Flat Tax

it's relevant how much we tax each group of people how much when we're deciding the actual amounts to tax... yes. but for the purposes of the debate, whether we should have progressive taxes or not... it's not relevant. and we're talking about this issue just fine without me defining it. this is starting to be a broken record thing. and you have yet to say why it's relevant to the discussion at hand. pro says "Never in round 1 did I say we wold be debating over a certain bracket." when i confront his lack of definition but insists i can't say the same thing. instead of taking his own advice, he uses my argument and insists it is irrelvant that he define what tax level we use. in many ways it is like my argument and not really relevant as we can still talk about flat tax or not at more abstract elevls.... but it's definitely more relevant than the progressive tax level as flat taxes are what we are talking about. flat taxes don't cause spending cuts. we can have a level of flat that that would be revenue neutral to our current spending levels. spending levels are cut because we decide we want less spending. that means less spending can only be a triumph of spending cuts. flat taxes are incidental to our spending, only. flat taxes dont cause it. actually you can't just cite that source. it doesn't explain how the economic increase would come. also, you with the BOP should be able to articulate the mechanics of how this occurs. "If were to waste time typing up everything on how the flat tax creates wealth I might run out of characters." this is an excuse. i gave plenty of ways it might be said to cause econ increase. they were all flawed to true econ increase, but i was able to do it in a few sentences. we're talking about the gist and prime examples, not every possible example. "My opponent seems to live in this weird world where the only way the economy can do well is based on government spending." i never even hinted at that. this is just you stereotyping me and making strawman arguments. to be sure, there's economic value to gov spending too, but i never claimed it. sure demand would be higher if we cut spending. i only said demand would not be as high if we raised lower income brackets to make up for if we lowered higher income brackets. "If you have more money yo should obviously pay more, but not excessively like a progressive tax system does." you haven't gievn a principled reason why this should be so, though. perhaps we can have a flat tax for labor income, and a flat fee for higher incomes? there's no reason gates should pay more than romney. well, i think there is... but you've yet to articualte a reason beyond it's obvious or other systems are stupid etc. mere assertions. you say the tax is for "EVERYONE" but there's no reason rmney shoulld get preferential treatment over gates and pay less. you think there shouldn't be a redistirution tax. i think there should be. for whatever reason you think there should be a flat tax, we can be in agreement about on that level. you seem to think redisturtion shouldnt occur, but i do. so if i use your reasoning and add mine... it's the only way to do it. otherwise we're not being principled about how we tax people flat to begin with. ie how you would do it. sure we could use flat tax money to redistribute but then we're ignoring that folks like you dont want to redistirbute., and consider that the rich are more responsible for the poors lack... a prorassive tax should be there in addition to a flat base.