Progressive tax doesn't work

Pro refuses to keep this organized, so I'm just going to refute each point he brings up individually. Apologies in advance to the voters. This is not going to be a fun read.Also, to hell with 5 round debates.Re: Lower-Class Minority?Pro seems to be arguing that the lower class is technically the minority and therefore its interests don't matter, which is ridiculous. Depending on what criterion you use, the US's lower class makes up between 25% of 40% of its population [1][2]. This is a substantial portion of the population, and as I've explained numerous times now, they are impacted much more heavily by taxes than both the middle and upper classes combined (since tax burden forces them to cut down spending on necessities rather than on mere luxury goods). Any basic understanding of utilitarian calculations reveals that that sheer numbers are not everything -- the differential in marginal utility must also be taken into account, and when we do, it is clear that FT produces more aggregate negative utility by over-burdening the poor. Prefer PT.Re: "Rich people are hard workers"Pro completely ignores my evidence that most rich peoples are wealthy as a result of being born into a rich family, instead just asserting that "wealth doesn't come out of thin air". Obviously, they do work, but they certainly do not work any harder than poor people do; in fact, they arguably have it much easier, since low-wage jobs tend to be far more mentally and physically taxing [3]. Thus, the PT does not "punish hard work".Re: Why the Poor are Poor>> Educational OpportunitiesI said that education level does not make a significant difference in the attainment of *high-income* status (due to the primacy of intergenerational advantages in that respect). Education is still very useful for getting out of poverty and even in reaching middle-income status. Because poor people often lack access to educational opportunities, they cannot be blamed for their low-income status.>> Cultural DiscriminationCultural discrimination exists to some extent in literally every society, and my source shows that it plays a significant role in the inhibition of poor people's ability to achieve upwards social mobility. This outweighs Pro's bare assertions.>> Negative Societal PressureI am referring to societal pressure to engage in activities which are not conducive to economic productivity (i.e. drugs, prostitution, etc)>> Overpopulation & Structural UnemploymentPro misses the point... I never said PT solves for unemployment. The sole purpose of me bringing all these factors up was to debunk Pro's absurd claims that poor people are poor because they're lazy. All five of them have been upheld, and thus we can safely reject that notion -- the majority of poor people are poor because of circumstances which are outside of their control, and therefore they do not "deserve" the excessively heavy tax burdens imposed on them by FT.Re: FairnessBare assertions and nothing more. I can easily modify everything Pro said here to fit my subjective conception of fairness and it will have the same effect: Pro: "Anyway, my definition of fairness persists. The value of labour should be static to every person in the country. It is not fair that people have to pay different amount of taxes depending on their paycheques. Taxation is a civil commitment and all citizens should have equal civil rights (including commitments). With PT you're literally dividing people into groups of people - those who have to give more away from their paycheque and those who have to give less. It's not fair that 10% of people pay 75% of a country's base tax 'because they can afford to'"*poof*Con: "Anyway, my definition of fairness persists. Tax rates should be proportional to how much every person in the country can afford to pay. It is not fair that people have to pay the same taxes rates despite the huge differential in relative impact on their personal financial situations. Taxation is a civil commitment and all citizens should contribute as much as they reasonably can. With FT you're literally dividing people into groups of people - those who are over-burdened by their taxes, and those who are not. It's not fair that the poor have to shoulder a much higher relative burden than everyone else 'because the rich work hard'"Fairness is subjective and irrelevant to this debate. Prefer my pragmatic approach to the topic -- PT is superior to FT because it maximizes government revenue while minimizing financial burden on the tax-payers.Re: Diminishing Labor ValuePro does not contest that tax-funded public services easily outweigh the "diminished value of labor". Treat this as a concession.Re: Income Tax & Corporations"If the owner suffers due to large income taxes then so does the business". This is a bare assertion. A person is not going to stop investing into his business just because of higher income tax rates...Re: California EvidenceSorry, I missed this last time. Firstly, the majority of the article focuses on the harms of *businesses* moving out of the state, which implicates corporate taxes, rather than income taxes. Secondly, the fact that people would move out of their state does not mean that people would move out their country -- people tend to feel attachment to their country of residence for various social and emotional reasons. There are numerous countries with high standards of living which have *much* lower income taxes than the US [4], so we would expect to see large amounts of emigration to those countries if Pro's theory was true; the fact that this interstate migration was the best example Pro could find just serves to prove my point my point -- PT is not detrimental to the country's economy as a whole.Re: Tax Evasion Economists have calculated that the optimal tax rate (i.e. the highest the tax rate can go before tax evasion starts becoming a real problem) is anywhere between 50-80%, which means that even the country with the highest tax rate in the world (57%) could afford to increase it -- "Using elasticity estimates from the empirical literature, the formula for asymptotic top rates suggests that marginal rates for labour income should not be lower than 50% and may be as high as 80%" [5]. Re: SocialismMy response seems to completely go over Pro's head. The "purpose" of the FT and PT are both the same -- to provide the government with money to carry out its functions. The only difference is in how that money is obtained, and just because you're taking a larger proportion from the rich than from the poor doesn't make it "socialistic" in any sense of the word. Pro doesn't even have an argument here.I don't appreciate Pro's accusations that I have not put enough "time and thought" into this. Just to spite him, I have written up this round in about 20 minutes. Frankly, he should learn the ins and outs of debate before trying to lecture me on them -- citing sources to back up empirical statements, fully warranting normative claims, and telling the voters what to think are all expected behaviors in most debate settings, and are actually quite necessary in order to win. All of the points of contention I've addressed either have null impact or go in my favor.The resolution is negated.[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.worldbank.org...[4] https://www.poundsterlinglive.com...[5] http://eml.berkeley.edu...