Jump to content
BootsandSuits

Using a Small Tax as Funding Mechanism

Recommended Posts

So, a couple of days ago (the 10th) my partner and I went to a tournament that we went 3-0 in prelims and were one of the two teams with enough speaker points to break to finals. 

 

In finals we were aff. Which I am really confident in, I thought going in we had a really good case and would probably win, because we had already gone up against one of the Austin Peace Academy's teams, and we destroyed their T's on development, exploration, and or. We also destroyed their DA on China that had a spending link. The team we ran up against in finals ran all of this, and on the ballot in finals the judge specifically wrote "T's flow AFF" "DA flows AFF". But, because of a really odd argument about using taxes a funding mechanism in our case we ending up losing the round. 

 

Their argument was that using a tax (which we use a 64 cent tax that raises 74.22 million dollars in one tax year to fund the plan) to defeat their spending DA which was linked with something about spending from normal budgetary means, would cause them to forfeit Neg ground and impinge their "debate educational rights."  We said we weren't using these means because our bill specifically includes the tax provision. They went on to run an arg that said it is illegal to attach any tax to a bill that passes through Congress. The judge bought that arg as well. So, the help I really need is in relation to these odd tax args, I've never seen them, so I didn't know exactly how to defend other than saying we didn't use the means that linked to their DA, but they used that against me and said it abused their "debate educational rights." So, can someone give me some help with these tax args? An example of a bill that lawfully passed through Congress with a tax attached would really help. And anything saying that its ok to put a tax on a bill would help. 

 

Anything at all helps, Thanks in Advance!

Also, please excuse the horrid grammar it is late and I just remembered to post this before I was almost asleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'd just say funding through normal means. $75 million dollars in spending isn't going to be that bad- what kind of china arg are they running that'll be triggered by $75 million?  USE LOGIC. Your advantages surely outweigh this, and the neg probably should've ran T-substantially instead.

 

Anyway, I think spending DAs are sad and illogical- especially how some people read them.  So non-unique and the link chain is horrendous.  I'm sure your advantages justify the spending, if you made it to finals.

 

US Econ up -> Plan spends $75 million -> US econ decline -> war -> nuke war -> extinction.  REALLY?!?!?!

 

EDIT: And on their 'illegal tax' argument, did they read evidence from US Code or legislative law that says its illegal? 

Edited by LionDebater
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: And on their 'illegal tax' argument, did they read evidence from US Code or legislative law that says its illegal? 

 

The evidence certainly wasn't US code or anything that sounded remotely official. It may have been a really obscure section of US Code, (I don't remember what the specific source was) I just remember that it said attaching a tax to a bill is illegal. That's why I was hoping to find a bill passed somewhere that had a tax hike attached to it. Because, then we are totally legal. I didn't have a card saying that the tax was legal b/c I had never heard the arg they made before, so I hadn't planned for it.

 

 

Honestly, I'd just say funding through normal means. $75 million dollars in spending isn't going to be that bad- what kind of china arg are they running that'll be triggered by $75 million?

 

Also, I really don't want to say through normal budgetary means because then all of my district is lay judges and when a neg runs a Spending DA w/any extinction or nuke war impact our lazy ass judges alwasy automatically vote for the neg. So I can't say normal budgetary means or else I lose the district rounds that get me to state. The CHINA DA said that any development of the ocean causes china to flip shit and nuke us for lowering their hegemony. 

 

 

 

The affordable care act (ACA/Obamacare/whatever the hell you want to call it) had tax hikes, right? So could I just use the ACA as my example of a fully legal bill that the supreme court ruled had a tax on it? 

Edited by BootsandSuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use normal means (also known as discretionary spending - it sounds fancier). You could easily answer that with the fact that we add around $2.43 billion to the federal deficit every day...and no nuke war yet.

Source: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Edited by jhiggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...