In terms of quality of life, a flat tax places an unfair, substantially heavier burden on the poor.

Before I begin, I feel it is important to note that taxes only apply to the working poor. The resolution would then become: "In terms of quality of life, a flat tax places an unfair, substantially heavier burden on the working poor."Secondly, my opponent has not clarified fairness as compared to what? By proposing the progressive tax system, my opponent implies that both factors, rich vs. poor and progressive vs. flat, are to be debated. With that said, let us carry on into the debate:Substantial - Imagine a poor economic unit without taxes. The poor economic unit no longer has access to the programs to which it turns. My opponent has limited 'poor' to $50,000 annual income. I do not consider this representative of the poor. The poor is generally taken to mean the portion of the population at or below the poverty lineWho receives this aid? Obviously not the rich. The poor receive this aid. Each and every one of these units require financial aid to cover their either nonexistent or insufficient income in order to survive. However, they still have to pay taxes. It would be illogical to collect more money from those who need money, giving less in return. The entire goal of SSI and federal aid would then be demolished. It follows that the government gives the needy more than they pay the government. The type of taxes, progressive/flat, will subsequently become insubstantial. So why does the government even bother to exact taxes from the poor? It's simple: the United States, founded on the principle of freedom and equality, cannot turn its back on these founding principles without inciting potential revolutionary upstarts. The tax is only there in name. Simply put: taxes, in reality, places no true burden on the registered poor. "This debate is not over whether or not the flat tax is "fair" in the most absolute sense--it is over whether or not theburden (on quality of life) is fair. Furthermore, whether or not this extra burden (on the poor) is substantial when compared to the rich (although not specifically stated, I think it's clear that we are arguing over poor vs. rich in terms of burden)."I assert that there is no substantial burden at all, since the taxes paid are repaid in larger quantity in the case of the poor.Since the poor receive no net burden, it is unfair to claim the poor has a substantially heavier burden than the rich & middle class (who actually experience a net loss since most do not qualify for aid). "On this issue, I believe Pro has presented numbers that are compelling while Con has not."I believe PRO has presented proportions and percentages which he thinks are compelling while CON has presented a case which states that the difference in tax to luxury spending proportionality is irrelevant to the quality of life.My opponent says, in refutation to my gold-shop example, that it is the government, not an individual, that takes the portion of gold. This pedantic picking at the specificities of the characters within the example does not aid my opponent in any way. It is the concept which counts. Under that refutation, my opponent might as well also say that it is all the rich people, not one rich person (the gold shop owner), who is being taxes. Gold shop owner represents the rich while the thief represents the government.Let us refer back to the Robin Hood example (50% of 6 is 3, not 4). Based on the progressive tax system:Poor:Taxes: x * 2 nuggetsLuxury spending: 2nuggets * (1 - x) - 2 nuggets = 2 * (1 - .5) -2 = 1 - 2 = -1Tax Burden as a Percent of Luxury Spending: 1 nugget / -1 nugget = -100%My opponent's implied claim is that luxury spending is the basis for determining quality of life. To make the luxury spending burden fair, The Rich person would also have to suffer a -100% Burden. This is impossible to solve, but, in principle, would create a situation in which the rich would be as poor as the poor. Mathematically, luxury spending cannot be used as a standard for comparison.The rich who began with the most nugget will, without doubt, have more in the end. It is then the income, not the tax, which places the burden on the quality of life in the first place, not the tax!Even if we were to assume that the quality of life hinges on the amount of luxury spending a person has, the resolution would still work in CON's favor:Income, not taxes, decides a person's quality of life in terms of luxury. The poor's life quality burden is a direct result of their income. Taking $1000 dollars from someone who is already $1000 in debt would only increase the numerical burden on his/her debt, but it will not have any effect on the person. If the person is already living as frugally as possible, then there is going to be no change in this living condition. Since there is no change, the tax rate will, in essence, effect no burden at all.A beggar has no means of earning money but living on the streets and begging. You take his money, what then? Will he become more beggarly? It is safe to assume that the beggar will continue living on the streets and begging.The poor already has a burden as a direct result of insufficient income. Taxes will increase the numerical burden of their already unsupportable income, but they will still be poor. Let's look at it this way: say we don't tax the poor, will they suddenly become rich? No, they will still be in the exact same condition: poor.Similarly, raising the taxes for the wealthy will effect completely no change in their living condition. If you tax a millionaire, he'd still be a millionaire.If their condition does not change whether they are taxed or not, then the statement claiming that the poor will be substantially burdened is (yes, subjectively) false.My opponent feels a 20% numerical burden is heavy, but I feel that the 20% numerical burden is just a number and is, in terms of life quality, insubstantial."Now, this is all math, so you can skew these numbers so that the person making $1 million a year vs. $1 billion pays a substantially larger percent of their luxury spending."You could also skew the numbers and make the person making $30,000 a year vs. $150,000+ a year pay a substantially smaller amount."Pro makes the argument that rich pay more in taxes in absolute terms, irrespective of proportional taxes. This is completely irrelevant, as proportions do a better job of explaining relative burden vs. absolute terms."My opponent is right, let us resort to proportions (a rich person and a poor person both paying $1000 dollars is numerically, but not proportionally fair. I was wrong). There is one change I would like to implement: the proportion, which was previously made over amount of leftover luxury spending, will now be put over income. Since the numerical standard by which my opponent consigns a person's quality of life is largely based on income, not taxes, it is fair to place the amount of taxes over that which is actually substantial).Poor Person: 20% of 30k = 6K in taxes. 6K/30K = .2Rich Person: 20% of 250k = 50K in taxes. 50K/250K = .2So even if money does depend life quality, my opponent's resolution still fails."Now, this is all math, so you can skew these numbers so that the person making $1 million a year vs. $1 billion pays a substantially larger percent of their luxury spending."You could also skew the numbers and make the person making $30,000 a year vs. $150,000+ a year pay a substantially smaller amount.Since the proportions are all exactly the same, my opponent's claim of substantial unfairness is unsubstantiated.Now that I think about it, we could simply turn the flat tax into .0001% and this debate is over. The resolution is absolute, stating: "flat tax places an unfair burden..." not"flat taxe sin general place an unfair burden..." My opponent addresses but fails to refute my contention against using luxury spending to judge life quality. CON concurrently addresses PRO's statements in refutation. Whether or not these refutations are effective is based on subjective judgment.