A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System

I would like to welcome my opponent and extend my hopes for a grand debate!I will now begin constructing my case. Contention 1: Progressive Taxation is a Fair Tax System.A progressive tax, essentially, is a system that taxes people in higher income brackets more heavily than people in lower income brackets. In the United States, the tax system operates as follows [1]. Rate: Single Filers ..... Married/Joint Filers ..... Head of Household Filers 10% $0 to $8,925 .............. $0 to $17,850 ............ $0 to $12,750 15% $8,925 to $36,250 ..... $17,850 to $72,500 ..... $12,750 to $48,600 25% $36,250 to $87,850 ..... $72,500 to $146,400 ... $48,600 to $125,450 28% $87,850 to $183,250 ....$146,400 to $223,050 .. $125,450 to $203,150 33% $183,250 to $398,350 ...$223,050 to $398,350 ..$203,150 to $398,350 35% $398,350 to $400,000 ....$398,250 to $450,000 ..$398,350 to $425,000 39.6% $400,000 and up ........ $450,000 and up ..........$425,000 and up It must be noted that these are marginal tax rates. This means that if you earn $100,000 a year, for example, you do not owe $28,000. Instead, you owe 10% of $8,925, 15% of 27,325 (the difference between the top and the threshold of the second bracket), 25% of $51,600, and 28% of $12,150 (the difference between income and the threshold of the third bracket). This adds up to $21,293 for a tax rate of 21.2% (discarding other contributions such as 401k) [1]. Note that this is only the current US progressive tax system. While I may defend this system, I also reserve the liberty to defend progressive tax systems in general (for US application). In the United States, the top 20% of households hold 88.9% of the total net worth, leaving the bottom 80% with only 11.1% [2] (table 2). In 2008, the top 400 taxpayers paid an average rate of 18.11% - even less than what one who made $100,000 would have to pay [3]. A fair tax system, then, does not charge everyone equally, but charges a higher rate on those who make more money - a progressive tax system. Contention 2: A Progressive Tax Helps Reduce Income Inequality.By charging the higher income brackets more than the lower income brackets, a progressive tax helps reduce income inequality. Few would disagree that the rapidly increasing income gap is harmful. The World Economic Forum lists wealth gaps as the biggest global risk (followed by unsustainable government debt) [4]. Additionally, the income inequality gap has only been rising, posing more and more problems. In the US, income going to the top 1% doubled since 1980 and, for the top 0.01%, it has quadrupled [5]. Similar events are occurring worldwide. In the UK, income inequality levels are returning to levels not seen since the age of Dickens, and in China, the top 10% bring home 60% of the income [5]. But all this only establishes the income inequality exists. Let's examine some of its effects.Contention 2B: Excessive Income Inequality is Economically Inefficient. High levels of income inequality limit overall economic growth and prevent that growth from benefiting the majority of the people. As Henry Ford and billionaire Nick Hanauer pointed out, consolidation of "so much wealth and capital in so few hands" depresses demand [5]. Jonathan Ostry of the International Monetary Fund suggested that economic growth "becomes more fragile" in countries like the United States that have high levels on inequality [6]. In fact, reducing this inequality - as a progressive tax assists in doing - and encouraging growth might, the IMF concluded, be "two sides of the same coin" [6]. High wealth inequality also results in a widening opportunity gap for children, preventing a level playing field for future generations and thus further limiting prospects of the American Dream [7]. Contention 3: Progressive Taxation Benefits the Economy.By charging the rich more, a progressive tax helps stimulate consumption for the middle and lower classes. Without progressive taxation (and even with them), the wealthiest place an emphasis on positional goods - that is, goods that signal one's place in society. A major problem with positional goods is that they can increases the negative externalities on the rest of the population. Additionally, as other wealthy people purchase them, they become more common, and thus people have to go to further lengths to emphasize their social standing. Without a progressive tax, the wealthiest members of society can focus more on positional goods and expenditure cascades. Scenarios like this have already been demonstrated during the tax cuts when the tax code was made less progressive during and after the 1970s [8]. Concentrating too much wealth with too few people does not just widen the income gap but also results in "less stable economic expansions and sluggish growth" [6]. Progressive taxation combats these problems. In an abstract regarding the benefits of progressive taxation, it is reported that there is a link between progressive taxation and "more equitable income distribution, higher revenues, less financial and economic volatility, and faster growth" [9]. Progressive taxation reduces the burden faced by those with lower incomes, stimulating economic demand, while the burden on the rich raises revenue and still allows the wealthy to remain wealthy. Thus the rich remain rich while the middle and lower classes are encouraged to spend and invest. Additionally, the higher amount of revenue allows the government to invest more in things that benefit, if not everyone, then at least the general public. The taxes paid by all are used to build roads, fund education, law enforcement, and national defense, provide Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP (the Children's Health Insurance Program), and more (common knowledge). Essentially, this all allows the government to build infrastructure. Many rich even feel an obligation to help give back to society. Bill Gates, for example, supports taxing the rich more than the poor [10]. This is progressive taxation. And he isn't the only one. 68% of millionaires support a tax increase on people earning more than $1 million [10]. With that, I turn the debate over to my opponent. I look forward to seeing his case! [1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www2.ucsc.edu... [3] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...[4] http://reports.weforum.org...[5] http://www.oxfam.org... [6] http://www.nytimes.com... [7] http://www.brookings.edu...[8] http://wellsharp.wordpress.com... [9] http://rrp.sagepub.com... [10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;