Progressive tax doesn't work

Rebuttals I'd like to once again draw your attention to the fact that this debate is NOT related to ANY specific country. We're speaking hypothetically and morally which tax is most preferrable. Most of my statements are common sense but I'll provide some facts throughout this debate on USA as EXAMPLES. I encourage independent thinking more though. Okay, seems like we reached the point of the filthy rich very soon this time. I can understand that raising the tax for a person earning $20 million a year wouldn't affect them. This idea is completely valid except that you can't run a country only thinking of one group of people. Now the key point is mostly middle-class people. These people pay the most taxes in almost every country, for instance - https://www.cbo.gov.... 1) Quoting - "Pro arbitrarily defines "fairness" as everyone having to pay the same numerical tax rate" Arbitrarily, eh what a hostile word since this is a debate of opinions but alright. Do you consider the poor to be somehow superior to rich people so that they don't have to pay as much taxes? Everyone should be given the same tax amount along with opportunities to generate wealth (which they are). Those who distribute more to the overall economy and work harder/smarter deserve to be rewarded more. If I were a person making middle-class worthy salary I wouldn't consider it my duty to support the lazy solely because we live in the same country. I'm already paying more money numerically so you could ride that bus for free. And I said lazy because I already mentioned pension and disabled welfare. Anyway, what I consider to be a perfectly fair and prosperous society is where every group of people pay the same amount of total tax by percentage. For example - the 20% of working class pays the same amount of % total taxes as the 1% of the very rich. By implementing PT you would steepen the differential even further so that the rich have to pay almost all the taxes. Yes, perhaps they can afford it but why should they? They've earnt their salaries and therefore deserve the enjoy the fruit of their success. Obviously tax's purpose is not to distribute wealth but that's what PT still does. It's simply inevitable "collateral damage" that it brings along. 2) Nitpicking my argument by saying I have no evidence to back up my claims that are supposed to be common sense. Nevertheless, let me make a very simple example of how PT diminishes the value of labour. Tom and Sally are picking apples. Tom picks 50 apples an hour whilst sally only gets 30. 10% FT - Tom loses 5 apples and is left with 45 apples per hour. He gets paid 45" as 1" per apple. Sally loses 3 apples and receives 27" per hour. PT - Tom loses 10 apples and receives 40" per hour. Sally gets the regular 27" per hour since her (income) wasn't affected. 10% FT - 2 hours of work for both generate 72 apples or ". PT - 2 hours of work generate 67 apples or ". Very simple, yet very realistic and actual. It doesn't matter how the rich people received their wealth. If they got it from their parents then yes that'sa bit unfair but you can't control where you're born, can you? Fact is, the wealth didn't come out of thin air, a father or an ancestor even had to work for it. And quite frankly it doesn't matter if you work harder or smarter, what matters is how much work you get done and that's what you get paid for. Do you think it's unjust for people to pass on money between generations? 3) Again it's common sense that companies would rather operate in a country where they would have to pay less taxes. http://dailycaller.com... Saying that nobody cares where the rich people choose to live is not correct. For instance in USA 41% of all taxes come from income taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org... This includes every rich person with all their profits they decide to take out from their companies. Also this doesn't concern only rich people. Companies don't make their profits from thin air, all the regular people use their products/services. All of capitalistic economy is simply put a two way street of people exchanging resources. 4) Well then, saying that every form of taxation is socialistic is VERY far fetched. Socialism means taking from one and giving to other to make equal (what PT does). With taxation (FT) you take from all and use together. And incidentally the consequnce I just provided for taxation is not even the purpose of it. The purpose of taxation is actually to run a well oiled society and country. Currently no people are being discriminated against so that they would deserve to pay less taxes. We all have equal rights and opportunities for success. It is true that some people are more capable than others and I believe that is natural selection but that's too deep in another topic. Once again, I want to encourage Con to view this debate from a more hypothetical point of view instead of slamming and asking for facts. Some things are simply common sense and it would be a shame for this debate to break down on pedantics. If you're concerned that without hard evicence you will lose then I am willing to forfeit in the sake of an intellectual discussion. Good luck on round 3