The welfare and progressive tax systems are less preferable than...

I suppose, thanks for the debate. However, throughout the debate you seemed to misunderstand basic economic theory, history, offering fallacious arguments and flippant responses. From your initial misunderstanding of how brackets work to your stubborn and nonsensical equating of CEO pay with wages, to citing anecdotal cases where taxes were lowered as economies picked up to argue that lower taxes clearly cause economic expanses. To the point where you claim up and down that you can absolutely lower everybody's taxes especially the superrich and still take in more overall tax revenue. Further, you've argued that giving the rich a massive tax cut is going to likely cause the divide between rich and poor to become smaller, because it gets larger under a progressive tax plan it therefore *MUST* get smaller under a flat tax. Seriously, this is the overall quality of debate. It was utterly underwhelming. From assuming that though, a college graduate, I'm a junior in High School to claims that Eastern Europe cut taxes before a world-wide economic expanse that allowed it to still increase tax revenues that therefore all tax cuts increase revenues, I was stunningly underwhelmed by the debate. Clearly relying on the fact that voodoo economics never worked and that even when Bush Jr. tried Reaganomics again it failed again, it clearly must be the case that clear anecdotal cases are the way to go. I mean, Clinton in 1993 raised taxes on the rich and oversaw the longest economic expanse of any economy under any president ever. So raising taxes on the superrich is clearly the path to economic expanse. We can raise taxes, cause economic expanse, collect massive taxes and pay down the debt. Clearly, because I have cited one case (and I didn't have to go to Eastern Europe to do it) it must be the case that I'm totally right. -- My point was always that your argument was complete crap: tax cuts for the super wealthy don't work (do a smidgen of research). Because companies pay money for CEOs they must be worth what they are paid. This is actually correct, however, it doesn't hold that. If they are therefore paid less, they will be worth less. Absolutely not. Imagine if a group of people are bidding on a million dollars. You offer $10,000, they offer 20k, you counter with 25k. Certainly, because of the stakes, paying an extremely large amount of money is going to be worthwhile. Now, imagine I place a tax rate on your bidding. And whatever you end up paying, half of it is going to be given to the government. Has anything changed? No. You are still bidding on something worth your while and you're still going to bid whatever you bid. However, paying 100k and having half taken by the government. Isn't going to make the resulting million dollar prize suddenly be worth half a million dollars. This is an extremely critical difference between wages and bidding. The reason for the crazy multi-million dollar CEO pay, is that it's a result of a bidding war not because it's the result of somebody actually doing millions of dollars worth of work. You make fairly silly comments throughout like, "You don't think all taxes are passed on to another person? When a company makes less money, it cuts itself down." as if the buck never stops. There's never a point where raising the price of your widgets is going to make you profit less. If you tax the rich, the results are going to be passed right down the line to the poor, increasing the price of everything. If you give the rich a massive tax cut, everything will be cheaper and the poor will prosper. No matter how much tax anybody they just hand the taxes off to somebody else. It clearly can't ever just cut into the profits the company posts because no company ever makes profits, it's always reinvested into the company. Or because the Carter years added 400 billion to the national debt that clearly Reagan "inherited" this deficit when he tripled the national debt by adding about 2 trillion dollars to it. But, to say that Carter "inherited" the deficit from Nixon-Ford's 800 billion, would just be silly. In fact, the only person who didn't "inherit" a deficit was Bush Jr. who promptly cut the taxes on the super wealthy and helped move us from financial stability to financial collapse. Sorry to be so underwhelmed, but your arguments have all been seriously bad. Your inability to understand this, doesn't negate it. I suppose I should go back to arguing with creationists who can't understand evolution. At least when their arguments are this bad they aren't boring while making them. Progressive taxes tax people at different rates based on their income. The super-rich can stand to pay a bit more, as a result the middle class gets significantly less tax burden and they drive the economy. Giving massive tax cuts to the super-rich doesn't help anything and is going to demand a tax increase on the middle class. Magical fairy powered economic booms are not going to magic new tax revenues into existence because it happened this one time in Russia during the 1990s. It happened in the US too and our taxes went up. Thank you for reading, oy.