Higher Tax Rate on Millionaires

This certainly is not the type of debate I had in mind. But, what the Hell? First, let me show this:Argument:1. It would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.2. Whatever is funny should be done.3. Therefore, a higher tax rate should not be placed on millionaires.Validity:This argument is valid by modus ponens. That means that its premisses logically entail its conclusion; it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion to be false. I will defend the premisses as true, and the conclusion will be undeniable.P1: It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.This is self evident and should require no explanation. I get giggly just thinking about the possibility of not raising the tax on millionaires a few percentage points. In order to cement the truth of this, I will present a sub-argument.1. Whatever I think is funny is funny.2. I think that it would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.3. Therefore, It would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.This is modus ponens again. The second premiss is true unless I am lying about what I think is funny. I hope Con isn't rude enough to accuse me of such dishonesty. The first premiss is at least very plausible. When I go to comedy movies, I tend to laugh at the same scenes as everyone else (though there was that incident during The Diary of Anne Frank...). It should be assumed that my comedic sense adequate. If Con wishes to challenge this, I have a reply:1. He who does not see the humor in life is a prude.2. A prude is not to be taken seriously.3. Con does not see the humor in life.4. Therefore, Con is not to be taken seriously.The first two premisses are quite agreeable and accessible to anyone; I do not think they require explanation. The third would be evidenced by Con's behavior in disagreeing with my assessment of the tax hike as humorous. The conclusion would then once again be entailed by the premisses. And if Con is not to be taken seriously, how can we side with him in the debate? We cannot.P2: Whatever is funny should be done.Again, this is obvious. To illustrate:1. Whatever is funny brings joy to people.2. Whatever brings joy to people should be done.3. Therefore, whatever is funny should be done.This follows in much the same way. In order to oppose this, Con would have to deny either that what is funny brings joy to people or that what brings joy to people should be done. If Con denies that what is funny brings joy to people, he does not see the humor in life (see above). If Con does not think that what brings joy to people should be done, then he is a bad man and is not to be taken seriously (see above).Conclusion: A higher tax rate should be not placed on millionaires.I have just copied and pasted Pro's entire argument, except I have changed "a tax should be put on millionaires" to "a tax should not be put on millionaires"...As you can see, this is just as logically consistent as Pro's argument... Secondly, I will note that Pro does not prove that what he thinks is funny is funny. As the above argument shows, what if I think that not taxing Millionaires is funny?Another problem is that what is funny does not bring the most joy....Imagine a guy who is trying to get oral sex from his girlfriend.... Not being him, it would be funnier for me if he were to fail and not get oral sex. But, for him, it would be much more enjoyable to get oral sex, even though it is not funny. I would also wager that his enjoyment from getting oral sex would far outpace my enjoyment of him not getting oral sex...In other words, what is funny is not always most enjoyable to everyone.I look forward to my opponent's response...