Progressive tax doesn't work

Thanks to Pro for the clarification. That was the interpretation of the resolution I had in mind anyhow. My burden of proof in this debate is to demonstrate that progressive taxation (PT) is preferable to flat taxation (FT) My opening argument is very simple -- PT is preferable because it maximizes revenue for the government while minimizing financial burden for the tax-payers. The relative impact of a 10% income tax on someone's personal financial situation varies greatly depending on their economic class. For someone earning a $20,000 salary, the missing 2 grand would force them to limit spending on basic utilities like healthcare and transportation; for someone earning $20 million annually, the missing 2 mil. results in having one less custom-designed summer home. Rich people, simply by virtue of having more money to spare, aren't affected *nearly* as heavily by high tax rates as poor people are. PT gets every person to pay the government as much as they can without being significantly inconvenienced, thus maximizing the amount of money the government can spend on public services like criminal justice, national security, infrastructure, education, social programs, and repayment of federal debt. PT is clearly a win-win situation for everyone. On to rebuttals. 1. As I already noted, FT is *not* fair because, at any given tax rate, the standards of living of poor people are far more deeply impacted than those of rich people. Pro arbitrarily defines "fairness" as everyone having to pay the same numerical tax rate; I can just as easily define it as everyone having to pay as much as they can reasonably afford to, which is essentially what the PT accomplishes. Moreover, taxation is not necessarily just the redistribution of wealth -- a lot of tax revenue goes towards public services (like the ones I have already listed out) which benefit *everyone*. 2. Pro provides no evidence that higher tax rates actually result in a significant reductions in productivity and economic growth. We can dismiss his claims off-hand because the majority of rich people don't actually have to work that hard to earn their money -- they come from already-rich families, and the resulting inter-generational advantages are largely responsible for the size of their fortunes. In fact, in the United States, "even rich kids who do not receive a college degree are 2.5 times more likely to wind up as high-income adults than poor kids who do receive a college degree" [1]. Given that, it is thoroughly implausible that having to sacrifice portions of their wealth is going to result in a significant decline in their economic productivity. 3. Again, Pro provides no evidence that the emigration effect he speaks of actually exists. But more importantly, no one really cares where rich people choose to live -- what actually matters is where their companies' operations are run, since that is what really generates job creation and GDP growth. However, operations location is dependent on factors which actually affect operation costs, like labor/wage laws and corporate tax rates -- it has nothing to do with income taxes. 4. This is an argument against all forms of taxation, including the FT, so I'm not sure why Pro is running it... - Progressive taxation maximizes government revenue while minimizing financial burden on tax-payers, which is literally the ultimate goal of any taxation system. Meanwhile, none of the advantages of flat taxation which Pro presents hold up to scrutiny. The resolution is negated. And with that, I hand the debate back over to Pro. - [1] http://www.demos.org...