a progressive tax system should be used

===Definitions and BoP===A progressive tax is simply put, a "A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals."[1] For a progressive tax to be used will mean that it will have been put into effect over some territory or country.The word should in the resolution implies that there is some compelling reason to put a progressive tax system in place. (I can only assume my opponent is referring to the U.S. as that is where my opponent's profile says she resides. However, if she had some other place in mind I would ask that she bring it up in R2). As instigator and Pro, the onus is on my opponent to provide sufficient reasoning for this. As the contender, my own burden will be to deconstruct my opponent's arguments. ===Pro's arguments===Contention I. The "rich" use more resources.My opponent's first contention in support of the resolution revolves around the idea that the "rich" (never defined, except in relation to the "poor" who were also never defined) use more resources than the poor. There are two flaws in this argument however. The first, being that my opponent has not provided sufficient evidence that every member of the rich uses more government resources then the poor. The second reason is that this contention by my opponent does not necessarily support the resolution, but could also be used to support a direct service tax system. I will elaborate more on both of these points below.Sub-C1. The reasoning put forth by my opponent in support of C1 is that " tehy [sic] take more resources from society [...] the rich use more police, courts, transportation systems, national parks and resources, IRS workers, space flight use, represent more needing protected with the military, etc." Not only does my opponent completely fail to provide any external sources in support of these many sub-contentions, but it would not even be possible since my opponent never so much as defined what it was that constitutes the rich and the poor. I assume the criterion is to be measured in monetary terms but we're still left guessing as to what specifically that would be. These assertions put forth by my opponent have so far not been upheld and are incapable of being upheld even in principle.Sub-C2. The second (and more fundamental) problem with my opponent's case is that it fails to support a progressive tax system specifically. My opponent's base value criterion in making the argument from higher use of resources is that one should pay for what they use. This certainly sounds reasonable and is actually the premise behind the Fair Tax[2]. Instead of grouping entire segments of society like rich and poor and making them pay a generalized amount based on income, the Fair Tax would tax only transactions. Not only does this fit into my opponent's OWN argument about the rich needing to pay more based on higher consumption, but it certainly seems a much more common sense and "fair" method of taxation.Contention II. The responsibility of redistribution.The second argument in support of progressive taxation which my opponent asserts is that it is the responsibility of the government to "redistribute to the poor just for the basics". My opponent points out that "most people agree that they should have access to at least the basics, if it's through no fault of their own". Not only is this inherently an argumentum ad populum[3], but my opponent fails to differentiate being poor through one's fault as opposed to not as having any moral relevance here. It is simply presupposed also without warrant. Besides this though, my opponent attempts to present a causal relationship between the accumulation of wealth for one person and the loss of wealth by another.The little bit of reasoning actually brought to support the "rich's" (still not defined mind you) supposed responsibility to care for the poor is that there is some causal relationship between someone gaining wealth and another not being able to do so. In my opponent's conception of how society works, someone can only become rich if someone else (or a number of others) become poor. This reasoning is extremely reminiscent of mercantile economics wherein capitalism is supposed to be a zero-sum game. However, as far back as Adam Smith, we have seen that it is a characteristic of free trade that it creates new wealth. The amount of wealth available in the world is not some fixed amount that everyone scratches to attain, but is an ever expanding amount. Therefore my opponent's causal case of the rich's responsibility to the poor is unsupported.===Sources===[1] http://www.investopedia.com...[2] http://www.fairtax.org...[3] http://philosophy.lander.edu...