On May 30,2013, there was a Munk debate on Economic Inequality. The one-hour 23mins economic inequality debate with the motion: Be it resolved, tax the rich(more) was hosted by Munk Debates in Toronto, conversed on how societies or advanced countries should respond to the growth of economic inequality including the question of if the rich should be tax more.
Arguing for the motion was New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman and the former Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou. The debaters who were against the motion was the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich and Arthur Laffer who was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy.
Newt Gingrich defended the CON side by arguing that, raising tax rate for the rich is a strategy to force them to give out their money with the idea that they are owing the government. It also will pass a wrong signal to the rich and the society, “Why waste your time? If you get successful enough, …show more content…
However, it focused just on issues in America between the people and the government. One of the strenths of Papandreou arguments was that he was able to explain the beneifts high tax rate by making reference to other countries with hig tax rate. He was able to back up the importance of tax with the social contract theory in which there is n agreement between the individual and the state. “...every man hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent , and is far forth obliged to obedience of the laws of that government”( Rosen & Wolff, p.60). Gingrich made a good argument by talking about the disadvantage of high taxes as it leads to tax evasion and avoidance. Laffer provided other ways the government can generate revenue rather then just targeting the wealthy people. This was a good point point as the government shouldn’t focus on one sector of the economy to generate
Arguing for the motion was New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman and the former Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou. The debaters who were against the motion was the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich and Arthur Laffer who was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy.
Newt Gingrich defended the CON side by arguing that, raising tax rate for the rich is a strategy to force them to give out their money with the idea that they are owing the government. It also will pass a wrong signal to the rich and the society, “Why waste your time? If you get successful enough, …show more content…
However, it focused just on issues in America between the people and the government. One of the strenths of Papandreou arguments was that he was able to explain the beneifts high tax rate by making reference to other countries with hig tax rate. He was able to back up the importance of tax with the social contract theory in which there is n agreement between the individual and the state. “...every man hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent , and is far forth obliged to obedience of the laws of that government”( Rosen & Wolff, p.60). Gingrich made a good argument by talking about the disadvantage of high taxes as it leads to tax evasion and avoidance. Laffer provided other ways the government can generate revenue rather then just targeting the wealthy people. This was a good point point as the government shouldn’t focus on one sector of the economy to generate