Flat Tax

"my opponent has not explained why defining rich or poor is relevant. we seem to be talking about this stuff just fine without it... they are relative terms, and the details do not matter for the essence of the debate."We wouldn't even be talking about this had you not made the opening arguments. The reason why "rich" is so hard to define is because many people have different terms for what they see as rich. It can be the top 1% for them, or the top 5%, or the top 10%, and so on. There might be people who even think the top 99% is the rich and the poor are the bottom 1% who have the most poverty. My argument was that we should tax everyone at the same rate and your argument is that the rich should pay more, but you have not defined to me your tax system or what you see as the rich."perhaps they use police less, the rich. but i stand by the other examples. as far as the military, as i said, they represent more that needs defended.... they are a certain percent of the nation's wealth etc, and they should pay more for it. also, the rich should pay more cause they take more natural resources etc from the earth."Remember that the military's job is to protect the United States. It does not discriminate anyone, it protects all Americans. There are less wealthy to protect than people in poverty. They are not defined by wealth, but by the fact that they are American citizens. My opponent then says that the rich pay more because they take up more resources than the earth, but he has not sources to prove this. Also, everything costs money and some states have a sales tax so they do pay more. "obviously we'd have to make some rules for those who don't. but why do you say it's fairer that mitt romney pay 30 million per year while bill gates pays 300 million, if both were taxed at a flat tax as you propose?"Because everyone is being taxed at the same rate and a flat fee sounds stupid. If everyone was payed a fee then we would lose tremendous finances for the government. Also, there are not many people who can pay a flat fee of $10,000 a year. Over 70 million Americans make $25,000 a year [1]. That sounds like much, but not when you have to pay a flat fee to the government of $10,000. I gets rid of a lot of their money and leaves them with just $15,000 a year for essential things and bills. Around 8,000,000 households make less than $10,000. Around 6,000,000 make $10,000 to $14,999 a year and you are tremendously eliminating their income with the flat fee. It would still be bad for the 13,000,000 households that make $15,000 to $24,999 a year and it would probably be bad for another 13,000,000 households that make $25,000 to $34,999 a year [1].Already, my opponent's flat fee plan of $10,000 a year would damage some 40,000,000 households. "the essense of why i think it should be progrsesive tax is because of the redistrubution problem. and that the rich should be more responsible for it."The rich do pay more under a flat tax. They pay an equal rate, but because the rich own more, they pay more in a percentage. If the flat tax is 10% personal income, then someone with $100 will pay $10 to the government and keep the rest. Someone with $1,000,000 would pay $100,000. So the rich do pay more under a flat tax. A progressive tax like the one Con supports would make the rich pay even more causing them to spend less time saving and investing to stimulate the economy. This system is also discriminatory towards someone how works hard and earns more money."so that man with a thousand trees gets a thousand more trees... does that mean the poor man collecting rubble got anything?"Yes, more rubble, because that is what he is collecting. Also, in the most recent decades that poor have been getting richer at a faster rate. In 1975, the average salary for the bottom 20% increased over $27,000 by 1991, while the salary in that time period for the top 20% increased by over $4,000. This is continuing in the 2000s and 2010s. No worries my friend! The rich are getting richer, but the poor are to and at a faster rate [2]! A Flat Tax Creats Economic GrowthMy opponent has not challengedInstant Wealth CreationMy opponent argues that this will only benefit the rich, yet he has no proof. To back him up. I on the other hand placed a source. Remember that if it were just a 10% a flat tax, someone making $100 would only have to give $10 to the government. That is low and they get to keep $90. I did explain how income producing assets rise in value which is because the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream that they generate. This allows society to benefit from more investment in housing. Furthermore, Russia and the Baltic States are perfect examples as they all have flat tax systems and hold significant economic results [3,4].SimplicityMy opponent agrees that it would reduce costs and make the tax system simpler. I have won this.FairnessThe reason it is a fair is because one equal rate. It makes equality.CorruptionMy opponent has decided to go with the general sentiment I gave. I have won this area.1. http://www.mybudget360.com...2. http://www.ajc.com...3. http://www.heritage.org...4. http://harvardmagazine.com...