It is wrong to tax the rich more than the poor

First before I get into any definitions/framework/arguments, I will make a clarification for my opponent. As Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" because this is true, I will be taking a utilitarian stance in advocation of Con. I defend that it is not wrong to tax the rich more than the poor; I am not necessarily saying it is right to tax them more, (although I do have ground to advocate that, and may do as needed) I am simply asserting that it is not wrong. I'm fairly certain that that will not be an issue of controversy, so I won't spend too much time here; but do want this to be said in case it does become an issue. Now to begin I'm going to offer a very brief road map. I'm going to be presenting definitions, frame-work, and finally a few Contentions. =Definitions= 1. [1](adj)Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy 2. [2](adj)Poor:having little or no money, goods, or other means of support 3. [3](n)Wrong:An unjust, dishonest, or immoral action 4. [4](n)Tax:A compulsory contribution to state revenue. .. =Framework= Obs1: Since both my opponent and I live in the United States, the realm of this debate should be exclusive to the 50 U. S. States, and 1 federal district. Obs2: My job as the negative isn't necessarily to prove that taxing the rich more is moral, ethical, or right; Especially not in an absolute sense. Instead, my job is to prove that taxing the rich more is not in and of itself wrong. That said if I am able to prove that it is right, it will only strengthen my point and give more reason to vote Con. =Contentions= C1: the rich have more to give- I think this point is rather self-explanatory, but allow me to expand on it. The fact is the Rich have more money to contribute back to society; however because of personal greed and general apathy for those outside their own benefactions, they are unwilling to contribute this money for societal good. Of course this is not an absolute truth, and there are those who are wealthy who often give back to society, this is a general truth. Things such as public education, roadways, libraries, and city parks (all of which are funded by tax-payer dollars) are always in need of money. In fact because of the budget cuts,not only are Public Schools having to cut wonderful programs, such as; Art, Band, Choir, and even Forensics (debate). But the US is even in the incredibly horrible position of having to let go of thousands of teachers, ultimately contributing to a dependency of federal money. Whereas taxing the richer slightly more would not only not be much of a loss of to them, it would help to rebuild America's infrastructure, economy, and general morale. C2: Distribution of wealth The fact is that there is such a gross difference between the wealthy it's not something to take lightly by any means. First we must realize that there is a grave difference between simply being well-to-do in one's socioeconomic status, and being wealthy. [5] Sociologists generally categorize people into three categories; upper, middle, and lower class. With middle class being the biggest of all. Constituting a majority of american society. Lower middle class[6] alone constitutes just under half of american society, while upper middle class constitutes roughly 15% of society. Filling in the remainder of the blanks with lower class, and middle middle class, the upper upper class constitutes a [7] 1% of society, yet they hold just under 50% of America's wealth. Now most american families can live comfortably on the $50,000-100,000+ while still paying taxes and bills, then the 1% of society who holds almost half of the United States' wealth can certainly increase their tax-percentages by up to even 5 times it's current amount with-out ever being hurt by it. In fact many wealthy people in society don't even spend their money, they invest it and continually drain the rest of society so as to laden their own pockets. Much of this money simply sits in banks gathering dust. C3: The Unjust argument is a joke. After having presented my two prior points, I cannot being to fathom ground my opponent even has to cover other than the argument that this excess taxation would be unjust. To that I reply that this argument is a joke. Justice is giving each their due, and the fact hold true that many of these wealthy have received their due many times over. If we want to talk about fairness and justice, then where is the justice for the lower class father working his butt off everyday from 9-5 and still only barely feeding his family. Where is the justice in middle class Americans not only paying their taxes, as well as saving out the wazoo to send their children to college, only to have their 401k ripped out from beneath them because the wealthy decided they wanted a bailout instead of facing the consequences for their greedy, poor investments. The justice arguments is a semantic ideal drawn from Abused, and tattered remains from the constitution. It is an argument of blind application of small print, without ever really trying to gauge it's affect on society. In closing, there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich by a greater percentage then the poor. Utilitarianism dictates that it's actually a very bad thing not to do so. The rich create a profit for themselves without letting much spill over into mainstream society. For all of these reasons I urge a con vote. I now hand the debate back over to my opponent! Sources: [1][2][3][4] Dictionary. com [5]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://sociology.ucsc.edu...