Flat Tax

Many thanks to my opponent, East, for engaging with me in this debate. I hope this has been a welcomed introduction to DDO. With that said, keep in mind that my opponent can not make any new arguments in the last round, as I will not have a chance to respond. Here is my closing statement…1. The progressive tax does in fact punish people for success. I've explained this in the previous rounds. Higher income means higher tax rates, and often the tax bracket is structured to penalize people who move up in income to the point where a raise actually penalizes them and leaves them walking away with less money. Con has responded that employers should "try to avoid this" but that is not a legal solution. Employers should probably do a lot of things that they do not because they are not required to. A flat tax should be adopted to encourage fairness. It is no extra burden to the employer, and encourages due reward for employees. 2. As a reminder, my second point was about how corporations can avoid spending millions of dollars on accountants and lobbyists trying to find ways to beat the tax code if a fair tax were adopted. This would leave more time, money and energy to devote to the company's success and their shareholder's reward. Considering many people in the middle class are shareholders, this is a good deal. Con has repeatedly dropped/conceded this argument, so I just wanted to include a reminder for consideration in the closing. 3. Third, Con says the IRS should "make the tax code as simple as possible" but keep it progressive. This ignores my argument that the progressive tax system is hard to be kept simple, which Con has not denied. He acknowledged that many people can and probably should hire accountants to help them figure out how to get the best deal on their taxes, rather than assume everyone has the same easy standard to abide by. Con cannot deny that a progressive system allows not only for mistakes but fraud and corruption. Because of the confusing nature, sometimes fraud can be covered up as a "mistake." A flat tax is simply an easier solution that helps deter both fraud and error. This could wind up saving or generating millions in tax revenue. 4. Similarly, Con says politicians need to be kept in check regarding corruption related to tax fraud. However that is not a reasonable response and certainly offers no solution to the issue. Politicians are in bed with corporations particularly when it comes to the issue of taxes [1] and tax subsidies [2]. Eliminating the potential for easier corruption gives citizens peace of mind, and fosters better incentives for governing. Con has offered no solution and simply repeats "crooked politicians should be held accountable." Yes, they should, but a flat tax discourages crooked politicking in the first place which Con has ignored.5. My opponent cannot deny the rich still pay more under a flat tax, but suggests "not enough more." I'm not sure if he's referring to either logistical numbers, or in terms of moral obligation. In regard to the numbers, I've explained about the need for tax reform and less spending. Working with a stricter budget where it is harder for politicians to embezzle tax money will encourage better financial decisions. 6. On that same token, the issue of our alleged social responsibility once again comes into play. Refer to point #8. 7. Con repeats, "We should push for honesty, transparency and accountability under a progressive tax. There is no need to eliminate this idea just because some people are incentivized to cheat or scam the system." As I've explained, a flat tax is simply the easiest and most transparent method of taxation. It is almost impossible to mess up or cheat because it can be so easily measured. If Con acknowledges that the rich still foot most of the bill (and if economists can figure out an equal ratio tax percentage to sustain the funding we need) it should not be an issue.8. The issue that does arise is mostly one of social responsibility. Con suggests that even though the rich pay for most of the services even under a flat tax, a progressive tax is more fair because rich people should simply pay for the VAST majority of taxes. This ignores virtually all of my points from previous rounds about the tyrannical use of government force, and tyranny of the democratic majority making demands against those with more money. Just because someone can afford to pay for something doesn't mean they should have to. Con has dropped this argument and my example. To repeat, yes I can afford to buy my neighbor dinner. I probably have more money than my neighbor. However my neighbor nor anyone else should be able to demand through force that I buy my neighbor dinner just because I can afford to do so and have more money than him. Again, Con has dropped this analogy and it's too late for him to respond. What Con did note was that "[a progressive tax] allows for the advancement of ideas and opportunity for more people to be productive and contribute to the world in a positive way, rather than just struggle to get by." This suggests that only rich people can contribute to the world in a positive way which is not true. The best art and innovation is born from struggle. People in low-income tax brackets are still afforded opportunities through tax funded programs such as access to education, health care, etc. Con is appealing to emotion and guilt in arguing only a progressive tax system yields opportunity. However this is a misguided assumption considering a flat tax would still fund government programs that are available today. 9. Con writes, "Pro says she values things like innovation and yet does not want to take measures to ensure more people have opportunities to be useful and creative." Extend my previous argument about a flat tax still affording similar opportunities. Furthermore extend my previous point about how a flat tax would free up immediate cash for the capital class to invest more in new research, technology and job creation. This is beneficial to the middle and lower class.10. Con notes "Pro cannot deny that a flat tax would burden the middle and lower class. If they are not exceeding now without it, then when they are expected to pay more in taxes they will clearly be doing worse off than they are now, no matter what." Once again, with reduced spending and more accountability, that is not necessarily the case if we can minimize tax expenses. Given access to social programs, social services, tax refunds, rebates and more opportunities that a flat tax would yield, we have no reason to assume the poor would not be able to survive. We should assume they would be better off given the market enhancements and job opportunities among other growth. While Con wants us to think about how the lower classes would be paying more taxes, he ignores that they would also be likely to earn more money and move their way up in class. This is similar to the growth of the American economy in the 1980s when investors were able to expand, do research and create jobs [3]. While Con is correct that the lower and middle class cannot currently afford to pay more, that is not necessarily the case and probably would not be the case if the market boomed thanks to a flat tax rate. 11. My opponent concedes that a majority of people want the flat tax, but says a majority of people do not understand how it works and how it would affect them. Whether or not that's true does not change the American political process, how politicians get elected, and how laws are enacted. Widespread bipartisan support for this cause is significant in terms of political progress. It is reasonable to assume most people want to adopt this policy because it helps most individuals and the American economy as a whole. Con suggests that the public is simply uninformed on this issue, but we have no reason to assume so many citizens are clueless. In fact the arguments for a flat tax are so reasonable that it simply makes sense to most people. 12. On that note, my opponent had also forfeited point #12 in my favor. To repeat the claim, I mentioned that the flat tax removes the section of the tax code that is biased against the formation of capital. It eliminates the death tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of savings and dividends. Con acknowledges this but doesn't think it's relevant. 13. In conclusion, Con states "While more jobs might be available to the middle class, if they are taxed at higher rates then it doesn't translate to more wealth. They could break out even or even still wind up with less, depending on their end income and the tax rate." This goes along with my argument from point #10. Even if the middle class wound up breaking even or even paying more, it does not negate my previous arguments on social responsibility and equality. Once again, nature does not create everyone equally or born into equal circumstances. We might all have equal value in terms of human life, but not assets. Just because some people might struggle more than others is not an inherently immoral even if it is unfortunate. Conclusion In this debate, I've proven that a flat tax offers simplicity, fairness and opportunities for significant and immediate growth. It would put an end to cronyism and political favoritism in politics, minimizing corruption and fostering integrity among politicians. The rich would still pay the majority of taxes, yet have the opportunity for freed up wealth to invest in research, technology and job creation. This would benefit society (and the market) as a whole, which is why the majority of Americans support this policy. [1] http://pointsandfigures.com...[2] http://humanevents.com...[3] http://www.heritage.org...