Ladies and gentlemen, while the affirmative side has presented some compelling arguments in support of why the government should reduce taxes, I urge you to consider the broader implications of such a reduction.
Firstly, by reducing taxes, the government would be limiting its ability to fund essential public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. These services are crucial for the well-being and development of our society, and cutting funding for them could have detrimental effects on the quality of life for all citizens.
Furthermore, reducing taxes may lead to an increase in income inequality, as the benefits of tax cuts often disproportionately favor the wealthy. This could exacerbate social tensions and lead to a less equitable society overall.
Additionally, it is important to consider the long-term consequences of reducing taxes. While it may provide a short-term boost to savings and investment, this could be outweighed by the negative impacts of reduced government revenue in the long run. This could lead to larger budget deficits, higher national debt, and potentially even economic instability.
In conclusion, while the idea of reducing taxes may seem appealing on the surface, we must consider the broader implications and potential drawbacks of such a move. We must prioritize the well-being of all citizens and the sustainability of our society over short-term economic gains. Thank you.
Provide a third speaker speech from the opposition side debating on the topic government shouldn't reduce tax and rebutting points;
1. Boost savings and investment
2. Reduce Unemployment rate
Stated by the affirmative side.
1 answer
1 answer