Resolved: Progressive Tax is superior to Flat Tax for a nation to utilize.

Pro presents an interesting question "Why does the state tax people at all?" Pro, however, goes on to strawman various views such the neo-liberal (conservative?), the communist view, and the centrist view before answering the question with: " Tax is there to settle an issue that would drive a society to become Ancient Egypt v. 2 if it isn't nipped in the bud before an elite lineage or aristocracy of any kind can form." This is an incorrect view of taxation, for taxation is not to prevent an aritoscracy from forming, but rather to raise money in order to provide for government expendetures. (http://www.britannica.com...) Pro then goes on to strawman my position by stating "when Libertarians remark 'the freer the market, the freer the people' what they really mean to say is 'the freer the market, the freer the rich are to use and abuse their money to their heart's content giving only to those who appease then and succumb to their whims efficiently enough.' I'm sure even Con would agree to this as Con is supporting flat taxation which is equally based on this theory albeit being somewhat hypocritical in the way they go about justifying where the burden of the taxation ends up falling." I do not agree with a flat tax because of these reasons, I agree with a flat tax because it encourages economic growth, which I will go into later when I finish rebuttals. My opponent then goes to argue that North Korea and the USSR had/has a flat tax of 100% " if you observe North Korea or USSR's taxation system you would realize that they did end up creating a flat tax of no less than 100%. In other words, the corporation and business in USSR and North Korea were/are the government itself. State owned industry became nothing more than diversified subsets of the monopoly that was the USSR or North Korea." This is a simple factual error, according to page 756 of the Encylopedia of Soviet Law, people who earned above 100 rubles in monthly wages had an Income tax of 13% if the wage was made in the Soviet Union (if it wasn't, it was 30%) if it exceeded 5000 rubbles, the income tax was 75% rubbles (https://books.google.com... "The fact is that almost every nation that you would consider a 'leading economic state' or 'Fully developed nation' has progressive tax installed. This is based on something called the 'Human Development Index (HDI)' and the vast majority (by a large margin) of nations towards to top of progressivity of taxation end up on the top of HDI.[6] The reason I use HDI, as opposed to GDP is that many flat-taxed nations, especially ones taxing lower percentages, end up with GDPs just as high as developed progressively taxed nations on face value[7] but what the HDI covers is how efficiently this money is used for each and every human being within that nation. If Con wishes to deny this, I'm willing to expand into details in the final round as it wouldn't be a new point but expansion upon this one." While it is true that many high HDI nations use the progressive income tax, it would be more beneficial for these nations to implement a flat tax, as the implementation of a flax tax is set to reduce taxes, encourage economic growth, and increase economic productivity and economic activity. ( http://www.heritage.org...) (http://www.aabri.com...) Economic growth is good because it reduces poverty and increases employment as well as happiness (http://www.cato.org...) In closing, I have negated my opponent's arguments and have affirmed my position that a flat tax should be implemented because it increases economic growth, economic productvity, economic activity, all of which helps to allieviates poverty and increases employment and overall happiness.