: "If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will not be able to afford as many employees." This statement implies that I am arguing for an increase in the MW which he would argue would increase unemployment. The rest of his list continues on in this manner making reckless assumptions that are based on the previous assumptions which are incorrect or not applicable to the resolution.Next, he presented an elaborate study, however, this too is not really applicable to the matter at hand as it discusses not whether the MW should exist, but rather the effects raising it has, as shown by the title of the study: "Failed Stimulus: Minimum Wage Increases and Their Failure to Boost Gross Domestic Product."Con's final piece of evidence continues in this vain and does not why the MW should not exist, but rather why it should not be raised from $8 to &11. This evidence continues by saying: "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."Would someone work for $2 in today's economy? Probably not. How about $5? There's probably someone out there willing to work for that. And then wages fall a bit. And if somebody will work for $5, why not $4? And wages fall a bit more. And in a few decades we're at $2. But competition ensures that this would never happen, doesn't it? Tell that to the workers of the Industrial Revolution or the workers in the sweatshops in India and China and Taiwan. Someone is always willing to work for a little bit less.Additionally, it should be noted that Con has not really refuted my R2 argument, which stated that a MW ensures that wages will rise as inflation rises.In conclusion, throughout the debate, Con has merely made a rather weak case for why the MW should be lowered, not why it should be abolished, drawing on Post Hoc fallacious evidence. I have explained why a MW is necessary. I have fulfilled my BoP, Con has not.The resolution is affirmed.

" 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 to my opponent for this great debate. I will use the wikipedia definition of higher education: Higher, post-secondary, or third level education refers to the stage of learning that occurs at academies, universities, colleges, seminaries and institutes of technology. Higher education also includes certain collegiate-level institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools, and career colleges, that award academic degrees or professional certifications.[1] It is my opponents BOP to show that in a world without higher education, assuming ceteris paribus, unemployment rates would be less than or equal to modern times. It is my BOP to show that higher education has created jobs. That is all. It is not my burden to show that current higher education is efficient, that everyone should have higher education, how politicians should change higher education or anything else. I will prove to you that this is true. I theorize that higher education creates jobs mainly through the following principles: (a) Jobs are created by increasing aggregated demand. Education creates jobs that increase aggregate demand. (b) The greater the average productivity of an employees, the greater the amount of employees hired. The more employees hired, the lower the unemployment rate. I will also provide empirical evidence to support my claims. Contentions: 1)Engineers, entrepreneurs and scientist create new businesses and products that increase aggregate demand Lack of aggregated demand causes unemployment. Simply speaking, if consumers do not want to buy products, then businesses will have to lay off workers due to lack of demand for these products. This causes unemployment. New products must be made that people want in order to increase aggregate demand. I cannot want an mp3 player, unless an mp3 player actually exists. Once there is a demand for the mp3 player, people can will be hired for the production, distribution, and selling of this product. Engineers and scientist design new products that consumers want. Many products such as health-care, laptops, cell-phones, mp3-players, video games pharmaceutical drugs, and many others products would not exist without the innovation of scientist and engineers. Scientist and engineers must learn their trade through higher education. Also entrepreneurs create new businesses that create goods and services people want. Entrepreneurs meet people that help their business succeed and learn how to run successful businesses through higher education. Steve Jobs created a company that has thousands of employees. Juggle, the owner of Debate.org, hires many people to keep their company running. 2)The fastest growing occupations require at least an associate's degree If one takes a look at the fastest growing occupations, 2/3 of them require at least an associate's degree, and ï¿½ of them require at least a bachelor's degree. [1] 3)Empirical Evidence shows that those with higher education are less likely to be unemployed According to the following graph, those with a higher education are less likely to be unemployed[2]. 4)Many jobs would not exist without higher education Engineers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, scientists, architectures, teachers, dentists, accountants, and actuaries are all required to have a bachelor's degree or higher in order to practice in these fields. If higher education did not exist, then these jobs, that employ millions of Americans, would not exist. 5)In order to be employed, you must have skills an employer or consumer wants Employers will only hire you, if he/she believes that you will be productive. If you are looking for a job as a financial adviser, but no nothing about finance, you are not going to get the job. Even "blue-collar" jobs like electricians and mechanics often need training at a vocational school in order to be hired. Higher education teaches skills that employers and consumers want, and therefore employment increases. 6) A fall in GDP causes unemployment According to Okun's law, as GDP falls, so does unemployment.[3] Since those entering STEM careers (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) create innovation and technology that improve GDP, then unemployment will decrease as well. REBUTTAL: 1) Education is just a piece of paper that signals that you are a productive worker. This is false. As I stated, education teaches people skills that improves ones productivity in the workplace. It is the skills learned in higher education that causes a person to be hired. 2) Over-saturation of skilled workers This is again false. If this were true, then college graduate would just as likely to be unemployed as those without an education. This is not the case. Also, if there were an over-saturation of skilled workers, then based on the law of supply and demand, then skilled occupations would have low pay. After all, as supply of skilled workers increased, then wages go down. However, there appears to be no "market saturation" of skilled workers.[2] 3) College graduates having difficulty finding a job Those without a college degree and high school drops have it much worse. Since we are in a recession, unemployment is unnaturally low. Since the youth have little or no job experience, they are the least likely to get hired. Fannie Mae's government-backed mortgages and the Fed setting the interest rate to low, created a housing bubble which caused the recession. 4) If everyone had a bachelor degree it would be meaningless It is true that there are jobs that do not require higher education, and these unskilled workers are necessary in society. However, my opponent's argument is both affirming the consequence and using a composition fallacy. His argument reads as so (A = education): If A is good, then A is good for the whole. (composition fallacy) A is not good for the whole. Therefore A is not good. (affirming the consequence) The positive effects of higher education would be exemplified the more people are educated. The positive effect were explained above. Of course there is a limit to this effect. However, I do not have to prove that everyone should have a higher education. Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttal.


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

Exploring the impact of corporate tax adjustments on job creation.

I've spent considerable time devising a strategy to motivate companies to expand their workforce. I've termed this approach "Golden Key Economics." I would appreciate your feedback on whether this plan could be effective, and if not, how it might be refined.

Current national corporate tax rate: 30%
For every 50,000 employees hired, the tax rate is reduced by 1%
For every 50,000 employees hired, 1% of taxes are refunded
Minimum tax rate of 20% (since most companies employ fewer than 500,000 people)
Small businesses, as recognized by the SBA, receive a 50% tax rebate
This ensures that small businesses aren't disproportionately burdened by a 30% tax rate. By returning 50% of the taxed income, the effective tax rate for small businesses is reduced to 15%.

This strategy is akin to trickle-down economics, but with a twist: to benefit from tax cuts, companies must first contribute to the welfare of the middle class by increasing employment. This could potentially lead to a significant reduction in unemployment without excessively lowering tax rates, thus preserving the federal budget.

"My rebuttal is that there is limited space in other stores and if you are an american who needs a job you have to go to Wal-Mart who then can afford to pay low wages because that person has no where else to go and he needs this job. So they actually have to seek employment here in Wal-Mart." I personally do not understand this argument. Wal-mart is not a government employment service and to say that Wal-Mart is the only place that people can go to for employment is simply incorrect. Unless you can prove that Wal-mart is the only place that an American can go to for employment with hard evidence, your point is null. "First can you explain to me what hoc is and my point was a statistic so even if something else had something to do with this Wal-Mart still had an impact considering I said when Wal-Mart stores were built so Wal-Mart had something to do with this." Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is one of many logical fallacies commonly seen in debate. It beans "because of this, then this". While your argument shows that the poverty line rose at the same time Wal-mart came in, there can also be many other reasons. In order for your example to hold up in debate, you need solid proof that it is specifically the introduction of Wal-mart that caused the poverty line to rise. "Wal-Mart would not be within the jurisdiction of some other county because as I said, Wal-Mart was placed right outside Huntington so that it would not have to contribute to the tax-base of the city. What kind of neighbor is it being? Why doesn't it want to contribute to our economy? Because that would cost more money." Let me try to explain. Although it does not contribute to the tax base of Huntington, it would have to contribute to the tax base of SOMETHING, because the land it is built on is owned by some jurisdiction. Here's an example. If a Walmart opened up outside New York, I can complain that New York is not gaining from the taxes that Wal-mart pays. However, outside of New York is New Jersey, so instead of paying New York taxes, Wal-mart pays New Jersey taxes. Wal-mart does not shirk it's responsibilities, it just seeks to maximize profits. "Wal-Mart is doing good because of several reasons, First Wal-Mart has so much money by ripping off their employees, giving them bad benefits and selling goods at higher prices. If all other stores were doing this they would be good in the stock market and sales figures to." Capitalism works like this: If a corporation similar to Wal-mart was offering better pay for equal services, then the employees would flock to that corporation from wal-mart. Regardless, your argument begs the question that Wal-mart is the only place a person can work. I do not think it is possible for you to prove that point, so your argument is void. "As my opponent agreed with me saying that everyone wins except the people, who as you say, work at Wal-Mart. So my opponent does agree that working at Wal-Mart is a bad idea and you don't gain anything you only lose. Also I already stated above that Wal-Mart is the only place left to work at so the people have to go their which is why Wal-Mart can pay low. My opponent also said that the "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. " Again my opponent has agreed with me by saying that Wal-Mart keeps on making money because of their cheap labor and expensive goods, and yes maybe a small part goes to enhancing the store but the bigger parts are actually either stored in a vault or used to build another Wal-Mart which leads to overpopulating America and making it have a lower economy." Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Simply repeating that Wal-Mart is the only place to work does not make it true. This is just a gross exaggerration and cannot be substantiated. It must not be forgotten that the main contribution that Wal-mart makes to America, is in selling goods. The more stores Wal-mart opens, the more readily available goods will be to the public. My opponent then goes to make points about the pay of Wal-mart employees and their terrible benefits. This entire debate has been very confusing for me. The topic is on why Wal-mart is either good or bad for America, and I believe I was the only one focusing on this point. My opponent has valiantly proven that Wal-mart employees are being mistreated, but Wal-mart employees make up but a microscopic subset of the American population. My opponent would have us believe that WAl-mart is the only company in all of America that hires people, which is a gross exaggerration. Since it is an indisputable fact that Wal-mart is NOT the only place a person can go to seek employment, this shows that Wal-mart employees work there OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. So regardless of how ill-treated those employees are, they are doing so because the employees believe there is a fair exchange in working for Wal-mart. LET US NOT LOSE TRACK of what this edbate is about. Wal-mart may not treat their employees up to the standards that my opponent would want, but this in no way means that Wal-mart is bad for America. It is a corporation that provides the American people with a place to shop. Whereas the percentage of Americans working in Wal-mart is very small, the percentage of Americans that find some benefit from shopping at Wal-Mart is extremely large. In conclusion, Wal-Mart does Americans much more benefit than harm. The fact that my opponent wishes to focus on a small subset of people, Wal-mart employees that can leave Wal-mart at any time to work anywhere else, is meaningless.

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...

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...

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.

Premise I: Burden of Prove.Pro specifically said I had mentioned the Resolution being "Question A." Now he claims he was saying something different. Either-way, Pro is wrong. The Resolution is about whether Minimum Wage decreases USFG spending... Since Pro's case is that it does so by decreasing welfare on the grounds of it lowering poverty, he must answer how it effects those in poverty... This is because if he fails to prove it lowers poverty, the case he set up fails to stand.I should note that BOP is on Pro. He must provide offensive proof (as opposed to just defensive prove.)Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage.Pro says 35 million workers are earning less than $10.10 a year. This isn't true... The most reasonable estimate is CNN's 15 million... (1) Far less than half of Pro's claim. And since I've proven that someone working $7.65 an hour is still above poverty, Pro's case means little.Pro has done nothing to prove these people are poor, while I have given irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, not in poverty. Most of my Arguments I case from the beginning was dropped last round... Arguments that make Pro's case here pointless. I will repeat those dropped cases again:- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year. - 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor. - 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfareSo long as Pro can't prove those 15 million earning $10.10 or less are poor, he loses this debate. To carry on my case, raising the MW to $10.10 would cost upwards of 1,000,000 jobs, according to the CBO... Most of whom weren't poor until after they become jobless (2). This 1,000,000 jobs lost is above the number of impoverished the CBO claims would be helped.Pro continues by misrepresenting my case to the point of lying. He says I claimed the average income of one minimum wage worker is $50,000+ a year (after having dropped the argument). I said the average HOUSEHOLD Income is $50,000, which is true (3). I need not explain why Pro's refutation here isn't compelling... A teenager earning Minimum Wage, with parents earning $20,000 a year each, would live in a house with a Household income of around $50,000. If anything, he proves my point that MW workers are above poverty, as the poverty rate for a worker is $11,770. If two parents worked at Pro's claimed income, they would be nearly $20,000 above their poverty rate, capable of raising 4 children with plenty of money left... Pro's own math is self-refuting if accepted as true.Pro's whole case seems to assume all MW workers are living alone... They are teenagers living with parents. That is how so many people can live on MW, with household incomes so high. Unless Pro wants to quantify what it takes to be poor, he has no case. My source for the rate of people effected by hikes being poor uses the poverty rate for determining poorness, as does the USFG when handing out most welfare. If we review the Demographics of Minimum Wage Workers even more, we find that 3/5th of the people Pro talks about are enrolled in shool (4). Only 22% of the people he references are in poverty, and the average worker's Household income is over 150% the poverty threshold for their family. Even among the group of MW workers out of High School, the average household income is STILL above $42,000 a year.Pro's case for the MW worker being poor, and in need of welfare, simply isn't true.[1] http://money.cnn.com...[2] https://www.cbo.gov...[3]http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://www.heritage.org...Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.Pro's numbers mean nothing. They ignore every law of academia... They don't account for variables and context, or any other force that impacts the stats. If Minimum Wage is increased in 2016, and then a new industry forms, hiring 10 million workers, Pro's method would claim the wage hike caused the employment increase... He MUST account for these variables, as my source did, to make his point adequate. His number don't even account for how many of those jobs where MW jobs...That being said, he claims his numbers show the MW leads to employment increases, with no signs of disemployment. However, only 57% of the hikes saw increases in the job market. This is far from "With no real evidence of minimum wage increases leading to unemployment." 57% of successes doesn't even count as a correlation, better yet causation. Especially since the job market increases just as often every year MW didn't increased. The only truth can be found by clearing out the clutter than corrupts one's numbers.To strengthen both this argument, and Argument I, even CNN reports that a review of studies show no indication that increasing Minimum Wage would decrease Poverty (5). They even claim that most wage gains where seen by higher earning workers, and not those in poverty. Another review of studies find the same results (6). Minimum Wage increases, correlating well with each argument I made (especially in Argument I) do not reduce poverty.Following a time-tested method of research, Holtz-Eakin find that a hike to $15 an hour would cost 6,600,000 jobs, or 3,800,000 million jobs at $12. FAR over the CBO's estimates (7).[5] http://www.cnn.com...[6] http://econlog.econlib.org...[7] http://americanactionforum.org...Argument III: Less USFG Income = More DebtRaising the Minimum Wage would cost nearly a million jobs, billions of dollars in hours, and billions in lost corporate income as less people can afford the higher prices. Pro can not throw out one benefit without weighing it against the harms.If Person A sees their income increase 20%, their productivity increase 15%, and prices increase 10%, but he loses 30% of his hours, he will see the following:Productivity decrease 19.5%.Income decrease 16%.Ability to buy things decrease 37%.The negative impacts of Minimum Wage would quickly negate Pro's benefits. Even the CBO claims that very little of the new revenue would be acquired by people who are legally impoverished. Based on the CBO's 1 million jobs lost, and Pro's MW income listed in Argument 1, over $17.7 billion would be lost a year. Despite how the CBO says impoverished families will earn $5 billion more before losses are included. This is a net loss of $12.7 billion.Using the numbers from Holtz-Eakin's study, over $115 billion would be lost in wages at $15 an hour.Pro says US businesses can keep their employees... This is completely wrong. Most MW establishments are licensed. Based on income v profits, the KFC I work for brings in at least $50,000 a year in profit, and we have 25 employees. An increase to the fabled $15 an hour would cost us nearly $280,000 a year, twice our profit rate. Franchisers can't afford to spend that kind of money each year. My sources have long since already shown that Pro's claim here is wrong.Seattle is seeing restaurants close at a high rate now, and many resturants are having to close at earlier hours, and reduce labour (8). This (primarily the closing early and reucing labour part) is exactly what I claimed... Reducing worker's hours to make up for costs, which decreases paychecks and productivity.[8] http://www.forbes.com...Conclusion:Increasing the Minimum Wage would cost far too many jobs, plummeting otherwise healthy Americans into unemployment and poverty. I have already shown that increasing the MW would not help the poor, and that, if anything, it would increase dependency on Welfare for millions as hours, and jobs, are cut.

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

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...

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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com... this shows a graph proving that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up too. (it's recent to it applies more). And yes, Milton Friedman could be wrong, but mist economists also agree the minimum wage creates unemployment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like your goal is to prove Milton wrong, not me wrong. Yes, the pro side is never left blank, but this was an older video. Also I believe he meant their are no big reasons that show a minimum wage is good. (Also usually the con side s bigger, just saying) Yes their are other reasons for teenage unemployment, but you can't blame a recession always because even when economics are doing well and the wages increase you see a higher unemployment. Minimum wage doesn't mean slave wages! I have said this you aren't debunking me! Here's why you wont get them, 1. you will get paid as much as the employer thinks you are 2. you can always say NO to a lower wage. Yes making 2.50 is better then zero, but when minimum wage increases then your profit becomes lower and will eventually become negative you to fire workers, in turn increasing unemployment. And also you took out the rest of that argument, the job is worth less then the pay so it's worthless. Well yes their will always be peer-reviewed papers on either side, but there are more on mine. Here's one on my side: http://www.epi.org... as i said, there's some on each side. Ok the taxes. 25% of 7.50 = 1.87500. So about 5 dollars an hour. Not bad, better then 2.50. But hat happens when a minimum wage person refuses to pay taxes? Many of them do. They get arrested by the IRS. So on 2.50 you needn't worry about this. So it's get arrested if you refuse. Obviously this doesn't pertain to everyone. My outscoursing argument still stands. Heres a page that says minimum wage is good for a worker (wage wise) and bad for buissnes: http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com... well good for worker. Great! Bad for buissnes, darn! If its bad for buissnes then the buissnes may close which means by bye jobs. I wil press another argument. Also pertaining to jobs. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. Most businesses, especially in the manufacturing and retailing area, have many mundane tasks that need to be done, such as running a cash register or tightening a bolt on an assembly line. One of the reasons the manufacturing sector has not been part of the job recovery is that businesses have found it's much cheaper to use machines to do tasks that were previously done by people. Whenever businesses automate any task, they usually must spend a lot of upfront money and time in order to save down the line. Because of the minimum wage, spending the upfront time & money seems more worthwhile. For example, Wal-Mart is in the process of adding automated check-outs to almost all of its stores. Thus, all those cashier jobs will disappear. Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was raised to $8-10 or more, as some politicians want. Do you think Wal-Mart will be more willing or less willing to add more automated checkouts? Here's another one that says it's hard to set the minimum wage anyway. Sice cost of living is diffrent everywhere you can't really tell wat is a good wage, making it inneffecient and in some cases bad. If cost of living in california is higher then in texas then the minimum wage kids in california will have a hard time. So having a minimum wage may be good for areas like washington or LA, like a high one, but in cities where its lower abolish it. Sources: http://www.angrybearblog.com... http://www.house.gov... http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

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.