Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

In the comments section, my opponent agreed to use my definition of Justice for the round, so keep in mind that Justice is giving each his due. Moreover, my definition is the basis for his definition because it is impossible to determine what is "right" or "rightful" unless one assesses what individual is due and acts on that assessment. Moreover, legality cannot be the basis for Justice because laws can be unjust; the enslavement of African Americans in the 1800s was legal but it was clearly unjust. So, my definition is the highest standard in the round. A just society must respect the fact that the rights of its citizens are inherently valuable because citizens create the state to protect their rights. However, rights must be balanced with responsibility; those with more rights have a greater stake in society and thus have a greater responsibility to ensure that it functions properly. This means that in order to achieve justice, we must achieve the fair distribution of rights and responsibilities. A brief note before the round begins: In the modern world, progressive income taxes are implemented in such a way that preserves the monetary powers of the rich. Instead of simply increasing the rate of taxation, governments tax a certain base amount of money at a certain rate and tax any income in excess of that amount at another, higher rate. This system insures that individuals who earn more income are able to preserve a greater amount of it than those who earn less. My thesis is that a progressive income tax is just because it fairly distributes rights and responsibilities to every member of society. Contention 1: Income is essentially due to "accidents of birth" rather than "hard work", so taxing income progressively is justified. Often, individuals achieve success because they are born into wealthy families; because their parents have greater amounts of time and resources to spend on their education, those born into wealth are more likely to succeed in the modern world and secure more wealth than individuals whose parents belonged to lower income brackets. Studies conducted by the Economic Mobility Project noted that economic mobility has decreased over the last generation; 42% of those in the bottom quintile of income remain in the bottom quintile, while 39% of those born into the top quintile remain in the top quintile(http://www.economicmobility.org...). Additionally, economic growth has been concentrated in the upper quartiles; median family income in the top quintile grew by 52% in the last generation while it only grew by 18% in the bottom quintile (see source above). Since economic status impacts one's success later in life, success can be attributed to accidents of birth, meaning that an individual's success depends on which family he was born into rather than on his abilities. Since accidents of birth are morally arbitrary, it is justified to tax individuals with greater income at higher rates because the fact that they own a greater share of wealth has no moral significance. Contention 2: The wealthy owe a greater proportion of their wealth to the political system than the poor due, so it is justified for them to return some of their wealth to the system in order to serve the common good. In non-egalitarian societies, individuals who earn more income are only able to do so because the political and social systems permit them to snag a disproportionate share of the financial power of their nation. For example, a corporation in the United States can only earn massive amounts of money because the U.S. government protects its ability to trade and conduct certain business practices, no matter how nefarious or unethical they may be. This means that wealthy individuals possess a greater stake in the well-being of the system, since they not only would never have gained their wealth if the system did not exist, but they also would lose a great proportion of their wealth if the system failed to guard their incomes. The poor, however, do not have as much of an incentive to support the system because the wealth that they earn is minisicule compared to that earned by the wealthy and because they are not directly benefiting from the existence of the system. This, in turn, means that the wealthy owe a greater debt to the political system of the nation and thus must pay a greater proprotion of their wealth to the system in order to preserve its well-being. Professors Steven Holmes and Cass Sunstein of The University of Toronto and Harvard Law School, respectively, contend, "Successful individuals owe their riches and success to social institutions that, while demanding cooperation from all, distribute rewards selectively and unequally. A capitalist economy provides the legal preconditions for the unequal accumulation of wealth. Such unequal accumulations do not fall from the sky. However hard people work, it is always an oversimplification to attribute differences of acquired wealth solely to the wealthy's "own efforts." People begin from massively different starting points, and someone born on one street in, say, Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles may have much worse life prospects than someone else born a mile away. In any case, private prospects take the form they do, and are rewarded as they are, only because of institutional arrangements that are politically chosen, administered by government and enforced through law. Arrangements that spawn unequal accumulations of wealth can certainly be justified on liberal principles, at least if they generate advantages for most. They can also be adjusted—without any offense to these principles—to ensure that some of this amassed fortune is diverted to provide minimally decent opportunities and well-being for ordinary citizens. Indeed, the very objective that justifies those arrangements—the promotions of human well-being—also argues for adjustments designed to help those who are otherwise disadvantaged." (The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes pg. 193 http://www.amazon.com...) Thus, because the wealthy have a greater stake in the system and because they have a greater debt to the system, they ought to pay more than the common citizens for the well-being of the system. Contention 3: Progressive taxation actually preserves the buying power of the wealthy and thus essentially provides free services for every member of society. Robert H. Frank, a professor of Economics at Cornell University, contends that not only does the progressive income tax not violate the wealth of the powerful, but it also essentially provides with with free services. First, money is essentially a placeholder for the exchange of goods and services; it only has value because it can be used to purchase items from others. Second, in a market economy, as individuals possess less money overall, prices decrease because sellers must reduce their prices in order to maximize their profits. Third, since income taxes are applied to every member of society, and not just to the rich, each individual's pool of wealth decreases, meaning that prices must decrease to match this drop in income, thus stabilzing every individual's buying power. Since each individual's buying power is the same as it was before the progressive tax was implemented, and the excess funds are siphoned off to the government for the maintainence of society, the wealthy essentially receive free services because they still retain the ability to spend their money as they please. (http://nontrivialpursuits.org...). Thus, because progressive income taxes ensure that the wealthy uphold their obligations to society and because it provides for the welfare of all, progressive income taxes are just.