I need 13 billion dollars

by **Azelais** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:24 pm

I need to get 13b from a tax (cutting from federal budgets didn't work). I'd like to put a penny tax or 5 cent tax on unhealthy food/drinks, like beer, cigarettes, chewing gum, soda, chips, and chocolate. But I'm still not sure if it's enough. Plus I'm having trouble finding some statistics (like for gum and chips). Should I also increase the income tax by 1%? Idk. I need some ideas...

Oh yeah. I also wanted to tax toothpaste, soap bars, shampoo, and other random items but I have no idea how much of it is produced in the United States per year.

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:36 am

Just put funding through normal means, 13 billion dollars really isn't that much if you have good enough solvency. If you specify specific taxes that's where you'll end up losing rounds by being extra-topical.

by **miguel_tejada** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:48 am

Azelais wrote:I need to get 13b from a tax (cutting from federal budgets didn't work). I'd like to put a penny tax or 5 cent tax on unhealthy food/drinks, like beer, cigarettes, chewing gum, soda, chips, and chocolate. But I'm still not sure if it's enough. Plus I'm having trouble finding some statistics (like for gum and chips). Should I also increase the income tax by 1%? Idk. I need some ideas...

Oh yeah. I also wanted to tax toothpaste, soap bars, shampoo, and other random items but I have no idea how much of it is produced in the United States per year.

This is dumb, you shouldn't specify where funding comes from. That's extra-T. You shouldn't even specify normal means, just say,"the plan will be funded but there's no part of the text which specifys where from."

by **frododebater** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:56 pm

if you specific your funding then you actually effects T because your plan is solved through the passing of your funding which is not neccesary and on top of that if they fight you on it just say that if you had to specific you would actually be breaking federal law because no plan going through congress has funding with it its allocated funding by congress......
then i could be wrong if i am its Jaime's fault lol

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:51 pm

I'm not sure about the federal law part Jesi haha, because the plan doesn't necessarily have to go through congress.

And, I wouldn't debate effects-t because FX probably isn't that bad for debate, it gives the neg even MORE disad ground. Definitely argue extra-t before anything. (Yes, there is a difference...)

by **Azelais** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:06 pm

I'm being extra topical? But if I asked for like 5 trillion in my plan, what would I say when neg asks where I'm going to get the money from? Surely they would ask. I'm confused because my coach and the varsity debaters say to press the other team for funding, and if we're aff then we are supposed to be specific in where we are getting the money from.

So according to you all, I won't need to specify where the 13b is going to come from?

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:28 pm

Your coach and varsity debaters are ignorant. 13billion dollars... Honestly? You don't have to specify where it's coming from at all... It's coming from the government... They do have money, believe it or not.

by **Dalton70** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:07 pm

I would just ignore this idea of not specifying your funding. It really varies by region so if your region encourages it than do it. A lot of the up to date regions do normal means and i personal agree with the theory behind it but i know my own league and others like it make it super hard to win without funding.

Idea's what to tax
Lightbulbs
Higher income people (may restore pre-bush tax rates? not positive what that looks like in numbers or effects)
Post Office taxes like on letters

All i can think of right now

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Don't specify funding, ever, anywhere. It's so stupid, it's a plan being proposed, you need to defend the money being spent, but not where it comes from.

by **Dalton70** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:34 pm

well.... Simply if you want to win do what winning teams do in your area. No matter what people say on here, in some area's you must specific your funding to be winners. So listen to your team mates and coaches because they will know your area.

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:16 pm

Then you debate nationally and get owned... Fun.

by **Dalton70** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:25 pm

Absolutely thats when you adapt. Yet he won't get to debate nationally if he doesn't do well on his local circuit.

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:28 pm

I suppose, he also might just be on a bad team that is telling him incorrectly, if your area requires it, I suppose go ahead..

by **Azelais** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:54 pm

I would imagine these debaters know what they're talking about as they are successful nationally, plus the judges here are just ordinary people so if the other team asks "Where are you going to get the money from?" and I simply reply "I don't know", the judge (being ignorant) will think 'The affirmative team's plan isn't specific enough'. I know that's what I would think before reading what was posted on here. Perhaps I should just leave it out unless they ask during cross ex?

"How will you fund your plan?"
"If you really want us to specify then it would be through taxing item X, but that's being extra topical."

^ Like that? By the way, I'm not a he...that's why my avatar is pink with a heart and with the name Ocean. Which I think is more feminine than masculine.

[edit] Not sure what school this is coming from but...
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... y9Lz7uWk4A
Under plan there is funding.

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:03 pm

You don't reply "I don't know." You say "Normal means." The congress passes plans all the time without doing some stupid tax on a random item.

That orientation is really really old school, and what do you mean "successful nationally"?

I need 13 billion dollars

Who is online