The United States Congress Repeal the 16th Amendment

My arguments in this rebuttal will be centered around the federal income tax vs. federal sales tax, because this debate has basically become 'which policy is preferable?'1. Income taxes are a tax on success & 2. Progressive Tax Rates is straight out of the Communist ManifestoMy opponent makes several unfounded assumptions here. Firstly, a flat income tax would wipe out all tax margins, simplify the tax code, and make everyone pay the same percentage of their income. These would accomplish everything my opponent sets out in doing.Secondly, my opponent makes the assumption that the wealthy pay well above the poor as a percentage of their income in taxes. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in America, famously made the case that the wealthy should pay more. He paid less, as a percentage of his income, than his secretary. Warren Buffett paid 17.4% in taxes, while his secretary paid 35.8%[1] Curious results from a "communist" policy.Thirdly, my opponent says there is a disincentive to make more money because of income tax brackets. My answer is only this. Would you not want to make more money because you pay more in taxes? Of course not. The progressive tax system requires more of wealthy individuals. Why? Because they make more. Its that simple.3. Tax Code and IRS are archaic, obsolete, and far to comprehensiveI agree that the tax code needs to be simplified. I also agree there are reasons why a number of exemptions exist, and we can not get rid of all of them, categorically, because its messy. We can and should simplify the tax code. But it should be done with a scalpel, not a shovel.-----A National Sales Tax-----We can talk about the philosophy of a tax code all day and get nowhere, so I'll just get straight to the facts.1. None of my opponents sources or his plan says how high the sales tax would have to be in order to make the same revenue as the income tax. 2. In fact, none of his sources go into any specifics of a national sales tax, they're just sites stating pros and cons.3. According to the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center in 2005, a national sales tax would require 60% additional cost to products just to match the revenue provided by income tax[2]. This study was conducted in an economic boom. Now, the percentage would have to be much higher to account for the loss in revenue.4. A 60% increase in the cost of products would dramatically decrease demand for products in a recession(producing a double-dip recession).5. The national sales tax unfairly targets the poor[3]. The poor spend a huge percentage of their income on products they need to survive, and we cut their ability to do so by 60%-making the poor poorer.6. Seniors have already paid income taxes and payroll taxes into the system all their lives. They largely live on reduced incomes, and making a consumption tax would be, in effect, taxing them twice. Inherently, taking back the sixth amendment would have to eliminate the payroll tax as well, leaving seniors with no income and a huge tax rate just to survive.In short, a national sales tax hurts everyone it sets out to help. It hurts the poor by reducing their means to live to a tiny percentage of what it was. It hurts seniors when they need their benefits most. It hurts the middle class by cutting their ability to buy. It hurts the rich because people buy fewer of their products. It hurts the economy and everyone in it.I look forward to closing arguments![1]http://abcnews.go.com...[2]http://www.businessweek.com...[3]http://economics.about.com...