flat fees, not flat taxes, r the truly conservative approach

The resolution states "Flat fees, not flat taxes, [are] the truly conservative approach". I shall offer some definitions of key terms, so as to explicitly state what it is we are debating here. As I noted in the comments sections, the terms "flat fees" and "flat taxes" have a charitable interpretation. While each of these are, in fact, taxes (that is, "A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions" [1]), the terms do refer to different things, or, at least, I hope they are meant to.Flat Fee: A set dollar amount, independent of income. This amount is exactly the same for everyone, regardless of income.Flat Tax: A percentage, dependent on income. The percentage can, feasibly, be the same for everyone, but the amount paid will differ.We are assuming here that this portion of income, whether derived via Flat Tax or Flat Fee, would be paid to the State, thus falling under the traditional definition of "tax". We have simply given names to possible methods of deriving such. Conservative: This term has a variety of meanings and connotations. There is the political meaning, the financial meaning, the strategic meaning, and each of these will have an effect of what PRO has already argued. I will go with the political meaning, since we are discussing government. On one of my previous debates, I gave an explication of Conservatism as described by encyclopedia britannica. "Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited, rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society- that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals, but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant…of the existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the urge to transform society and politics." [2] So, to say that "the truly conservative approach" is to change longstanding tradition without justification is to contradict conservatism. Perhaps PRO can offer a reason to reject the explication above, in which case a new one must be erected, however, constantly changing the definition of the most important term in this debate will prevent PRO from affirming the resolution, thus giving me a win. Some key things which can be pulled from this explication which are vital to this debate:(1) " Conservatives thus favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability"(2) "Government’s responsibility is to be the servant"While there are some debatable practices by conservative politicians, many of them can be seen as eventual results of the above. That is to say, if the above explication reasonably accurately defines the term "conservative" in the political sense, much of the practices seen by conservatives would be a matter of course. While there is a positive, plausibly euphemistic, spin in the explication, I think there is enough here to explain why conservatives do act as they do. Given that, I find this explication to be reasonable for the purposes of this debate.Argument from (1)The collection of taxes is a traditional practice of the ruling class of a nation for many, many years. At the very least, the US has been practicing such for decades. The traditional method of taxation is percentage-based. Given the explication, a conservative will not make changes without sufficient reason to do so, as the attitude of the conservative can be summed up in the statement "Stick to what you know". To say that the "truly conservative approach" is to take the exact same amount from all people when taxes are collected is to suggest that not only has this been tried before, but also that it was successful. At bare minimum, this would have to have been tested elsewhere for the conservative to choose to do it. The practice which has gradually evolved is percentage-based taxation. Argument from (2) While there are those who dislike government and it's actions (myself included), government does provide much needed services. Whether government is the only means by which this can occur is another debate entirely. There are several issues with Flat Fee taxation, however, the most important one is this.Decreased Revenue for the State.The most obvious issue, to me, in Flat Fee taxation is the loss of income that it would cause, necessarily. Say we maintain taxes at 15% of one's income. For those who earn $10,000 per year, $1500 must be paid in taxes, all else equal. While tax deductions, refunds and such are available, these things will only serve to make the math calculations difficult for myself and confusing for the audience and my opponent. For those who earn $50,000 per year, $7500 must be paid in taxes. For those making $100,000, $15,000. For those making 1 million, $150,000. The increase continues so to the highest earning individuals and businesses. With just these four tax collections, the State has made $174,000. That is without deductions, refunds, or expenditures, though. However, let us suppose that Flat Fee taxation is our method. As before, let's assign an arbitrary number, say $3000. As before, there are four tax collections; we can use the same incomes. At most, the State will earn $12,000. That is a difference of $162000. However, State revenue generally far exceeds that, as there are generally more than four people in any given territory at any given time. So, immediately there is a loss of revenue, which means that services must be cut, which means that people dependent on government services will some some of that. This then means that governments role as "servant to the people" will be difficult to undertake. Even if one doesn't believe conservatives hold this to be true, it is still the case that this is an unsuccessful way of proceeding even theoretically. As such, a conservative (assuming she is rational) will not take this course of action.ConclusionI think I have presented a strong enough case to reject the resolution. 1. Conservatives generally support those practices which have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability.2. From Argument from (1), a Flat Fee system (FFS) is none of these.C. Probably, Conservatives do not support a FFS. While the above is not necessarily true, I am not arguing this. I am arguing that, given the explication (which is still up for debate), conservatives have certain preferences. FFS does not have the traits which conservatives have preferences for. Hence, there is reason to suspect conservatives do not support FFS.1. Conservatives hold that the State is to be the servant of the people.2. FFS prevents the State from serving the people properly (Argument from 2).3. FFS leads to financial problems for citizens (Argument from 2) C. Probably, Conservatives do not support FFS.Like my first argument, this is not meant to prove a necessary conclusion. Both of my arguments are inductive, meaning I am offering the premises as reason to think the conclusion true. Considering that FFS decreases State revenue, and government revenue is necessary to serve the people, and conservatives generally wish to serve the people, it is unlikely that conservatives will support FFS.I look forward to rebuttals from PRO, and feedback from the audience.Good luck![1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;[2] http://www.britannica.com...;