This is a response to a post Galloway made in the India topic thread. Someone else mentioned why taxes are more salient, I believe it was Taylor. Hester's response is quite good. I also made a post last week explaining why I think this topic is particularly timely:
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=2396.0First, Malgor's paper is narrow even within the corporate taxation literature. I researched corporate tax reform as a large politics disad for both districts and the NDT. I found a great deal of literature advocating that the USFG move its taxation rates on corporations from the approximately 35% taxation rate to 20% paid by most other OECD countries. In addition to that, people advocated closing loopholes to make the overall package revenue neutral.
I found very little literature saying "we should just close the loopholes." In fact, the lead Republican opposition to the Obama proposal of lowering the rate and closing the loopholes is that the Republicans want corporations to pay less than they are paying now.
My biggest concern with this line of thinking is that it all revolves around the research you did while researching a specific proposal in this congress as a politics disad. I think it's reasonable to assume that this means there is a lot about corporate tax reform you did not address. And it would make sense that most of the evidence you found was about lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes because it was, after all, the DA you were looking for. I think the paper outlines other affirmatives, with evidence from law reviews and think tank studies, that fit under each of these areas.
I'm kind of scared that you think there aren't policy analysts and organizations out there who want to make corporations pay more money without lowering the tax base..... the cede the political disad isn't THAT true.
I also am concerned that Malcolm has exaggerated the uniqueness question. There is a great deal of literature saying corporate tax reform could pass and pass this year. His paper includes a card on the question of "not before the 2012 election" but there is a lot of evidence that says corporate tax reform can pass now and is the most likely area for bipartisan cooperation between the Republicans and Obama.
This concern is somewhat valid. There is a chance some corporate tax legislation could get proposed. To be fair I included more than one card on this, from multiple perspectives. It's generally unlikely that prior to an election that will cost Obama two billion dollars, he will proposed sweeping corporate tax policies.
Even the uniqueness cards provided in your file are ok for politics uniqueness cards, but nowhere close to conclusive. I also included a card that explicitly said that everyone of Obama's proposals (the revenue neutral approach you say is the core of the topic) fails to address the biggest sources of lost tax revenue. At worst, this would present a scenario where one of the revenue neutral affs goes away. the paper outlines ways the aff can still run big policy advantages even without this aff. Again, i think you are not giving much credit to the content of the paper, and basing a lot of these conclusions on a politics scenario.
BUT, more research should be done on this sooner rather than later. the community should know the relative likelihood that reform is going to pass now. My reading is only one opinion, but we should look at other possibilities, with more recent evidence.
I was hoping that the paper left open the possibility of the Obama proposal to move from 35% to 20% AND closing the loopholes. However, it appears the way the controversy is framed "broaden the corporate tax base," that it does not. The paper goes the opposite direction of the bulk of the literature I have found on this issue when researching this scenario for both districts and the NDT in 100+ page politics files. I simply don't think there is much mainstream literature defending that corporations should pay more, outside of the far left "screw the corporations" crowd.
already explained this earlier. the paper clearly allows for this affirmative because it's revenue neutral. also, the bulk of the literature you found on this issue was part of a disad you cut that only defended the one specific kind of reform you mention. other affs are presented in the paper including some footnotes you can read up on.
Second, a broader taxation topic would be better. I would suggest we wait a year and craft a broader taxation topic that includes individual taxation, environmental taxation, and "sin taxes."
First of all, Malcolm's paper does not address the lead issue on taxation confronting the administration: whether or not to continue the Bush tax cuts, especially on the wealthiest Americans. The core controversy that led to the deal Obama cut to get the budget passed that arguably led to the success of START and DADT in the lame duck was his deal to continue the Bush era tax cuts. These are individual taxes, not corporate taxes. This is the issue that has the most relevance in people's everyday lives when they go to H&R Block every year to pay their taxes, not corporate taxes.
Second, the "taxaphobia" of America does lead to revenue shortfalls in all kinds of areas. There's good literature in the debate about "soaking the rich" that discusses how we can't pay for universal health care, or even our military commitments abroad unless we foot the bill. In a sense, this is a warrant for Malgor's paper, because it does provide the edifice for the argument that we need to discuss how we pay for things. However, the issue of corporate taxation is one component of that larger picture. Soaking the corporations is an affirmative case on a taxation topic, not a whole resolution.
Third, broadening the area to include environmental taxes would allow us to discuss gas taxes, carbon taxes, etc. Anyone paying prices at the pump these days and frustrated that the US hasn't made the transition to renewable energy might ask if it is the lack of taxes we pay on those kinds of commodities would be useful. I also think there is merit to discussing cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, snack taxes, etc. Those kinds of issues are the ones most relevant to everyday Americans. in a perfect world we would debate every one of those things in one topic. unfortunately, we have a lot of competitive issues to deal with when crafting a resolution. you just proposed debating two different tax systems AND throwing a giant energy tax topic on top of that. That's a lot of literature.
corporate taxes ARE important. They are a much smaller percentage of government revenue compared to individual and pay roll taxes, but they are the only sector of tax revenue that continues to go DOWN, not up. I also provided contextual evidence that showed key links between corporate taxation, budget deficits, social spending, and economic inequality. Once again, vague claims but there is no part of the arguments contained in the paper you are outlining that show it doesn't access these areas.
Everyday people are very concerned with the taxes they pay. they are probably more concerned about those taxes than the ones companies pay, but that doesn't mean they are NOT concerned with corporate taxes. many people are. and tax/budget policy will be a big part of the next election, meaning public interest will go up.
When you called for comparisons between topics, I didn't know it would be between topic papers and theoretical topics that no one wrote. If that's the case, there are an infinite number of unwritten, terrible topics that corporate taxes would be WAY better than. This delay counterplan is not compelling because tax reform in individual and corporate sectors is coming after the election.
And, the bush tax cuts are a big issue, and will probably not be extended again in the status quo. Very unlikely, unless Obama loses the election. This next year could be our last chance for a while to debate these issues.
My major opposition to Malcolm's paper is that I think it isn't nearly broad enough. I'd like to see the issue of taxation discussed, and do think it has tremendous relevance. However, my read of the corporate taxation literature is that he has chosen a narrow section of even that literature, and not a broader taxation focus. I would like to see the paper re-booted for next year to be inclusive of these other approaches I've mentioned.community consensus year after year seems to be limits limits limits. Even when presented with broad resolutions, the narrow ones typically win. I don't see any explanation in your post for why corporate tax reform is not a broad topic. Each area I presented has some distinct advantages, and multiple affs and cps under each area. I would love to discuss whether it is too narrow, but when you just assert that it is with no further support, it's hard to engage.
Also, my paper says the resolution would require corporate tax reform that at a minimum broadens the tax base. The topic committee is free to add as many areas and affirmatives (I already briefly mentioned the capital gains tax as another big area) as they need to make the topic large again, as long as those two requirements are met. I just picked core areas that were well supported in the literature.
you are the first person who has suggested that the debates would be too narrow. most others are concerned they will be too in depth.
Love the discussion, but let's get more in depth. Which parts of the paper are too limiting? In what ways do you find the topic too narrow?
