Progressive Taxation

Thanks 16kadams. C1) Progressive taxes reduce growthUltimately Con’s 1st source speculates that the economy is socomplex that definitive claims about the effect of taxes on the economy cannot be found. Stating “The economy is sufficiently complex that virtually any theory can find some support in the data.”(1) On top of that, the argument made in the source is against specifically the U.S. tax system. “the U.S. tax system is a drag on the economy.” (1) This is neither here nor there in this debate as the U.S. is not a quintessential example of progressive taxation. In fact, when ranked with other nations the United States is not nearly as progressive. Con admits “A progressive tax will not mean that all businessmen cease to innovate.”From con’s reasoning we can then conclude that progressive taxation =/= killer of innovation. Con claims that “Research regarding the growth impacts of progressive taxes hasbeen almost unanimous: progressive taxes reduce growth.” This is entirely false. In fact, con’s first source states “The idea that taxes affect economic growth has become politically contentious and the subject of muchdebate in the press and among advocacy groups. That is in part because there are competing theories about what drives economic growth.”(1) Later Stating that “the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth.” His source does go on to discredit this study, though for my opponent to conclude that there is almost unanimous consensus on the matter is blatantly false.While there is not consensuses on the effect that progressive taxation has on the economy there is general consensus that “thelevels of inequality now being seen are in fact economically damaging and inefficient” (2) Being that progressive taxation addresses inequality, it is reasonable to assume that if an effect can be found on the economy it is likely to be positive. C2) Counter Plan: Flat Tax/C3) The flat tax worked in Russia Murray Rothbard a Phd. In economics widely respected gives a compelling case against flat tax plans. Arguing that “the flat tax is neither evidently fair not genuinely simple nor neutral to the market.” (3) Con says “You could always argue that you can reduce progressivity in a progressive tax system and lower the rates. Although this would stimulate growth, it would not stimulate as much growth as a full transition to a flat tax.” A reduced progressive tax system would stimulate growth while also addressing issues of inequality. Thus making it superior to a flat tax. Conclusion of Rebuttals:Con is more sure of his position than the sources he cites. The crux of his argument being focused heavily on economic growth, we see there is no consensus in the economic community that progressive taxation kills economic growth. In fact con says himself “reduced progressivity in a progressive tax system…. Would stimulate growth.” Aside from this we see that economic inequality is harmful to the economy. Progressive taxation positively addresses this issue, causing at least and indirect, if not very direct positive effect on the economy. A Flat tax ignores entirely the harm placed on society by inequality. As such progressive taxation is greater than a flat tax. (1) http://taxfoundation.org...(2) https://www.oxfam.org...(3) https://mises.org...