Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

My opponent ends the back half of Round 3, bringing up the portions of my writing in which I state I agree with certain parts of his arguments. He says he believes we are close to agreeing. I would like to say that I am nowhere near agreeing with him on flat taxation. The areas where I agree are the areas where he talks about what would happen to the rich if they were to receive tax cuts. There is a major difference between that and flat tax, mainly the tax hike we would see for the poor. Which is what my opponent touches on next: my problem with the probability of the poor being too harshly taxed under flat tax. He counters this idea with his own, that a flat tax would generate economic growth. As I have already stated, I don't dispute the fact that there will be more jobs, but they will not be of very good quality to those working them, because of their new, higher tax rate that comes as the bad part of the flat tax. Creating jobs is not the only way to determine economic success. The quality of the jobs, and how well they provide for those working them, is a big factor. He also makes mention of a 10% flat tax rate. Firstly, this would not be feasible a way to acquire funds for our government. Under our current system which provides funds to our government, there is only one income bracket that is taxed at 10%, and that's the lowest income bracket[1]. To reduce government funding like that would be like giving a pack-a-day smoker only one cigarette. It's asking for trouble. I'm not a fan of our government's extravagant spending, but to bring it down that low is an unreasonable way to try to fix that problem. Something else to note is the furthering of the gap that would occur between the rich and the poor if a 10% tax were given to all of them. My opponent then goes on to talk about the benefit of the large job growth that could occur. These jobs however would be degraded because of the new, higher tax that would be placed on their income. The other important thing to note is that while many jobs would be created, even more pre-existing lower income jobs would be degraded by the tax hike on the poor. He also disagrees with me on the idea of tax revenue, saying that adding jobs will cover the tax cuts given to the wealthy. I have already explained my reason for why this could not work: the bottom half of lower income jobs cannot make up for the upper half of well-paying jobs. But this obviously didn't change Pro's mind, so repeating it won't change his mind or anybody else's who is Pro, so I'll say this instead: Let's pretend Pro is right. The shifted taxes will still be able to provide for the government. It still doesn't justify the harsh taxation that the poor (refer to my Round 2 arguments) would receive. This gets back to the argument I provided in Rebuttal 1 of Round 3. Next my opponent says he advocates the flat tax being as low as possible. I've already stated that dropping it down to 10% wouldn't be feasible, so I won't repeat myself too much there. My opponent finishes off by stating many countries have adopted the flat tax. To that I would say this: every country has different economic situations. Their 'classes' may be in better shape compared to ours. Their progressive tax system's tax rates may have already been closer together in regards to lowest and highest tax rate prior to their adoption of the flat tax. Due to the fact that every country is different in many, many small ways, and often in a few big ways, we cannot say that we should get involved in flat tax, simply because other countries are. Closing Statement: There are positives to the flat tax that can be had without the flat tax. If I was to propose taxation reform, it would be tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich, done reasonably, provide more jobs to people. However taxing the poor more than usual on their new-found jobs' incomes mitigates the effect of this, and it should be avoided for the economic prosperity of our nation. America has never collected a flat tax[2], and we have persevered through thick and thin. It is natural to look for quick and easy fixes during times of economic discomfort, but our progressive tax rates have gotten us through. I return to the idea I started with: The more you have of something, the less valuable it becomes. Conversely, the less you have of something, the more valuable it becomes. If that is the case, and it is (look at inflation), then the flat tax is taking things of more value from the poor, and taking things of lesser value from the rich. Note To My Opponent: Great debate! This is my first debate that I've actually been able to finish fully. So thank you for your prompt responses and engaging arguments. Sources: [1] http://www.moneychimp.com... [2] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...