Progressive Taxation

As a brief road-map, I shall refute the points my opponent has made: Income Equality is not necessarily a positive, in fact, the most economically equal country in the world (lowest Gini index) happens to be North Korea, other economically unequal countries, like Hong Kong And Singapore and the United States have achieved the greatest levels of prosperity in the world, prices are low, unemployment and inflation remain low and GDP growth is shared among all classes. However, in economically equal countries, productivity and economic activity are contracting, income equality exists, but the poor are poorer and the rich are getting less rich. What the pro is saying is that he would rather the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich, so long as the income gap is smaller. Social Justice: To the pro, it is acceptable to take money from someone through threat of force and give it to someone else, if this were done by an individual, it would be regarded as theft. Redistribution of wealth can be comparative to a thief stealing from someone with an income and using said income to provide for himself, regardless of any humanitarian motive, this is theft, social justice is not achieved through progressive taxation, it is rather a theft from one group and money given to another group. Even then, before the tax cuts of the 1920s, the Department of Treasury saw the wealthiest paying slightly over the middle class, while the poor pay 15.1% of the taxes, during a flatter rate, the poor paid less of the taxes. Stealing money from someone else gives incentives to hide the money, further reducing one's contribution to the nation and to public good, therefore social justice is crushed with a Progressive tax. More Revenue: It has been seen that after every broad restoration of a flat tax that the government generates more revenue than previous. Imagine one's income as a pie, during the Roosevelt to 1970 era, the government was taking a large part (70% - 90%) of a small pie, thus less revenue is produced. During Woodrow Wilson's progressive tax, he too was taking a large part of a small pie. When Coolidge and Reagan brought about flatter tax rates, the economy expanded and revenue increased even when tax rates were dramatically cut, this was because more people got rich with a less progressive system. Taking more of one's wealth does not mean more revenue for the government, if a system is switched from flat to progressive, it provides an initial boost in revenue, but all the years following, revenue declines, this can explain the rising budget deficits in progressive tax nations like France, Sweden, Britain and Denmark. Efficiency: It is an established fact, by the United States Department of Treasury statistics, that flat taxes produce more revenue than progressive taxes, therefore the pro point here is refuted, better yet, when tax rates are at a flat rate, the purchasing power of everyone increases, prices go down and many of the wealthier Americans fund new leisure projects for their homes or invest in stocks, both of these create jobs, as seen by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1980 - 2000, the 42 million jobs created were primarily due to more disposable income. Today, consumer goods sales account for 62% of US job growth, with a flatter rate, more goods and services are available to everyone, both public and private. Since progressive taxes are inefficient in generating funding for the government and it promotes the idea of theft, there are two solutions for America's funding: Flat Tax: As discussed before, flat taxes result in more government revenue because economic activity is stimulated and more money is made, thus the government takes a small part of a substantially larger pie. The purchasing power of the citizenry is increased, leading to an increased standard of living, a tax that takes, for example, 15% of $100 and 15% of $1 million still keeps the tax burden on the wealthy, therefore, "social justice" that the pro admires is preserved in a better manner. Sales Tax: A sales tax is completely voluntary and rests on one's ability to buy consumer goods, naturally, the wealthiest citizens, who buy more consumer items than any other group, are going to pay this tax more often. If this tax were to replace all the other taxes (payroll, income, corporate, capital gains), the economy would be greatly stimulated and people would be able to purchase more, increasing their standard of living. Onto the example about the spouses, if one spouse earns $40,000 and the other earns $400,000, if a rule is adopted that the higher spouse pays more, as an private deal, then that is not a progressive tax, that is simple spending on consumer items, if incomes were taxed at a progressive rate, however. for example 50% for over $250,000 and 10$ for incomes below, the spouses would only have $236,000 in disposable income, instead of the $440,000 that a sales tax would permit or the $396,000 that a 10% flat tax would allow.