Progressive Taxation is Unconstitutional

Well, the Con is correct in that I support a flat tax, but this argument is not about supporting a flat tax. It is about pulling the blinds back on the "utility" fallacy that has propagated for decades. It is about clarifying that a progressive tax scheme is unconstitutional. In my first argument I focused on the General Welfare clause and on the failure of a progressive tax system"s to actually be supportive of the General Welfare. The Con has made a couple of points that are worth further discussing so I will do that here as well and then I will move on to the second reason that a progressive tax system is unconstitutional; that it does not provide each citizen equal protection of each citizen"s property and that it equates to subjective government confiscation of property. First, let"s recognize that the Con has failed to undermine the original argument and, in fact, has agreed with it on the economic basis. He has raised tangential issues though so let"s delve into them. They are: 1.Policies of a country should consider social, economic, and political aspects. 2.The institution of a flat tax would require middle class society to let their children receive a lower quality education and lower class to have no education at all. 3.Lower educated children will equate to an inability to gain preferable jobs later in life causing "the advancement" of the U.S. to drop. 4.That the US could not have a debt default. 5.That the U.S. is not "borrowing" from China (not quite sure where this entered the debate but, ok, I"ll bite) 6.An attempt to somehow redefine the issuance of a bond as something other than borrowing money (again, not part of my argument but I really cannot let this one lie) 1.I agree with the Con that social, economic, and political aspects should be considered in tax policy. Let"s consider the social aspects of a tax system. Should a tax system be designed to incent socially irresponsible behavior of the citizen or of its representative government? No. Hasn"t the progressive tax system proven that it does so? Yes. Should a tax system be designed to incent socially responsible behavior? Yes. So therefore we need a tax system that is something other than a progressive tax system. A tax system should be fair and should be consistent with the principles of every person being created equal, of equal protection from arbitrary government confiscation, and of incentivizing positive outcomes in the social fabric. Let"s focus on positive outcomes in the social fabric, shall we? Are people subject to Pavlovian conditioning? Yes. Is it desirable to have a large percentage of the population having been conditioned over decades to be dependent on government handouts? No. Definitively, No. Is it desirable to have citizens that are interested enough to actually care how large government spending becomes? Yes. Definitely, Yes. Is it possible for government spending to run out of control and destroy the social fabric and even end an entire civilization? Yes. Ask the Romans. So, what taxation system would ensure that government money is only spent on necessities, that the entire citizenry is concerned with the government budget (and therefore the size of the required tax revenue), and that conditions people to be responsible for themselves and truly live independently? Does a progressive tax system achieve these worthy goals? Decidedly not. Does a flat percentage / proportional tax achieve these worthy goals? YES. 2.Let"s now turn our attention to the absurd supposition that the institution of a flat tax would require middle class society children to receive a lower quality education and lower class to have no education at all. If we had a population that was actively engaged and concerned about the size and priorities of government budget expenditures then this would never happen. The middle class and the poor represent the majority of voters and they would ensure that duly elected officials would prioritize education over such silly things as bridges to islands with scant populations and spending billions of dollars to fight wars for other countries. 3.Based on my argument in #2, above, this next point raised by Con is mute. 4.Whether or not the U.S. could have a debt default is an interesting subject for which we should probably make a separate debate altogether but let"s skim the surface of the topic here anyway. The U.S. currently serves as the worlds" reserve currency and because of that fact coincident with the fact that the U.S. dollar is now a fiat currency (not based on gold or other limited supply assets) the U.S. is the only country in the world that can simply print dollars (buy issuing bonds to the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve actually prints the dollars) to infinity"as long as other countries want U.S. dollars. But what happens when a country whose currency serves as the global reserve currency becomes too indebted to other nations that other nations begin to question the value of the currency? Well, ask Great Brittain, ask France, ask the Roman Empire. They all used to be the global reserve currency in their historical in their time debt parties (credit expansion) right up until the day that it all imploded for each of them. The answer is that when other nations begin to doubt the value of the reserve currency then other nations begin to accept other currencies that they feel will maintain their value and they invest in the bonds of that new reserve currency (by the way, if you"ve read the news over the last couple of years then you would know that China"s currency is beginning to be accepted in international trade, instead of US dollars, at a dramatically increasing rate). Lastly, what happens if other nations start requiring higher interest rates to maintain investments in U.S. bonds at current levels? Well, the cost to maintain the current debt load goes up dramatically. Buy the way, are you aware that the rates on U.S. bonds is now higher than those bastions of financial conservatism and strength in Spain, Portugal, and Greece? But I guess we don"t need to worry because the government can just issue more debt, right? Maybe to a point but when is that point reached that other nations not only require higher interest but get so skeptical that they begin to divest out of U.S. bonds and diversify elsewhere? Well, if investors don"t buy the next round of debt then the government would have to pay back the money it borrowed to issue the debt. Where is it going to get that money? It can"t issue more bonds to get cash at that point. 5.That the U.S. is not borrowing from China is an absurdly preposterous statement that ignores basic facts. The U.S. is borrowing from any investor in the bonds issued by the U.S. treasury. I"ve outline the mechanics of bond issuance (borrowing) above. 6.Ditto. Go back to Econ 101. Now, on to my next point: that progressive taxation is inconsistent with the basic constitutional principle of equality in government protection of its citizens and their assets. Your salary is your asset paid to you in the form of cash. Now, is the government exercising equal protection when it discriminates against those that have worked hard and been successful in pursuit of happiness when it is taking a larger percentage of their cash for taxes than it does from others? No, it is not. All other significant forms of taxation in the U.S. are proportional, they are a flat percentage based on the underlying value. For example, property taxes. Regardless of the "utility" concept, the discrimination against a sub-set of the population and the arbitrary taking of property from them in greater proportion, especially to give it to someone else, is not consistent with the basic constitutional principle of equality and is therefore unconstitutional.