Progresive Taxation should be upheld

"None of these have been explicitly refuted." Ignoring my argument does not make it not there. :) "In addition, my opponent has changed the topic from flat vs. even to taxes vs. none, which is a conduct breach." Incorrect - the resolution is "Progressive tax should be upheld." Flat tax or no tax are both valid arguments against. :) "Taxes enforce the founding principle of the United States: A government by the people, for the people. Americans pay taxes to support the operation of the government, which then governs the country in return." Taxes fund largely unnecessary programs and unnecessary government involvement in instituions. Those facets that the government should engage in can easily be funded by those wanting those services from means other than taxation. "Thus, taxes are not theft. They are simply payment for services. My opponent's response ignores contention #2." If I steal your car you are paying for my transportation service? Of course not. Taxes are not payment for services as one does not have control over resultant expenditure for services which one may use. It's a pool from which those whom less is taken, take more from. Those from whom the most is taken from, of course, need such services the least. "Allow me to change the example. You have three apples and I have eight. You give one, and I give 2. We both receive one (the flat return of services and governing). I now have 7, and you have 3. The rich still have more wealth (see contention #3)." Issue being tax is not giving. It is theft. Enforced at gunpoint if necessary. If any one individual wishes to pay into any one service or charity - then fine - that is very discrete from the theft of an individual's property. "In the highest tax bracket, federal taxes are 35%. If that's what I pay on my 100 apples, and you pay 20% on your 10, you have eight and I have 65. Thus, the rich have more after taxes regardless of how much they pay." What 'the rich' have remaining is irrelevant to the premise that you endorse - that the forcible removal of wealth is a good thing. That is the argument against all tax, including progressive. The more you punish the wealthy for creating wealth, the less likely it is that such wealth will continue. The more you advocate the destruction of wealth, that those who earn will be punished, the more you discourage those inclined to create wealth. "The 37 apples we donated went to the operation of the government, which stops us from being killed in the streets, and stops thieves from stealing the rest of our apples (a small price to pay for safety)." As indicated above - government services, like police, can be funded *willingly* by those wishing their use. "Thus, progressive taxation bars off radical wealth extremes, and installs a system which allows the well-off to help the less fortunate." Need is not a valid standard. You have failed utterly to demonstrate why those of a higher income should be targeted other than they have something there to loot. If any individual wishes to help another fine. Another's need however is not an automatic claim on another's property. Something else you have failed to demonstrate the validity of. "Your objection to this will most likely be that the less fortunate are less fortunate for a reason." Why one's income is as it is - is irrelevant - and it's the type of government you seem to endorse that aids in keeping poor, poor. ;) "Income is an objective system for the purposes of taxation. While being a democrat says nothing about your wealth, income says everything." You still fail to show why income is a valid determinant for the purposes of taxation. If I am healthy, the sick have a claim on my organs? Income however says alot about the need for government services - by your own premise it is a void category.