Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

Well I think I've just about wrapped up the debate at this point. it is clear Pro doesn't actually have any experience debating, and probably meant arguing with their friends about football teams, because it is clear there is no real debate experience here. The majority of my arguments went unchallenged, and those you did attempt to address were not particularly convincing, as I will prove shortly. I will however, actually concede the point about conflict of interest. I think you're right, and that was a bad argument to make on my part, since everyone stands to make individual gains on tax policy. (Although it's important to note that what Forbes stands to gain from a flat tax is many orders of magnitude larger than what any poor person could expect to receive). But it doesn't matter, because the conflict of interest wasn't a central point in my argument. You say that the rich get richer, the better the economy gets. Please drop this supply side economics, it didn't work when Reagan tried it, and it won't work now. I wrote an entire paragraph detailing the economic theory behind demand side economics, and you did not address a single word of it, other than saying "it won't work in reality", which you have yet to provide any justification for asserting. This is what makes it clear that you are a complete novice in debate. You simply assert things as if they were fact, then you don't even attempt to provide any justification, logical or experimental, to prove your point. You have yet to come to understand the importance of verification and proofs, which is likely why you still hold the position you do. But I digress. Your next point was in reference to the IRS. Not everyone hates the IRS. In fact, those who understand the function and purpose of the IRS know that they have nothing to do with the tax code. That is not decided by them. If you hate the tax code, and you want to abolish the IRS as a result, you have completely missed the whole point. The IRS exists for the purpose of enforcing the tax code. If you abolish the tax code, you will have no more capability to do that. You say it will be easy to look at a name of a US citizen, and file it. Where do you think the government will be looking for that information, exactly? Where do you think this information is stored, who will gather this information, and who will even be looking for it? The answer to all of these questions is the IRS. There is a reason it exists, and that is to carry out the necessary job of enforcing the tax code. It doesn't just exist for fun. You say you will create an office in the treasury department in charge of taxes. Congratulations, you have just created the new IRS. As I have already addressed, simply stating that my theory is good but "wrong in reality" is not a sufficient argument. That is an assertion, and I would like to know the justification behind it, but since you have provided none, I will assume that there likely is none, and hopefully the voters will see this as well. I don't understand what you mean by "stop using Bernie's plan with things today. " Are you suggesting that I stop using real world examples? That is rather the point behind all of this. You're the one who keeps saying things won't work in theory, so I'm putting theory into real life concrete examples, yet you say that is pointless. I simply don't understand how you can say that, contextualizing Bernie's tax on the rich is very important. You say that the UK tried to implement a tax code of 50 percent and it didn't work. I looked it up and it checks out, when they went to 45%, they actually showed an increase in tax revenue, because they had people stop trying to hide their funds and use loopholes. And that's the whole point. The reason that a higher tax rate won't work there is because their tax code is riddled with loopholes, and it is too easy for people to hide their money from the Exchequer, which is (over-simplified) the British version of the IRS. That is why Bernie proposes to close loopholes in the tax code in conjunction with his tax plan so people won't be able to skip out on paying their taxes. We do need all jobs for America to succeed. I don't mean contribute in the literal sense. I mean that if you are trying to reward someone for their actual work and effort put in, which is what you said you wanted, it would make more sense to reward the people who literally work harder, which is lower wage workers. You say that you don't think the rich deserve tax breaks but you fail to realize that transitioning to a flat tax would be a ridiculously large tax break for the upper class. we're talking about 20-30 percent of their income in additional funds if we transition to 10% tax rate, because it would decrease from the 40(ish) percent that it is right now. For people earning millions a year, that is an enormous tax break. I think I've addressed all of Pro's points that are worth addressing. Pro failed to address the large majority of my arguments, and the ones they attempted to rebut were lacking in any coherence or internal logical consistency.