Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

I feel as if my opponent misrepresents the actual resolution. He tries stating that the resolution, and his whole argument, is based off of the theory of Progressive Income Tax, instead of it as it actually is implemented in society. I would like to state to the reader's that Pro never hinted to this in his previous rounds, so it's unfair for him to simply change the meaning of the resolution like that. Let it be known that if Pro wished to argue that Progressive Income Taxes in theory are just, then he should have labeled the resolution as such. However, he did not, and therefore cannot argue that PIT is just in THEORY. Furthermore, my arguments are extremely topical in the fact that they target the largest economy in the world, a.k.a some of the wealthiest people in the world, which is what PIT is here for; taxing those who make more at a higher rate. I will go in depth in defending my argument later, but now I would like to focus on some key issues that make this topic non-theory based. 1. Definition of Just My opponent's definition of just makes his "theory" argument non-topical, for it states " Just: to be in accordance with the principles of justice......Justice: Giving each his due How can my opponent claim that something in theory is just if it can't meet up to his OWN definition? You can't state that this topic is in theory and then define a key word with a definition that dictates usage. Allow me to explain. Justice says giving each his due. If my opponent argues PIT in theory, then he doesn't argue it's implementation at all. If implementation was never argued, then it's impossible to prove that each was given his due through this system, thus making it impossible for Pro to actually show PIT to be just. This alone stops his attempts at changing the resolution's meaning, and should invalidate his whole argument. Besides that main point that makes this topic one that must be argued in practice, we can all see that Pro never mentioned this to be simply theory based, nor did he hint at it even in his Round 2. In fact, Round 2 hosted some interesting statement's of Pro's. "A brief note before the round begins: In the modern world, progressive income taxes are implemented in such a way that preserves the monetary powers of the rich. Instead of simply increasing the rate of taxation, governments tax a certain base amount of money at a certain rate and tax any income in excess of that amount at another, higher rate. This system insures that individuals who earn more income are able to preserve a greater amount of it than those who earn less." This shows Pro to be referencing the implementation of PIT and using this as part of his argument. The reader's should disregard Pro's attempt to turn this into a theory based argument. Now moving on to extending my arguments and defending them. 1. Progressive Income Taxes exempt Capital Gains Shell 1: My opponent tries arguing that the topic is general, and to an extent I agree; but how exactly does this make my argument any less relevant? I used the United States, the top economy in the world. I used the U.S. for this reason, and also because it's a lot easier to get stats from the country you live in and such. It's important that they are the top economy because it shows us to have the largest amount of wealthy people. Thus, if I were to prove that PIT is unjust in the U.S., it's a fair assumption that it is abused in other countries as well. If a student such as myself could find this loophole in the system, I am sure most, if not all, successful international businessmen have found it as well. My opponent names some nations that tax capital gains as an income, but fails to show at which rates they tax these countries, the percentage of wealthy, or any other relevant statistics. He merely provides wikipedia to support his claims. Shell 2:"This means that in order to achieve justice, we must achieve the fair distribution of rights and responsibilities." This was a statement by Pro in Round 2. As I have proven, PIT doesn't distribute rights and responsibilities fairly, seeing as the wealthier are getting away with the giant loophole that Progressive Income Taxes presents, leaving those not as wealthy to burden the responsibility. Now my opponent tries arguing against this by stating that PIT would tax Capital Gains at the same rate as income is taxed. He states that this is in regards to the definition of PIT. My definition of Capital gains, however, shows this not to be true. "Most long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than your then your other income..." My opponent said himself "...the progressive income tax system of the United States is unjust because it does not tax Capital Gains at a proper rate" This quote isn't meant to show my opponent agreeing that it's unjust, but shows that he acknowledges capital gains are not taxed a a proper rate. Pro then states that my argument is flawed because I do not describe Progressive Systems but state how it's implemented. Again, this goes back to the whole theory thing, which I have already shown to the reader's to be invalid. The resolution states "are just", meaning as they are now. He tries stating a true PIT system wouldn't do these things, but countries like the U.S. would argue we are using a true Progressive system, and it isn't working. Also, I would like to know from where my opponent is actually providing a doctrine or written code for HOW progressive income taxes should be implemented, for I think he is just interpreting it wrong. Now I feel that my C1 is already been focused on enough, so I would like to emphasize a side argument we seem to be having. Those who are not as wealthy lose incentive to do better through PIT. I won't bring this forward as a major contention, for it would be unsportsmanlike to give Pro another argument his must refute, without new sources, so I will simply touch on this subject. I would like the reader's to think of it this way. Mainly the wealthiest (as stated before, .3%) of American's get away with this loophole, for they have the resources and money to invest in these Capital gains. PIT doesn't just effect them, though. It effects multiple brackets of income. So there are people who are being taxed correctly by Progressive income taxes, because they cannot afford to take this loophole. My opponent tries arguing against this by stating, through my contentions, people would WANT to become wealthier so that they can elude taxes like the other rich people do. There is a large threshold of income that doesn't allow for them to invest entirely into capital gains, but they still get taxed progressively. | Conclusion| Throughout this debate, my opponent is trying to make the point that "a system with capital gain exemptions is not truly progressive", but the reader's must all keep in mind that Pro simply states this as an opinion. This debate revolves around the implementation of Progressive income taxes, making almost all of my opponent's statements non-topical, and irrelevant to the resolution. I have proven why my opponent's argument isn't correct in stating that this is theory based, and defending my contention, leaving it standing. Vote con. Thank You