Any help and feedback is greatly appreciated. Please grade if you can. I'm shooting for a 5+. I really tried to index on intro-body-body-body-conclusion format and provide real life examples for each body paragraph. In this essay I'm not sure if my examples flow exactly how I'd like them to and I feel that my points overlap and kind of run together - but I'd love to hear your opinion! Thank you!
"This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city's expenses and increase the demand for its services."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument suggests that the city should start taxing developers, instead of raising taxes on citizens, to improve existing services. The author of this argument doesn't address certain assumptions that need to be expanded before we can know if this is a viable plan. As it stands, the argument is too flawed to be seriously considered.
The argument's first flaw is that it doesn't address second order consequences of raising taxes on developers. If the city raises taxes and said developers move to other cities for development, it could have serious consequences on the local economy that far outweigh incremental tax increases on citizens. The clearest example of this is Flint, Michigan where automobile manufacturing was heavily relied upon and tax disputes led to a shift in the local economy. In the 2000's, GM moved its manufacturing operations out of the city over mentioned tax disputes - GM moved to lower taxed cities - and the result was an absolute economic apocalypse in the city of Flint. It seems obvious in retrospect that Flint should have done everything in its power - mainly by use of subsidies and tax breaks - to keep GM in town. The author could strengthen his argument by providing an analysis on whether development would slow as a result of the new tax and then address whether the benefits of the tax on developers outweighs the potential harm that may result from the tax.
Next, the argument doesn't address whether the development in the city positively impacts other economic indicators in the city and if those would be impacted by implementation of the tax. It could be that citizens don't mind the additional individual taxes, because the developers bring in additional jobs and higher wages. Many tech companies are moving to Ireland because of tax incentives - in fact Ireland doesn't charge a corporate tax in many cases. Ireland and its citizens prefer this model because jobs increase (and unemployment goes down), and wages also increase. The idea is that being moderately taxed on a good income is better than not being taxed on zero income. If the author can address counterpoints to his argument about the positives of developments and that those other factors won't be impacted, or that the benefits of a developer tax outweigh the potential negative effects of the tax, then it will greatly bolster his argument.
Finally, the author needs to address what a developer tax would do to an individual citizen. It may be positive if an individual's taxes goes down, but what if developer taxes are passed through to the employee in the form of less wages. This is a classic economic problem. In the city of Seattle, the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour. This change most impacted the service industry, specifically the food service industry. While waiters were suddenly paid more, they actually had a tougher time eating in the city - as did everyone else. The restaurants passed the new wage increases off to the customer in the form of higher meal prices. This negatively impacted everyone, including those that saw the wage increase. A similar situation could manifest itself in this example, where individuals are worse off as a result of the author's policy. From an individual's perspective it's better to be taxed slightly more on a higher wage than it is to be taxed slightly less on a much lower salary. The author needs to address the basic economics of the new tax and definitively state whether the individual would be better or worse off a result.
In conclusion, the author makes a leap by stating that the city should tax developers, instead of citizens, for the sake of its citizens wellbeing. There are many assumptions that the author presumably made that need to be addressed and validated, including but not limited to: 1) the impact on the numbers of jobs that may or may not leave the city as a result of the tax; 2) the net impact it would have on the city to tax developers over incremental taxes on citizens; and, 3) the net impact the changes would have on the citizens of the city. Only if these assumptions are addressed can we know if the author's proposal is sound. Until then, the argument is too weak to seriously consider viable.
"This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city's expenses and increase the demand for its services."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument suggests that the city should start taxing developers, instead of raising taxes on citizens, to improve existing services. The author of this argument doesn't address certain assumptions that need to be expanded before we can know if this is a viable plan. As it stands, the argument is too flawed to be seriously considered.
The argument's first flaw is that it doesn't address second order consequences of raising taxes on developers. If the city raises taxes and said developers move to other cities for development, it could have serious consequences on the local economy that far outweigh incremental tax increases on citizens. The clearest example of this is Flint, Michigan where automobile manufacturing was heavily relied upon and tax disputes led to a shift in the local economy. In the 2000's, GM moved its manufacturing operations out of the city over mentioned tax disputes - GM moved to lower taxed cities - and the result was an absolute economic apocalypse in the city of Flint. It seems obvious in retrospect that Flint should have done everything in its power - mainly by use of subsidies and tax breaks - to keep GM in town. The author could strengthen his argument by providing an analysis on whether development would slow as a result of the new tax and then address whether the benefits of the tax on developers outweighs the potential harm that may result from the tax.
Next, the argument doesn't address whether the development in the city positively impacts other economic indicators in the city and if those would be impacted by implementation of the tax. It could be that citizens don't mind the additional individual taxes, because the developers bring in additional jobs and higher wages. Many tech companies are moving to Ireland because of tax incentives - in fact Ireland doesn't charge a corporate tax in many cases. Ireland and its citizens prefer this model because jobs increase (and unemployment goes down), and wages also increase. The idea is that being moderately taxed on a good income is better than not being taxed on zero income. If the author can address counterpoints to his argument about the positives of developments and that those other factors won't be impacted, or that the benefits of a developer tax outweigh the potential negative effects of the tax, then it will greatly bolster his argument.
Finally, the author needs to address what a developer tax would do to an individual citizen. It may be positive if an individual's taxes goes down, but what if developer taxes are passed through to the employee in the form of less wages. This is a classic economic problem. In the city of Seattle, the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour. This change most impacted the service industry, specifically the food service industry. While waiters were suddenly paid more, they actually had a tougher time eating in the city - as did everyone else. The restaurants passed the new wage increases off to the customer in the form of higher meal prices. This negatively impacted everyone, including those that saw the wage increase. A similar situation could manifest itself in this example, where individuals are worse off as a result of the author's policy. From an individual's perspective it's better to be taxed slightly more on a higher wage than it is to be taxed slightly less on a much lower salary. The author needs to address the basic economics of the new tax and definitively state whether the individual would be better or worse off a result.
In conclusion, the author makes a leap by stating that the city should tax developers, instead of citizens, for the sake of its citizens wellbeing. There are many assumptions that the author presumably made that need to be addressed and validated, including but not limited to: 1) the impact on the numbers of jobs that may or may not leave the city as a result of the tax; 2) the net impact it would have on the city to tax developers over incremental taxes on citizens; and, 3) the net impact the changes would have on the citizens of the city. Only if these assumptions are addressed can we know if the author's proposal is sound. Until then, the argument is too weak to seriously consider viable.
