Higher Tax Rate on Millionaires

This is how I feel about political philosophy at this point. Serious study of analytic philosophy has turned me into a horrible cynic after only three weeks :-PResolved: There should be a higher tax rate on millionaires.Argument:1. It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.2. Whatever is funny should be done.3. Therefore, a higher tax rate should 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 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 placed on millionaires.3. Therefore, It would be funny if a higher tax rate were 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 placed on millionaires.My argument has been demonstrated to be both valid and sound (its logical form is correct and its premisses are true). Therefore, the conclusion is simply undeniable. In order to remove this argument, Con will either have to should modus ponens to be invalid or show that one of my premisses is false, and both of these tasks have been demonstrated to be impossible. Indeed, through my sub-arguments I have exhausted the possible points of disagreement and shown that they are unacceptable.Thank you for reading and vote Pro! I hope that Con will be a good sport about my approach.