Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

The order will be off-case, side debate, and voting issues. Off-Case He first claims that I never "hinted to" the fact that the resolution is general rather than broad in previous rounds, so it is fair for him to interpret the resolution as he likes. There are two problems with this, namely that the resolution, by its nature, explicitly specifies progressive income tax theory but does not list any particular nation, indicating that we are supposed to be debating about the ideas of progressive income taxation, and that he is attempting to strip me of the same right to interpret the resolution that he is asserting that he should have. It would be unfair for him to interpret the resolution as he wishes if I cannot do so because, 1) I have no way to anticipate the position that he is running, so my entire first speech could be wasted, and 2) if he has the right to change the resolution to benefit himself, then I can also assert that right. Moreover, as the insitgator, I have the right to define the purpose of the debate, and since the resolution that I crafted is general, and not broad, we are not debating about the implementation of progressive income taxes in specific nations, like the United States and North Korea; rather, we are debating about the notion of PIT. Moreover, look to the fact that I am not entirely discounting implementation; I conceded in my first speech that implementation arguments are fair if they apply to the general body as a whole, meaning that the implementaion strategies would essentially become a part of the theory. So, my argument that PIT are taxes that tax certain amounts of income separately in order to preserve the buying power of the rich still stands because, as he conceded, all of the nations that have implemented a PIT standard have created this system. His capital-gains case, however, is irrelevant to the round because not every nation in the world refuses to tax capital gains, which he conceded is income, as income; not only do the three nations I provided you with, namely Australia, Canada, and the Czech Republic tax capital gains as income, but other nations like Portugal and Russia do so as well (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Incidentally, I do not need to provide statistics as evidence because I merely need to prove that the two forms of income are taxed equally in those nations; the actual tax percentages paid is beyond the scope of this debate because we are not discussing whether or not certain tax rates are just. Now move to the implementation debate. He claims that justice requires implementation, so I cannot meet the standard of the resolution if I do not debate about implementation. Unfortunately, my opponent ignores the fact that the implementation of an idea does not make the idea unjust; rather, it makes the individuals who are corrupting that idea and implementing it incorrectly unjust. For example, the idea of regulating traffic with traffic lights in order to minimize chaos on the street during rush hour is completely just, but if the mayor of a city implemented the system to ensure that cars crashed on a certain street, that does not mean that the entire idea of regulating traffic is unjust. Rather, it means that the mayor's actions were unjust. Similarly, just because the United States implements PIT incorrectly does not mean that the notion of PIT are unjust; rather, it indicates that the way in which the United States is carrying out the just notion is unjust. This distinction has an important implication in the round, namely that the implementation of an idea is not necessary to evaluate its inherent moral worth; instead, we must evaluate whether or not the general idea is just BEFORE discussing the proper implementation strategies. This, in turn, indicates that this debate must first discuss the theory of PIT before we begin discussing if the United States' system meets the correct interpretation of PIT. I have already taken care of the "contradiction"; please see the first paragraph of this round. Let's go to the theory shells. In the first shell, I argued that his interpretation of the resolution was unfair because he was making it to narrow even though the resolution mandates that we discuss theory. His only response is that the United States is the "top economy of the world" and that if it is abused in the United States, it is probably abused in other countries. I have several responses to this. First, just because the United States is the top economy of the world does not mean that its economic systems or political ideas are implemented everywhere else in the world. European nations, for example, offer free healthcare to their citizens, but the United States government has repeatedly refused to do so. Thus, we cannot use the United States as a general standard because there is no solid evidence to prove that its systems are the ones that are mimicked across the globe. Second, this idea of "abuse in other nations" is completely false; I provided you with evidence that other nations have fair systems that tax capital gains as income. Keep in mind that I do not need to provide statistics; I only need to prove that income and capital gains are taxed equally through sources. Finally, the fact that the United States has the "maximum number of wealthy people" is immaterial to the resolution because PIT applies within a nation, and not outside of its borders. In shell 2, I explained that the case was nontopical because a PIT would tax CGs at the same rate as income because CG IS, in fact, income, and that PIT systems would not have loopholes and exceptions for the rich. Before I discuss his refutation, keep in mind that he conceded that CGs are a part of income and that they should be taxed at the same rate as income. His only response was that the United States does not tax CGs properly. Remember that I have proven that other nations do tax CGs properly, so this is irrelevant to the resolution, and that we are discussing PITs as an idea, meaning that we have to assume that all income is included in the PIT. This means that his case is nontopical, so you must affirm. Side Debate Although this is not important for the round, please keep in mind that his argument that people have no incentive to move to a higher bracket under a progressive system is contradictory because if we accept that a progressive system is taxed without CGs, then they pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes and thus can use loopholes to retain more money. Moreover, note that under his system, the disincentive to move to higher brackets would be magnified because the wealthy would retain less money and thus have a smaller purchasing power, meaning that there would be no incentive to to do extra labor if the amount of money received was the same as it would have been in the higher bracket after taxation. Affirmative Constructive Although my opponent did cover my contentions in his first speech, he completly ignored the defenses that I provided in my second speech. In contention 1, I explained that the wealthy obtain their wealth through a morally arbitrary systme, namely an accident of birth, so there is no reason that the wealth cannot be taken from them for the benefit of society. In contention 2, I proposed the notion that because the wealthy have a greater stake in society, they ought to contribute more to its upkeep than the indigent. In contention 3, I showed you that PIT actually retains the buying power of the wealthy and thus provides them with free services while bolstering the power of society. Since this was all dropped by the negative, you can extend my entire case and vote affirmative based on the fact that PIT in theory is just. Voting issues. The main reason that you should vote affirmative is that the negative case is completely nontopical; he only attempts to address the implemenation of PIT in one nation.