BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Progressive taxes place an unfair and disproportionate burden on the wealthy

Taxation need not be proportional to be fair; individuals earning significantly higher income than others have benefited from many societal factors that allowed them to accumulate wealth in peace and safety. Such people thus owe a greater burden to the state for the greater benefits the opportunities it bestowed upon them allowed. A just system of taxation should reflect this, and a progressive system does so by levying from people in accordance with their wealth that without the state could not have existed. A study of 54 nations shows that the public preserve flattening the tax adds to the risk of wellbeing and thus prefer progressive tax as a way in order to for a better over quality of life.[1] [1] Hyde, Lucy, ‘A More Progressive Tax System Makes People Happier’, Association for Psychological Science, 6 September 2011, http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/a-more-progr...
Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance

While tax codes are complicated, their sophistication is not justification for their abolition. Rather, progressive systems can be more streamlined. New Zealand can be used as an example where a progressive taxation system is also simple, it has been praised by the OSCE;[1] in 1958 it introduced the PAYE, pay as you earn system. Where employees were taxed from their salary rather than paying their taxes in full at the end of the financial year.[2] As Complex systems and loopholes do arise due to the piecemeal development of such taxation systems, by organizing it properly a progressive system of taxation can be every bit as easily regulated and navigated as a flat-rate system. [1] Dalsgaard, Thomas, ‘The tax system in new Zealand: An appraisal and options for change’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No.281, 31 January 2001, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/27/1891375.pdf [2] Goldsmith, Paul, ‘Taxes’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 5 March 2010, http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/taxes/5/2/1
Those able to pay more should pay more into the tax system

The wealthy have more disposable income and are more financially secure than are the poor and economically tenuous. For this reason, a progressive system of taxation puts the tax burden more heavily on the wealthy which has the wherewithal to pay. Progressive taxes make everyone sacrifice equally, since true equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice.[1] It is ludicrous to expect the poor and less well-off to pay the same proportional amount in taxes as the wealthy since they have to spend most of their income on essential goods like food and shelter; it is unjust to gain all state revenues from regressive taxes like VAT, since the wealthy have excess resources they can do without while not overly influencing their standard of living.[2] Progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money. Clearly, progressive taxation is just in terms of burdens on individual taxpayers. [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266. [2] Shapiro, Robert. “Flat Wrong: New Tax Schemes Can’t Top Old Progressive Wrongs”. Washington Post. 1996. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/tax/stories/top0324...
The state should promote the efficient distribution of income in order to maximize the utility derived by society from its economic resources

All goods suffer from diminishing marginal utility, and this includes money. The more money someone, the less happy they are made from each successive addition of wealth after a certain point. One might be able to buy a second car or a second house with extra money, but eventually one runs out of things one particularly wants to buy or own.[1] When wealth is unevenly distributed in society, the wealth of society is inefficiently distributed. The aim of the state must be to attempt to maximize the aggregate utility of its citizens insofar as it is able without damaging the economy. With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process. The state has a right to do this not only because it generates a more efficient distribution of income than the market does, but also because income is partly a collective good.[2] Ownership rights to property and the ability to expand them is only possible within the framework of the state; thus the state can make a moral ownership claim to some of the products of the services it provides, and does so most effectively through the mechanism of progressive taxation. [1] Thune, Kent. “The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth”. The Financial Philosopher. 2008. Available: http://www.thefinancialphilosopher.com/2008/08/the-diminishing-marginal-... [2] Weisbrod, Burton. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.
A well-implemented progressive taxation scheme serve to promote economic growth

Progressive taxation can serve very effectively to increase the economic welfare and development of societies. It does so in three ways. First, it lifts the poor out of poverty by redistributing the tax burden from them onto the wealthy who are more able to pay, and gives them more disposable income to put back into the economy, which increases the velocity of money in the system, increasing growth.[1] Second, workers will be more likely to work harder since they will feel the system is more equitable; perceptions of fairness are very important to individuals. People will still work and save since they will want the goods and services they always did in the presence of progressive taxation, and will thus not be less motivated as detractors of progressive systems suggest. Third, progressive taxes serve as an automatic stabilizer in the event of recessions and temporary downturns in the market, in the sense that a loss of wages due to unemployment or wage cuts places an individual in a lower tax bracket, dampening the blow of the initial income loss. The American economy is a perfect example of how progressive taxation promotes broader economic growth; data shows that average yearly growth has been lessened since the 1950s after the reduction in progressively in the tax system. In the 1950s annual growth was 4.1%, while in the 1980s, when progressively in taxes fell dramatically, growth was only 3%.[2] Clearly, a progressive tax regime is best for workers and the economy generally. [1] Boxx, T. William and Gary Quinlivan. The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham: University Press of America. 1994. [2] Batra, Ravi. The Great American Deception: What Politicians Won’t Tell You About Our Economy and Your Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.
Progressive taxes place an unfair and disproportionate burden on the wealthy

The revenues the state acquires through taxation are used to pay for various services and benefices. Lower income individuals consume these services to a disproportionate degree. It is they who require income supplements and child benefits when they lack the wherewithal to provide for themselves, and they avail more readily than the wealthy of such things as public healthcare and transport services. There is thus clearly no correlation between the amount people pays in taxes and amount of benefits they receive from them.[1] The rich make less use of such services, often preferring to use of privately provided services, yet they are expected to pay a greater proportion of their wealth to the public services they do not use under a progressive system of taxation. As a matter of fairness it is only just that everyone contribute to the provision of public services equally, in accordance with their wherewithal to do so. Wealthier people thus can pay more units of wealth to the system than poor people justly, but when they are expected to pay a disproportionate percentage of wealth, through a system that levies contributions according to a progressive rather than proportional scale, they are being used unfairly and being stripped of their rightful possessions to the use of others. [1] Mayer, David. “Wealthy Americans Deserve Real Tax Relief”. On Principle 7(5). 1999. Available: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v7n5/mayer.html
Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance

The modern progressive tax system has created whole industries of firms and specialists geared toward helping people file their taxes and to ensure the system runs smoothly. It has also bred armies of officials who oversee and audit tax issues, costing the United States for example more than $11 billion a year to operate its tax collection and verification systems.[1] People are forced under the progressive system to waste hours filling out returns, to hoard and sift through receipts to be accurate and to maximize their rebates. There is thus a huge efficiency loss in terms of people’s time as they are forced to dedicate effort and resources to the often arduous task of filing taxes in an ever more complicated system, arising from a progressive regime. The extreme complexity of the system has generated further negative incentives, encouraging the wealthy to seek ways around the system, to exploit loopholes in the bloated system for their personal benefit.[2] The very wealthy can thus evade obligations through the manipulation of complex tax codes and loopholes, and can sometimes even lead less scrupulous people to pay less than less wealthy people. Flat and regressive consumption taxes, on the other hand, offer an easier mechanism of taxation that is easier to understand, less time consuming to deal with, and harder to manipulate. [1] White, James. “Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the 2008 Budget Request and an Update of 2007 Performance”. United States Government Accountability Office. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07719t.pdf [2] Wolk, Martin. “Why the Tax System Keeps Getting More Complex”. MSNBC. 2006. Available: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12307554/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/wh...
Progressive taxation promotes a more equal, more harmonious society

A more equal society is not necessarily a more harmonious society, and is certainly not a more just one if it was created through the process of progressive taxation. Social harmony relies on trust between all citizens, rich and poor. Progressive taxes only serve to divide society, as the rich become resentful of the poor and the poor feel more and more entitled to the possessions of the wealthy cash cow. In terms of justice, equality is not an end in itself. Opportunities can be afforded without compromising the rights of citizens by enacting a draconian scheme of leveling.
Catalonia will hold its own referendum regardless of Spain’s position

Catalonia is likely to go its own way and decide it should make its own decisions regardless of the rest of Spain’s views. Artur Mas Catalonia’s President says "If we can go ahead with a referendum because the government authorises it, it's better. If not, we should do it anyway".1 So regardless of the Spanish position in his next four year term he will hold a referendum asking “Do you want Catalonia to become a new state within the European Union?” If Spain then does not back down about allowing this then there may well be a constitutional crisis. So far the Catalan option is simply to “internationalise the conflict we will have to go to Brussels to explain that they don't even let us consult with the people”.2 Ultimately despite being within Spain so long as support for independence remains strong the Catalans probably have more cards to play; they provide more in taxes than they receive so could cut Madrid off, or in the final play they could unilaterally secede leaving Spain with the unpalatable option of either negotiating to get Catalonia back in, accepting, or invading. 1 Bollier, Sam, ‘Catalans press for secession from Spain’, Al Jazeera, 30 September 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/201292913514639254.html 2 Tremlett, Giles, ‘Catalonia leader threatens to draw EU into independence row with Spain’, guardian.co.uk, 15 October 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/15/catalonia-leader-threat-independence-eu-spain
If a referendum is not allowed violence may be the result

The worst case scenario is one in which the Spanish government continues to deny the Catalan people the ability to decide for themselves democratically and peacefully then it is possible that eventually the result will be a change from a peaceful movement to a violent one. Some outside observers see parallels with the break up of Yugoslavia where the solution has to be further decentralisation and the center accepting a democratic route – in Yugoslavia failure to do so ultimately lead to several wars.12 For the moment there are only the slightest of hints that things may get more radical if denied Pujol the General secretary of the governing Catalan party says "There will be no way to avoid it. If we don't deliver it someone else will. More radical parties. But in a negotiation… it's not the best thing to reveal what you are going to do next" so there is the possibility some factions of the independence movement turning to violence as Eta did in the Basque region if denied the democratic route.3 1 Stanic, Ana, ‘Catalunya and Spain: more than time for dialogue’, Open Democracy, 18 October 2012, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ana-stanic/catalunya-and-spain-more-than-time-for-dialogue 2 Basta, Karlo, ‘Reducing Catalonia’s autonomy as a reaction to the fiscal crisis would only provide more fuel for secession-minded nationalists’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 26 September 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/09/26/catalonia-autonomy-karlo-basta/ 3 Mason, Paul, ‘Catalan leaders seek independence vote, legal or not’, BBC News, 5 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19847252
Spain is one indivisible nation

The Spanish constitution does not allow the holding of referendums on independence by Spanish regions. Spain is a single ‘demos’ made up of all the regions together rather than being separate and simply brought together under one banner. The Constitution says it “is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards”.1 Moreover while referendums may be allowed for “political decisions of special importance” “The referendum shall be called by the King on the President of the Government's proposal after previous authorization by the Congress.”2 So the calling of one is first up to the national government to decide one is needed and then requires the approval of the national parliament. In case that was not clear enough it is reiterated in section 149 on the role of the State and Regions “The State shall have exclusive competence over the following matters: Authorization of popular consultations through the holding of referendums.”3 1 Cortes Generales, Spanish Constitution, 27 December 1978, http://www.senado.es/constitu_i/indices/consti_ing.pdf Section 2 2 Ibid, Section 92 3 Ibid, section 149
Catalan independence would lead to further break up of the Spanish state

The issue of Catalan independence does not just affect Catalonia but the whole of Spain. All the regions of Spain have strong regional identities and Catalan is merely most widely spoken regional language with the both the Basque region and Galicia in particular having their own languages. Therefore a Catalan bid for independence might prompt other regions to make a bid for independence too. Moreover Catalan is spoken in regions outside Catalonia so these regions could potentially decide they are better off with Catalonia than Spain.1 The basques in particular, who have already turned to the political path from that of violent separatism, are likely to take inspiration to work towards peaceful independence if the Catalans succeed and are allowed a referendum.2 If Catalonia is allowed to secede then why should the Basque region be any different? 1 McCormick, Mark, ‘The languages of Spain – interactive’, guardian.co.uk, 19 January 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/jan/19/spain-languages-map-interactive 2 Zabalo, Julen, ‘Basque nationalists are taking inspiration from Scotland and Northern Ireland by using politics as a vehicle for independence’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 25 September 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/09/25/basque-nationalism-julen-zabalo/
The middle of a crisis is not the right time for divorce

Both Catalonia and Spain are in the middle of an economic crisis. Spain is considering a bail out by the European central bank and the prospect of losing 20% of its economy and the uncertainty while it happens would have an immense impact on the rest of the economy at a time when Spain already has unemployment of 23%. On the other side Catalonia’s regional government needs bailing out by Spain’s central government; it is seeking 5 billion Euros from a bailout fund set up by the Spanish government. Therefore while Catalonia may be the richest part of the Spanish economy but its government is missing its deficit targets.1 It is therefore exactly the wrong time for Catalonia to be rocking the boat with a referendum on independence and the uncertainty this creates. Catalonia needs the Spanish government for its own bailout and the Spanish government needs stability if it is to avoid a bail out from the European Union and the conditions that are likely to come with such action. 1 Tremlett, Giles, and Traynor, Ian, ‘Catalonia's €5bn plea brings Spanish bailout nearer”, The Guardian, 28 August 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/catalonias-plea-brings-spanish-bailout-nearer
Catalans clearly want self determination

It is far from clear whether self determination gives peoples the right to decide whether they should be independent. The Supreme Court of Canada has looked at this issue with reference to Quebec that has in the past argued for its right to self determination. The court argues “The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination -- a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances.” This is because such a right must fit in with the principle of territorial integrity of existing states.1 1 ‘Reference re Secession of Quebec’, Supreme Court of Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do Para 126/7
Control over Catalan destiny would reduce tensions and may help prevent independence

This would be a very risky course to take; currently there is 51% support for independence and that could as well go up as down when given the opportunity. With both the Spanish and Catalan economies in crisis it is likely that such a referendum would only be bolstered by anger at the government due to the state of the economy. This might therefore be an option for Spain at some point in the future when the economy is back on its feet and so less of an issue but at the moment it would be waving goodbye to Spain as we know it.
Catalonia will hold its own referendum regardless of Spain’s position

Such a decision by the Catalan government would clearly be against the Spanish Constitution and therefore illegal. The constitution makes it “the Army’s mission is to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain, to defend its territorial integrity and the constitutional set up” so such a move would invite a military response. Some members of the ruling PP party have already stated that the Guardia Civil should take over the Mossos (Catalan police).1 There are also members of the army who would be willing to take such action, "Catalan independence? Over my dead body and that of many soldiers" says Colonel Francisco Aleman who also compared the crisis to the start of the Spanish Civil war in 1936.2 1 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/10/08/catalonia-independence-spain-constitution/ 2 Mason, Paul, ‘Catalan leaders seek independence vote, legal or not’, BBC News, 5 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19847252
If a referendum is not allowed violence may be the result

Not getting your way in a democracy is not an excuse for turning to violence. Catalonia instead must attempt to persuade the other regions of Spain to allow a referendum or if it can’t then accept that the majority in Spain do not want Catalonian independence and respect their position. Violence will not help persuade the rest of Spain of its case; it did not for the Basques, and will not for Catalonia. So far the Catalan independence movement has recognised this with Lopez Tena the leader of the Catalan Solidarity for Independence party states “We would under no condition follow that [violent] path. That’s not how things are done in a democratic country.”1 1 Primor, Adar, ‘Catalan leader predicts independence in about two years, and close friendship with Israel’, Haaretz, 4 October 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/catalan-leader-predicts-independence-in-about-two-years-and-close-friendship-with-israel.premium-1.468285
Spain is one indivisible nation

Section 2 of the constitution continues “it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.”1 However it is not the constitution that is the problem blocking a referendum; rather it is the Spanish parliament. The government and parliament clearly could ask the King to allow a referendum on Catalan independence if it so wished. It should do so in order to prevent any more existential challenges to the constitution; constitutions have to be flexible if they are to survive the government is therefore wrong to treat it as a static unchanging document and justification for ruling out a referendum for Catalan independence.2 1 Cortes Generales, Spanish Constitution, 27 December 1978, http://www.senado.es/constitu_i/indices/consti_ing.pdf Section 2 2 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/10/08/catalonia-independence-spain-constitution/