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

Flat Tax System: A Fairer Alternative

Thank you for your kind words, Con. Let's dive into the discussion.

1. A flat tax is a fairer system than the progressive tax rate. The concept of "pay according to your ability" may sound just, but in practice, it penalizes success by imposing higher tax rates on higher incomes. This can create situations where individuals are actually rewarded for taking a pay cut. For instance, consider someone earning $98 a year, taxed at a rate of 5 percent, and ending up with $93.10. If this person receives a $4 raise, their income becomes $102 a year, but with a tax rate of 10 percent, they would leave with less than they started with before the raise, only $91.80. This system does not encourage progress but instead punishes productivity.

2. Every year, corporations spend millions on accountants to navigate the complex tax code. With a flat tax, businesses can focus on serving the marketplace and their shareholders rather than finding ways to exploit the system. This shift would lead to better decision-making and more ethical practices.

3. Transitioning to a flat tax system would simplify tax filing and make the rules easier to follow, reducing errors and tax fraud. This would eliminate the need for professional tax advisers, saving money for taxpayers.

4. A flat tax would make it difficult for lawmakers to create tax loopholes in exchange for campaign contributions and other personal favors. This would improve political accountability and ensure that politicians prioritize their constituents over their donors.

5. A flat tax rate could encourage investment and expansion, as additional profits would not be taxed at higher rates. This would be beneficial for both businesses and the economy.

6. Under a flat tax system, tax revenue would be collected primarily through purchases of goods and services. Wealthier individuals would still contribute the majority of taxes since they make more frequent and expensive purchases. This system would ensure that they continue to bear a significant portion of the tax burden.

7. Currently, the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the nation's taxes. This has led to high-worth individuals hiding their money in offshore accounts to reduce their tax burden. However, there is evidence that tax receipts from the rich rise when the rate they're asked to pay goes down. In the 1920s, when the top rate of tax was slashed from 73 percent to 25 percent, the share of taxes paid

Rebuttal and Analysis"As I said, it would never be 100% until we get really dumb people in power."We don't already have really dumb people in power?"Well it seemed like you where sorry about that."I never said anything about a sales tax before pro brought it up so I don't see how it seemed like that Oh that has nothing to with debate sorry. Just kidding you can clarify but I cant.This actually does have something to do with the debate as I was further explaining the tax policy I am endorsing. Pro wrote, "Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass." The debate isn't, "a flat tax and a tax rate attached to a federal amendment vs. my tax system;" the debate is “a flat tax vs. my tax system." If Pro thinks he needs to add on to the flat tax by passing an amendment to protect tax rates from fluctuating, he admits that a flat tax cannot stand alone against a system with no income taxes."There is one flaw with that statement, everyone buys goods. ALMOST no one will not buy goods. So a sales tax is pretty much mandatory if your a NORMAL person."Actually, in your statement accusing me of making a flawed statement, you made a flawed statement by claiming my statement was flawed and then confirming my statement by admitting we have a choice."Well under your plan they still own it, so is it immoral for the states to own it or only if the feds own it." That is incorrect. Under my plan the states wouldn't have the right to tax income either. I said any tax but taxes on income. "Saving is better? It is better for the individual because you have more money. But not to the economy."Since when did it become bad for the individuals who make up the economy, to have more money? I thought that was the goal."The more goods are bought=more money made=bigger economy=better economy-everyone happy"This is not always true. In fact, this very idea is to blame for our current financial crisis. The Federal Reserve printed money making borrowing easy. People borrowed and borrowed and then put this money into the economy. Sure, at the time, there was an economic boom but that boom was just a bubble created by credit and when the debt became too much the bubble busted and the housing market crashed along with the economy. "Savings can cause a double dip recession."Actually, deficit spending is to blame. Eventually all the debt catches up and brings down the economy. Saving actually starts the healing process as it allows individuals to begin paying off their debt. The less debt there is in the economy, the more the economy expands."I'm not against saving, but to much saving is bad in the long run. And Keynesian economics proves my theory."Actually, it doesn't support your theory. Econlib.org, "the concise encyclopedia of economics," states, "Keynesians believe that what is true about the short run cannot necessarily be inferred from what must happen in the long run, and we live in the short run. They often quote Keynes’s famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead,” to make the point."[14] So yes, Keynes did believe that spending drove the economy but he knew his theory did not work in the long run. His theory only addresses short term problems which generally leads to more problems as the debt grows. Final PointsIn conclusion, I will list three points that show I am the winner of this debate.1. I showed that a flat tax is immoral because for there to be a flat tax the government has to own your income or steal it. Pro chose the first option but never explained how it is moral for government to automatically own property you earned through contractual agreement.2. I showed that a flat tax is not economically sound because raising taxes on about half the country would be detrimental to an already weak economy. Remember, Pro himself, in reference to the flat tax, said, "Well, It is not economically sound."3. I showed that a system with no income tax is better because there is no moral injustice of government stealing or owning your money and it is a much more economically sound system. 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 having no income tax? I would like to, thank my opponent for a great debate and thank everyone who takes the time to read this debate. [14]http://www.econlib.org...

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

sorry for the short argument last time my internet kept fritzing. "Taking your graphs, they do appear to show that teenage unemployment rises with increases in the minimum wage but I see two problems with this. Firstly that you seen to have forgotten that the financial world was brought to it's knees around the time where both the minimum wage and unemployment figures went up." True, but 06 was when things began to fallout. Notice the minimum wage still flat lined in that period and the unemployment was fairly the same. But when it rose it shot up. Also is says it rose mid 07, so before then it was flat line. It goes up ONLY when the minimum wage increases. Unemployment rate in December 2006 (last month of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress): 4.4%. Unemployment in October 2009 (after 34 months of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and three minimum wage increases in those 33 months): 10.2%. [1] this isn't a democrat political bashing, but that's when the min wage rose. "he part of the graph that I do find interesting however is the information prior to January 2007 where the minimum wage was held constant (but there was still a minimum wage in place) and the unemployment figures actually decreased." when it was still slat line it was going up above the line and below it. 03-06 it was above, then it fel mid 06 and 07. then rose slightly above the line just barely before the increase. So when it flat lined it fluctuated from about 4-6% according to the source. And after the wage it hit about 10% and kept rising. So it had a consistent up and down. but still fairly similar. We see this on all economic graphs, it goes up down (slightly) then rises when the suspected cause moves. "Also the first source shows that if you raise it business lay of teenagers and minorities first." I'm having trouble following what you mean." I mean that the least skilled get laid off first. "Going back to the graph, there are a few reasons that can explain this decrease in unemployment which shows how important the minimum wage is. The first one is stigma. teenagers are seen in society as having less experience therefore being less able to work (I am discussing from a personal view)." That is my point, the least skilled get layed off first and are less likely to get hired. Teenagers and uneducated minorities get hurt first. And will be affected as they do not get hired. Thank you for that post. "A minimum wage does not guarantee a job or a career but it levels the playing field by ensuring that minorities are treated equally. " 1. how does it level it because I have proved that it hurts them? 2. Sure it sounds great but they will be less likely to get a job with a minimum wage. So get paid 0 because the minimum wage makes it impossible to get a job or get paid 4$ an hour cause they can get a job because the minimum wage was lowered or destroyed. So under my proposal they are more likely to get hired, and have their payment risen from 0 (unemployed) to example 4$. 400% increase. "To recap, because the minimum wage helps combat stigma in society and gives everyone a level playing field in their work then it helps teens and minorities more than it hinders them." How does it combat stigma? If your unemployed for a while sometimes you gve up. It has happened recently in america, 200,000 people have given up. So it increases stigma. It doesn't even it out because they don't get hired, it does the opposite. I will explain shortly. C1: Increases teenage unemployment. I have proven this, but i will explain how it makes the playing feild more uneven. Most labor economists will tell you that minimum wage increases lead to decreased employment among workers with the least skills. A survey of more than 100 studies on the subject by Drs. David Neumark and William Wascher confirms this fact: A sizable majority, including 85% of the studies the authors identify as providing the best evidence, show disemployment effects following a mandated wage increase. Our research adds to this literature while uncovering additional information. Using Current Population Survey data from the last two decades, we focused on males between the age of 16 and 24 without a high school degree — a vulnerable group more likely to be displaced as a consequence of rising labor costs. With a dataset of more than 600,000 observations, we were able to examine in-depth the employment histories of white, black and Hispanic males. We discovered that not every race and ethnicity was affected equally by minimum wage increases at the state and federal level: Each 10% increase in the minimum wage was accompanied by a decrease in employment of 1.2% for Hispanic males, 2.5% for white males and 6.5% for black males. [2] So since they are unemployable they cannot be even due to the faact that they will hav harder times looking for a job. SO once again, it unemployment or 4$ n hour better? Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [3] So it raises unemployment, especially for teens. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. [3] So the economy has is a factor, but the minimum wage is too. SO yeah I have basicallyproved this with facts...SO now ot the minority. C2: raises minority unemployment for 3 reasons: 1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most [4] 2. The minimum wage harms poor areas over rich areas [4] 3. The minimum wage makes discrimination less costly, therefore easier to discriminate [4] 2. is obiously right so lets focus on 1 and 3. 1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most What politicians won’t tell you but what ALL economists know is that the people who are most likely to lose their job due to an increase in the minimum wage are the least educated, the ones with the least skills, and the ones that are likely to keep their jobs are the more educated, the ones with the most skills. [4] this isn't meant to be rascist but on average minorities have the disavantages above. So being that minorities are the ones that tend to be less educated either because of a poor public school system, or the lack of english speaking parents at home, it is primarily poor minorities that feel the brunt of the minimum wage - while middle class white students reap most of the rewards. [4] 3. Discrimnation you claim it helps them, false I will prove it discriminates. Lets say that I was a racist and I wanted to open up a restaurant but I hated Mexicans so much that I refused to hire any in my shop. [4] So okay, I am a stubborn racist and decide to do it anyway - problem is, to get the same quality of workers I have to now pay them more per hour, say $8, or $10/hour. That is the beauty of the market system, I now have to pay for my racism. [4] Now, factor in the minimum wage and what happens? Well you have just made it easier for me to be racist. [4] you have reduced and spread out the costs I previously had to incur to follow my racist beliefs [4] go to my 4 source for more info. sources: http://www.americanthinker.com... [1] http://www.freerepublic.com... [2] http://online.wsj.com... [3] http://hispanicpundit.com... [4]

Um my stance thing isnt negateing anything. I'm clarifiyng things. "A flat tax can be any rate as long as "taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income" so it is irrelevant if our government would implement a 100% income tax or not. What is relevant is that a flat tax could call for 100% of an individual's income." 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%. Your for a national sales tax instead. If you look at europe they love them. You start out with a 7% sales tax but then it raises in a year rose 17 Um your local goverment statement is only partially correct. The department of education doent establish schoold, but it does guve many people loans for school. As well as other things. http://www.ed.gov... You 0% plan still doesnt work, they have to buy supplies aka your sales tax. So either way you can gelp or hurt them. I meant to say it is more economically sound then your plan and the current one. "That is not the debate." Yes it is because you talk about how your is better then mine, I talk mine is better then yours and how the old system needs changing. That is implied since this debate is american and that is a big issue on this topic. Your definitoon is similar to mine. Mine is about acheivement. So is yours, I just left out the private ownership and work part. Cool, thanks for explaining your definition of the 100%. But it doesnt work. They only own a percentage of the income, you own the rest. 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. Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Need more examples? E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution.

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...

"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." Actually, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" is attributed to 1964 [1], whereas Reaganomics began with the election of Ronald Reagan. As I pointed out, reductions in social programs began under Reagan and continue until today, so to say that we have fighting a perpetual war on poverty in incorrect. Moreover, it was Reagan's policies that have continued to today that have broadened the income gap. The chart I showed, for instance, shows relative percent increases in distribution of income spiraling out of control beginning roughly after Ronald Reagan took office and dropped the top marginal income tax rate. Let's examine the core logic. We had tax rates between 70 and 91%, and yet the economy grew. Was it because of high tax rates? Not necessarily. Those tax rates, however, allowed the government to make critical investments which bolstered aggregate demand and, ultimately, made lives better for the average person, rather than merely the very affluent. It's interesting that you have opted not to defend your comments on inflation. "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." If you didn't have enough time for an extensive debate, it may have been wise not to accept it. "I'm not sure what your trying to defend." The resolution was clear, and I clarified it for you last round, as well. You made the statement in our last debate that you believe that, when rich people have control of the vast majority of the money, everyone is better off. This debate was created so that you could defend them. I'm arguing that this policy has already been in place in the United States, and it has not worked. Moreover, we've had policies that were much different in the past -- three decades following WWII -- and yet, we had a stronger economy and less severe income inequality. I agree with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich when he says that the very rich would do better with a smaller share of a growing economy than a larger share of a stagnant economy. If the middle class cannot purchase the goods and services provided by affluent people -- and I've demonstrated that lack of demand is the core issue right now -- especially because middle-income people are likely to spend most if not all of their income (in comparison to the rich, who are more inclined to save a larger percentage of their income), businesses cannot grow, expand, and hire. "I can only assume you think government spending is necessary based on your arguments." I do, because it has worked historically, whereas austerity, by and large, has not. Austerity by definition shrinks aggregate demand and begins a vicious, self-reinforcing deleveraging cycle where lack of demand begets unemployment begets lack of demand begets more unemployment. "I also see some equality issues. The government consumes large quantities of money in order to provide any sort of service." As I've demonstrated, tax rates are near historic lows, yet businesses are still not investing. In fact, corporations are sitting on -- literally hoarding -- $2 trillion in capital [3] that they are not investing because the economy is so poor and demand is still so weak. With zero bound interest rates, it is actually a good investment to hold cash. The argument that I think you are tacitly alluding to is Say's Law -- the idea that supply creates its own demand -- which hinges on Say's Identity, that savings equals investment. Thus, if we take promote policies that promote savings, the theory goes, we are promoting investment. Again, there are a number of assumptions interwoven into this argument, and the fact that corporations are hoarding money amid a depressed economy is evidence to the fact that this theory cannot hold. Is there perhaps a point where taxes could be too high and thus stifle investment? Yes. But according to the EPI, the top effective marginal tax rate that will maximize revenue is 68.7% [4]. The publication also says the following [5]: "Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth"private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity"nor on overall economic growth rates." A Congressional Research Service study found similar results [6]. "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." As the EPI study from my last argument demonstrated, lack of demand, not lack of "regulatory certainty," is the primary issue businesses are dealing with right now. The business surveys echo this view. You haven't provided any evidence disproving these studies, but are merely making an assertion without any backing. As for "passing on the cost onto the consumer": Even introductory-level microeconomic models display consumers and producers sharing the cost of, say, a tax. But as I have demonstrated, lack of productive capacity is not the issue right now -- lack of demand is. Therefore, many businesses can simply absorb the cost of regulations. Also, please point to a regulation that you believe is stifling job creation. Merely saying that regulations kill jobs is one thing. I'd like to see if you can prove this assertion. "I think anyone that thinks the role of the government is to create wealth is nuts." Well, I don't believe that is the role of government. I think the role of government is to act as a vehicle that ensures equality of opportunity, that levels the playing field and provides people, no matter what point they started at, the opportunity to succeed. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That means that while I support a strong safety net and universal health care and education, as many European countries have, I do not believe that the government can magically turn me into Bill Gates. I will most likely never as wealthy as Bill Gates, and I do not have a problem with that. "The government might want to increase it's revenue, but it sole purpose is to hold us back." We fundamentally disagree on this, but just let me say that this is quite a cynical view of government. Do you have anything to back this up? "That really is the whole point of any economic model. It was to decide who gets use of limited resources." It is true that the core problem examined in economics is how to allocate scarce resources within a framework of unlimited wants. But how does this connect to your view that government is holding us back? Is your case that government inefficiently allocates resources, and the market can do it better? If that is your case, I'd like to introduce the concept of a market failure. Pollution is one. Factories can pollute and thus pose a negative externality on others. At the same time, they're exacerbating the looming threat of anthropogenic climate change. Yet. because this practice is profitable, it will continue, even if it ultimately makes our lives worse because, without a clean environment and livable Earth, it's difficult to imagine that we would be able to have this conversation. Though we're not to that point yet where the Earth is uninhabitable, some real damage has already been done. It's quite difficult -- and I would argue nearly impossible -- to address a problem of this nature by simply relying on the profit motive, self interest, and the free market. 1. http://www.ushistory.org... 2. http://robertreich.org... 3. http://www.ibtimes.com... 4. http://www.epi.org... 5. ibid 6. http://www.foreffectivegov.org...

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.

C1: Will raise teenage unemployment source: http://www.house.gov...I would like to note the lower minimum wage actually brought unemployment down, and the raise rose unemployment. "Two years ago Mr. Neumark and William Wascher, a Federal Reserve economist, reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage. They found "overwhelming" evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased." [2] And guess what? the least skilled are teenagers. The study shows 1 70 cent increase --------> 300,000 jobs lost. C2: Raises Overall unemployment"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [1] Out of the many studies proving the minimum wage raise hurts the economy, only 1 said it was good, another study tried to duplucate the results with no conclusion near the same. The study was debunked. [3] "With all of this recessions significant labor market problems, and the expensive federal efforts to offset them, its too bad that the minimum-wage law added so many people to the list of those who today cannot find jobs." [4] This makes logical sense, let me prove this:Let's say pe hour I am worth about 7$. If you rose the minimum wage to 7.25 or 9$ then I am out of a job. Hiring me would be charity. Most employers are not able to afford this, so basically it disqualifies me from a job. C3: Mininium wages increase teenage dropoutsA raise in the minimum wage not only raises unemployment, but forces highschoolropouts. [5] This study actually proves any increasein the minimum wage increases highschool dropouts. [6] Now what is the reason? Money. The igher wages influence them to drop out of school, the their eyes have $ signs in them. Now, this doesn't gerentee they find jobs. Actually, most of them never find minimum wage jobs when they drop out. [1, 6] This means we have less education, and well frankly a worse country. C4: The minimum wage will raise prices"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year." [7] This makes sense. If you raise the cost of labor it costs more to actually make the product, the the employer must actually charge more to make the same profit. As the minimum wage increases, not only do companies fire employees, they also raise prices to help the budget. And in the end, this will make it harderfor people, especially poor people, to buynecessary things. That in turn reduces GDP growth because there is less buying, and know, this will plungeus into another recession. [8]Oh btw the reason I did not quote the last part of the paragraoh from 8 is because he plagarised me first. SO thats my former words from an old debate, so as ts mine origionally I did not quote it. Conclusion:My opponent will falsely use the "general welfare clause" Its funny as unemployment =/= general welfare, a 5$ wage is better than no wage. My opponent really then is saying more dropouts, higher prices, and higher unemployment is general welfare, so if he uses this argument it is basically False. Minimum wage hikes lead to more unemployment and higher prices which is bad for the economy. Also as kids drop out we have a less edcated country. VOTE CON, VOTE ECONOMY!sources:http://www.house.gov... [1]http://online.wsj.com... [2]David and William Wascher, The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-food Employment: A Re-evaluation using Payroll Records. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995. [3]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [4]http://www.nationalcenter.org... [5]Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effects of Minimum Wages on Teenage Employment and Enrollment: Evidence from Matched CPS Surveys. National Bureau for Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995. [6]"Increasing the Minimum Wage" P u b l i c P o l i c y Institute of C a l i f o r n i a, may 2000. [7] PDF http://www.debate.org... [8]

Ok, we are getting closer to the issue."..There is absolutely nothing a corporation itself can do to others - it is completely for legal purposes."A case can and has been made to illustrate how many corporations are designed to camouflage illegal activities. An example would be the recent HSBC scandal."I do believe that we need some form of regulations in factories that help keep the air clean and make sure that people are not put into unsafe conditions. There should also be some sort of health regulations that make sure that the food you are getting is well made and no products have any toxic chemicals in it."While you admit that regulation is needed to limit the negative impact of these corporations, it is my assertion that such corporations should be outlawed if their activities are known or proven to be deadly to individuals or the general public. In the same way that GMO production and products have been banned in several countries. In fact, many countries will not accept food exported from the U.S. that contains GMO's. [1] This same food is sold unlabeled in the U.S. to unwitting and financially cornered individuals.At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the profits or profatability of corporations overshadows or overrides the safety or right to life and liberty of the general public. As the profits mainly benefit a small minority of the public (commonly referred to as the 1%) I do not think these corporate-persons deserve such entitlements.It seems relevant to review how these corporate persons received such broad leeway or latitude."After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*: Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws. Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose. Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job. Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow... In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation. In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III...Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling... As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.” But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns... The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation... Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike...During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines. One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”... From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….” Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence...[2] "..Without person-hood, you cannot sure the corporation, you have to sue the individual..." The artical you quoted states "..investors in a failed business could land in debtors’ prison if they couldn’t cover the business’s losses. .." Holding the owners and investors responsible for criminal and deadly actions would not bring an end to the economy. When bankers were bailed out, the public took the brunt of the damage. Fathers who owe child support are sent to jail. Accesories to crimes are sent to jail. Why should corporations and their investors be treated any different? Iceland seems to have found a way to survive after punishing corporate criminals. : "Iceland's Supreme Court has upheld convictions of market manipulation for four former executives of the failed Kaupthing bank in a landmark case that the country's special prosecutor said showed it was possible to crack down on fraudulent bankers..."This case...sends a strong message that will wake up discussion,"..."It shows that these financial cases may be hard, but they can also produce results."...the country's efforts contrast with the United States and particularly Europe, where though some banks have been fined, few executives have been tried and voters suffering post-crisis austerity conditions feel bankers got off lightly..."It is dangerous that someone is too big to investigate - it gives a sense there is a safe haven.""[3] .."Think of corporations like a political party...They are for profit and nothing but profit.." I would rather not think of corporations as political parties, as they are for profit not the well being of the society. As stated, we live in a corporatocracy. Giving corporations political power is a danger that was warned against by the founders of the U.S.. "..Corporations are set up for profit. They are not set up for sympathy..." Outlawing deadly corporate activity is not sympathy, it is justice. "Nigeria is a Western African nation with huge oil deposits..." If we are to be honest, the only reason for the world's dependence on oil is because the global elite have a vested interest in its continuance. There are several more ecologically friendly sources currently available. They are kept off the market because they either provide more consumer sovereignty or methods of monopolization have not been formulated by the global corporate barons. "...freedom of religion as an example for my next argument..." As stated, religion does not spread toxic and deadly material that is unavoidabkle into the environment. "..corporations are moving to China due to their low regulations.." While this may be partially true, corporation in the U.S. are mainly moving to avoid paying livable wages to employees in the states and to create tax shelters. http://www.thenation.com... [1]http://reclaimdemocracy.org... [2]http://www.cnbc.com... [3]

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.


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

The United States should focus on tax adjustments rather than spending cuts. While your argument is well-presented, these tax hikes will not necessarily benefit the citizens. The scheduled fiscal policy changes at the end of 2012, often referred to as the "fiscal cliff," pose significant challenges for policymakers. A major point of contention is the proposed increase in tax rates for high-income taxpayers, partly due to the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. President Obama's budget proposal calls for the reinstatement of higher top tax rates, while key Republican members of Congress advocate for their extension. The increase in the Medicare tax and its expansion to unearned income for high-income earners under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 further contributes to the rise in top tax rates. The concern over top individual tax rates is partly due to the significant role played by flow-through businesses, such as S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships, in the US economy. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector workforce and pay 44% of federal business income taxes. This report, using the EY General Equilibrium Model of the US Economy, examines the long-term impact of the increase in top tax rates. While the CBO report analyzed the short-term effects of all federal government fiscal policies under scrutiny at the end of 2012, this report focuses on the long-term effects of the increase in top tax rates. This report examines four provisions that will increase the top tax rates: the increase in the top two tax rates, the reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, the taxation of dividends as ordinary income, and the increase in the Medicare tax for high-income taxpayers. With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013, the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7%, and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%. This report finds that the higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to

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

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

I will be arguing in favor of the FairTax, a bill which repeals our current tax system and replaces it with a 23% national retail sales tax.

Thank you to Ron-Paul for this intriguing debate. I’ll jump right in: Con’s first claim is that I am assuming that businesses will pocket the difference between marginal productivity and wages. Yet, he offers no evidence that the the opposite would be the case. In fact, his argument states “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.” If, as he says, there is little gain for the business if prices were to be reduced based on the drop in cost of production, it is unlikely that a business would choose to make such a choice. It would likely choose instead to pocket at least the majority of the difference. Next is presented another mostly irrelevant argument in which Con argues that if wages are set above the marginal productivity, then employment will decrease, however, this assumes a MW that is set above the marginal productivity of most workers. My opponent’s attempt to discredit my argument concern the Industrial Revolution does not achieve its purpose as his source concedes that wages were low during this period. “The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them.” [1] This supports my argument. I never claimed that factory owners forced people to work, nor did I claim that conditions were so good before the IR (another point addressed by Con’s source). My points were that the IR provides an example of a time when people were payed below their marginal productivity, and also that when only low paying jobs are available, people will end up being forced by the situation to take a low paying job. A MW means that the lowest paying jobs will at least have some decent pay associated with them. I have demonstrated and Con has not proven that wages will necessarily remain close to marginal productivity. Conceding the Post Hoc of his R3 evidence, in R4 Con presented several new charts to support his MW-unemployment correlation claims. His first two graphs make the previously addressed assumption that a MW would be set above marginal productivity. His third graph is not to be found on his cited source #5. I suspect that he meant to cite it as source #6 as that source reveals a picture of the graph, but provides no information on what the true source of the graph is. This means that neither I, nor the readers, have a good way of verifying the information. The graph states that it is using the real MW, but does not state for what time the MW is adjusted. Next Con writes that there is “a mountain of empirical evidence that the minimum wage increases unemployment particularly among teenagers” and cites two studies. Although some economists have done work that would lead to such a conclusion, others disagree. A study done at the University of California concluded just the opposite [2]. Con attempts to refute my initial R2 argument with a ridiculous amount of unneeded sources such as a dictionary definition of the word positive and are based on the same unproven assumptions as the rest of his argument. I have already addressed his arguments that the MW causes unemployment and that wages will not fall without the MW. Finally, Con states that a MW of $2 would be unnecessary, however I have already explained in the previous round that without a MW wages could gradually fall and unemployed people in desperate situations would essentially be forced into working for ridiculously low wages. An interesting point concerning this is that Newsweek conducted an experiment the results of which concluded that some Americans said they would settle to work for 25 cents an hour [3]. I have shown that the MW is economically sound and necessary for a healthy society. Vote Pro!! Sources: [1]- http://www.fee.org... [2]- http://www.irle.berkeley.edu... [3]- http://www.thedailybeast.com...

The reason why trickle down economics hasn't worked "sinceit was enacted" 30 years ago is because we have had no trickledown economics. Rich people today don't invest their money, they hoard it in a bank someplace off in Bermuda so they don't pay taxes. Corporations also do't invest their money in things that would create jobs anymore, they put it into their own stocks to rank up the stock prices and rigg the stock market. This is because companies productivity is measured by how manyy digits they take out of the economy, not by the value of the goods and services they produce; most American Corporations are just money laundering schemes in effect because they earn money literaly by fiddling with digits. his is based aroun Keynesian economics which links prosperity to the ammount of currency in circulation, as opposed tto market economics which links prosperity to the productrion of real wealth. Thus companis can make more money just by fiddling with bank ledgures, rather than producing anything, in effect factories shut down because they just aren't as profitable, and people lose their jobs. During the 60's, however, rich people invested their money in factories and things that produced real wealth, creating jobs and wealth. Thus we had a strong middle class. As you can see it is Keynesian economics which lead to the downfall of the middle class not trickle down economics.

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

Apparently someone created an account to kill this topic. The account was created one minute before accepting the debate.In any case, con's arguments are a word-for-word copy of an article posted on American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com... since the source is not acknowledged, this is a conduct violation.The undited copy-and-paste produces the wall-of-text style problem,My opponent has not won any debates, so is in violation of the rule requiring an experienced debater.The first round is for acceptance only. Con violated the rule by spamming in the opening round.The argument presented does not address the resolution. The article copied argues that increasing taxes on the rich would be unfair, a conservative viewpoint as one would expect from American Thinker. the debate is solely about how much revenue the Buffet Plan would raise, not whether it is fair or unfair.The revenue is at most 3% of the deficitAn optimistic estimate of the revenue generated is"In 2008, there were 236,883 tax filers reporting income of $1 million or more. The Patriotic Millionaires, a group advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on tax filers making $1 million or more a year, estimated that their plan would raise $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years." [P2. http://blogs.wsj.com... ]That includes implied savings in interest on the national debt. "the tax would actually raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year: equal to about 3% of the annual federal deficit." [P2]The revenue would actually be substantially less than the optimistic estimate, because the rich are able to evade taxes by not taking capital gains and by moving money to offshore accounts.The revenue raised would be trivial compared to the magnitude of the deficit problem. The resolution is affirmed.

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.

Ok, we are getting closer to the issue."..There is absolutely nothing a corporation itself can do to others - it is completely for legal purposes."A case can and has been made to illustrate how many corporations are designed to camouflage illegal activities. An example would be the recent HSBC scandal."I do believe that we need some form of regulations in factories that help keep the air clean and make sure that people are not put into unsafe conditions. There should also be some sort of health regulations that make sure that the food you are getting is well made and no products have any toxic chemicals in it."While you admit that regulation is needed to limit the negative impact of these corporations, it is my assertion that such corporations should be outlawed if their activities are known or proven to be deadly to individuals or the general public. In the same way that GMO production and products have been banned in several countries. In fact, many countries will not accept food exported from the U.S. that contains GMO's. [1] This same food is sold unlabeled in the U.S. to unwitting and financially cornered individuals.At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the profits or profatability of corporations overshadows or overrides the safety or right to life and liberty of the general public. As the profits mainly benefit a small minority of the public (commonly referred to as the 1%) I do not think these corporate-persons deserve such entitlements.It seems relevant to review how these corporate persons received such broad leeway or latitude."After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*: Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws. Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose. Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job. Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow... In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation. In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III...Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling... As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.” But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns... The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation... Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike...During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines. One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”... From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….” Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence...[2] "..Without person-hood, you cannot sure the corporation, you have to sue the individual..." The artical you quoted states "..investors in a failed business could land in debtors’ prison if they couldn’t cover the business’s losses. .." Holding the owners and investors responsible for criminal and deadly actions would not bring an end to the economy. When bankers were bailed out, the public took the brunt of the damage. Fathers who owe child support are sent to jail. Accesories to crimes are sent to jail. Why should corporations and their investors be treated any different? Iceland seems to have found a way to survive after punishing corporate criminals. : "Iceland's Supreme Court has upheld convictions of market manipulation for four former executives of the failed Kaupthing bank in a landmark case that the country's special prosecutor said showed it was possible to crack down on fraudulent bankers..."This case...sends a strong message that will wake up discussion,"..."It shows that these financial cases may be hard, but they can also produce results."...the country's efforts contrast with the United States and particularly Europe, where though some banks have been fined, few executives have been tried and voters suffering post-crisis austerity conditions feel bankers got off lightly..."It is dangerous that someone is too big to investigate - it gives a sense there is a safe haven.""[3] .."Think of corporations like a political party...They are for profit and nothing but profit.." I would rather not think of corporations as political parties, as they are for profit not the well being of the society. As stated, we live in a corporatocracy. Giving corporations political power is a danger that was warned against by the founders of the U.S.. "..Corporations are set up for profit. They are not set up for sympathy..." Outlawing deadly corporate activity is not sympathy, it is justice. "Nigeria is a Western African nation with huge oil deposits..." If we are to be honest, the only reason for the world's dependence on oil is because the global elite have a vested interest in its continuance. There are several more ecologically friendly sources currently available. They are kept off the market because they either provide more consumer sovereignty or methods of monopolization have not been formulated by the global corporate barons. "...freedom of religion as an example for my next argument..." As stated, religion does not spread toxic and deadly material that is unavoidabkle into the environment. "..corporations are moving to China due to their low regulations.." While this may be partially true, corporation in the U.S. are mainly moving to avoid paying livable wages to employees in the states and to create tax shelters. http://www.thenation.com... [1]http://reclaimdemocracy.org... [2]http://www.cnbc.com... [3]

"As for outsources, most jobs I can think of that pay minimum practically are not outsourced. Mcdonald's. etc." Labor in McDonald's is what has left AFTER all the inventory in McDonald's are outsourced. The uniform that McDonald's employees wear is made in China/Mexico, etc. If there are ENOUGH labor that are willing to take the minimum wage, then TONS of uniforms, paper cups, plastic knives/forks can be made here. Can you imagine how many jobs we can have here with all the McDonald's inventory productions? You think that Americans don't know how to make those products? No, but why the business outsource the labor, b/c the goal of business is to make profit, by making profit, they need to cut the cost as much as they can. The US dollar value is still higher than most other currencies, say RenMingBi, $1= 8 yuan, you pay Americans minimum wage $6.15 while you only need to pay the Chinese $2 (=16 yuan). 16 yuan/hr is enough to for a Chinese worker to survive in Mainland China. So it is not about fire the Americans if they are not as good workers as the other Americans, the problem lies on the US dollar value and stanadard living conditions/level in other poorer countries. We were talking about legal outsourcing, now let's bring up the concern on hiring illegal immigrants based one their comparative advantage. The minimum wage is a limit on the freedom of both employers and employees. Minimum wage laws make it illegal for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage. This also prevents workers from being made to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites. The minimum wage can also increases the number of people on welfare, thus requiring greater government spending. (http://ideas.repec.org...) Keep in mind that minimum wage laws apply to more than big businesses, they apply to government and non-profit organizations. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. Let's take an example. Consider a domestic violence shelter. This type of shelter normally needs workers to clean, collect & organize donations, counsel & assist residents, monitor help-lines, provide legal assistance in such things as obtaining restraining orders, and so on. Volunteers help relieve some of the duties, but it's often tough to find dedicated ongoing volunteers to do the job. After all, volunteers still have to earn a living, raise a family, etc. However, if the charitable organization were able to pay some amount, even a few dollars an hour, it would better be able to build a more steady set of workers. A non-profit organization may simply not be able to afford a $7 per hour pay rate. Thus, non-profits have only two solutions: dissolve their organizations or hire fewer people to provide the charitable service. Many people believe businesses have endless supplies of cash and can easily withstand minimum wage increases or other cost increases. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. Every time there is a recession, thousands of businesses go under. Restaurants, which pay wages at or near the minimum wage level, have the highest rate of failure of any business type. Anytime you increase the costs of businesses, you push them closer to the edge. Let's take an example. Imagine a small neighborhood hardware store. This hardware store isn't going to have the logistics and economy of scale advantages of say, Wal-Mart; thus, it must charge more. It probably makes up the price difference with better service. When you raise the minimum wage, it increases the operating costs for that hardware store even more. Thus, it must raise it's prices to cover costs. Eventually, prices get so high that customers conclude that shopping there isn't worth the additional cost. Slowly, the local hardware store is driven out of business.