Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

I would like to start by saying thank you to Tim_Spin for hosting this debate. Also, I thank my opponent, Iddebater, for proving to be a very adequate challenge. This debate has kept me mentally focused and well entertained. To my audience: Pro has not properly refuted my main contention, and has barely even recognized it's existence. If you are to judge this debate fairly, you must take this into consideration. Also, don't be trapped by my opponent's enigma of logic. He is trying to step entirely away from the resolution and his own definitions in order to achieve a win here. I am fairly confident that the reader's will realize this to be entirely unorthodox of him, and vote accordingly. This debate has turned into Pro attempting to convince the reader that they resolution is just in theory. What the reader must now do is discern whether or not this seems appropriate in defining it as just. As I have stated in other rounds, you can't consider the resolution just if you don't implement it; think of Communism. Everyone thought it was "just" in the conceptual stages, but that didn't turn out well for almost anyone. In fact, it led to the Cold War. In order to achieve a true perspective if something is just or not, you MUST view it not only in theory, but in implementation. I won't bore the reader by reiterating what I already stated, but I will touch on the reasons as to why this debate is in accordance to implementation of PIT. The definition of just, giving each his due. You can't tell if each has gotten his due if you never give examples of how something was actually used. If we go off of my opponent's interpretation, everyone could have said that the Soviet Union's communism was just for all before it even began. An absurd statement, seeing as it wasn't. Now on to my final refutations and extensions. My opponent states that the resolution, by it's nature, specifies PIT theory, not in actuality. I, and I am sure many of the readers, feel this to be not so, seeing as the resolution states "Progressive income taxes ARE just." Now, I could be anal and go find a definition of are that would pin this debate on implementation, but it's the last round and I won't go there. But I would like the reader's to think of the word are. If you were to say "Those people are flying" when they were clearly not flying, people would look at you like you are crazy. You can't then defend yourself by saying "What, in theory they could possibly be flying, therefore they are flying!" This is exactly how my opponent is arguing right now, just using a lot of theory based argumentation to try and validate himself. TO show something to be just, you need facts; proof that it is just, and it has worked in a just way. My opponent has failed to give that, seeing as he only provides examples of times when PIT would be just in theory. I agree, in theory, sure these examples are just. Just like in theory, those people can be flying. I hope the reader can see and determine that I am right in saying this is an implementation debate. My opponent tries arguing that I changed the resolution, but at what time did I do that? I did nothing fancy and unexpected....I simply argued that PIT isn't just and this is why. Furthermore, my opponent tries stating that this topic is broad, and that we aren't focusing in on the United States. I would agree, other countries can be used as examples, but this doesn't mean no countries should be used as examples. I have every right to bring in the country with the highest percentage of wealthy and show that PIT isn't justified there. This contributes to the notion of PIT being unjust, supporting my case. While I have done this, I feel Pro hasn't adequately provided information for PIT to be just, and has provided very little in the ways of facts. He only mentions some countries which he believes taxes capital gains at a higher percentage, but leaves the reader wondering "What percentage is that?". "...my argument that PIT are taxes that tax certain amounts of income separately in order to preserve the buying power of the rich still stands..." How exactly is this an argument? PIT is a taxes that tax certain amounts of income separately in order to preserve the buying power of the rich...that is the function of Progressive Income Taxes. However, this doesn't show them to be just, because, as I have stated, the rich elude paying these taxes. The are preserving their buying power, alright. This system has gone on for years and years, and yet nothing had changed. Is it right to say that, yes it is justified that PIT exempt the type of income that make up more than 2/3 of the top 400 wealthiest Americans? This is why PIT is unjust, this is why it's not "giving each his due". Speaking of that, I don't see how each has been giving their due in correlation to my opponent's argument. He simply states how PIT works and cases where it should tax the rich. Does he ever actually use his own definition of just to support his argument? No. My opponent has conceded that this debate involves implementation, yet he has given no example of implementation. I show PIT for what it is, a loophole for the rich to get richer. Pro tries arguing against this by saying it's the people that are unjust, not the system. You can apply this train of thought to any system that is unjust, but it doesn't mean the system itself isn't screwed up. I am saying that in accordance to the definition of PIT, capital gains are left alone. This is no man that is being unjust, but PIT in general. I would agree that if it was something different, it could be the people that are unjust. Like a stop sign. It's meant for you to stop. If someone keeps going, and crashes, they can't blame the stop sign. PIT is like a stop sign that says under stop "If you want, you can just keep on trucking". We should all realize that it is the system, or the stop sign, that is unjust here. The wealthy are acting unjustly, but they can only do so because PIT is unjust. Once again, Pro tries eluding a vital element to this debate; facts of other country's tax rates on capital gains through PIT. This is an important aspect, but Pro doesn't feel it is and doesn't give the reader reassurance that he is correct in doing this. Finally, pro tries showing that my case in nontopical because CG is income, and "would" be taxed properly. There are a couple things wrong with his accusation. 1. The key word here is would. My opponent is arguing PIT like it hasn't been used yet, and like we don't have results for why it's unjust. "..and that PIT systems would not have loopholes and exceptions for the rich." Pro is trying to talk about PIT like it still just a theory and never been used. WE see through my points that PIT WOULD have loopholes and DOES . 2. Also, in my first speech (round 2), I stated this: "...who enjoy another special loophole allowing them to treat most of their investment-management compensation as capital gain instead of ordinary income—vastly lowering their taxes. Historically, when different forms of income have been taxed at different rates, lawyers and accountants have found ways to create tax shelters that make one type of income look like another type to take advantage of the lower rate —this is just one example." This shows that it doesn't matter if my opponent thinks CG's are considered income (which this source disproves) because it is all being filed differently and unjustly. |Conclusion| This debate focuses on a couple things. I must prove that Progressive Income Taxes are not just. I have done that through showing how it is implemented. My opponent has not shown implementation, though has conceded that implementation is important in this debate. This isn't a theory based argument. I win for my points left standing. I thank you all.