Flat Tax

1. To begin, Con says it's not fair that some people have more wealth than others. Inequality is part of nature. Some people are better looking than others. Some people have inferior genetics and are more prone to illness and disease than others. Some people work harder and seize particular opportunities while others don't. Some have better/worse luck. Some have particular skills or strengths that others lack. Whatever the case may be, just because inequality exists does not mean something is inherently unfair. Further, Con says that society is responsible for paying for the whims of the masses (he says government's function changes over time). This ignores my argument about responsibility. In the last round, I explained that just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they should be forced to pay for something. It is not our inherent responsibility to pay for things other people demand. Just because I can afford to buy my neighbor dinner, doesn't mean neighbor nor anyone else should demand that I do so even if I have more money than him. In a vague response, Con explains people can make those demands of others (to foot the bill upon request) because they enjoy the privileges of their wealth, which should not come at the expense of other people's survival. Of course tax payers are expected to pay for a lot more than bare minimum survival of American citizens but I digress. This is Con's opinion presented in the form of a bare assertion. Again, inequality is part of nature. Consider a town where everyone starts out as equals, but part of it floods. Half the town loses their homes and property. The people whose homes did not get hit will now be wealthier than the other half, even though we initially accounted for equality. Or consider one of the homes who has a gambling father who gambles away the home; now a family is homeless and the kids have less opportunities than their neighbors. Yes, wealth inequality and opportunities will happen, but they are not automatically immoral. What IS immoral is punishing people for success. In the last round, part of point #1 was that the progressive tax rate penalizes people for productivity. I gave an example with specific wages that outlined how getting a raise might turn out to be a negative thing under a progressive tax system because of how it's structured. My opponent dropped this argument. 2. My opponent has also dropped point #2 which is fine. 3. Con says tax advisers are not necessary because taxes are easy enough, but simultaneously exists that they can help people save money (indicating people need to put effort or knowledge into getting the best deal). This stands contrary to my argument about efficiency and simplicity under a flat tax. Con says that we should simply hope people stop committing tax fraud and lying rather than making the process transparent. However Con doesn't explain why. I've argued that transparency minimizes fraud and encourages honesty (more about that in a later point). Even accounting for less fraud, Con did not respond to the point about a flat tax being the simplest option; he merely says taxes should be easy enough for most people. 4. Again, East says that politicians should simply be held to a higher standard and expected to be honest rather than encourage policies that promote the highest chance of accountability. I'm arguing that the nature of politics makes it so that checks and balances is mandatory to achieve the best, most honest and fair results, and a flat tax makes honesty easy to account for. 5. Con writes, "A flat tax rate would only benefit those wealthy enough to invest and expand in the first place. This does not do anything for the lower and middle class who rely on the top earners to contribute their 'fair share." This perspective ignores several things. First, I've explained how the flat tax would allow for immediate investment and growth. This means the middle class would expand and their median earnings increase. Second, I've advocated for significant tax cuts, which should eliminate a lot of the burden for the middle (and lower) class. Third, the flat tax is still somewhat progressive in nature. When you tax everyone at the same rate, the rich pay much more in taxes than the middle class and the poor. With three times the income, you pay three times the tax, and so on. This accounts for Con's "fair share" argument - the rich are still paying a lot more. 6. Also consider my point about the rich still paying more in taxes due to more spending and more frequent spending. Con says he's unsure how this can compensate for the flat tax proposal. First, economists would have to figure out a budget with fair percentage. Like I said, between 15-20% seems to be the standard proposed flat tax rate [1]. Further reduced spending should alleviate some of the burden. 7. Con says we have "no reason to believe" people would behave more honestly with a fair tax, except we do - because in the last round I included a cited source with an explanation detailing comparative studies. With lower tax rates, the rich were more likely to be accountable for their "fair share" of taxes as I outlined in the previous round [2]. Con cannot say we have "no reason to believe" something when the reason is evidence of the comparison in practice. 8. Point #8 is about whether or not people who have money have a social responsibility to foot the bill. Extend previous arguments, and moreover consider that the rich still foot the majority of the bill under a flat tax. 9. My opponent dismisses the importance of this point. I've argued that immediate tax cuts would give the wealthy the opportunity and incentive to invest in ventures that could result in the benefit of society - not only in job creation, but say in areas of pharmaceuticals, science, robotics, engineering and other endeavors that require financing. Con says rich people have the incentive to invest in these measures regardless. While that might be true, tax cuts give people access to immediate cash for investment and not just a future possibility/hope of investment. 10. Con says that the lower class simply cannot afford to pay 15-20% of their wages in taxes. However with reduced spending and more accountability, that is not necessarily the case. 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. 11. My opponent writes that just because the majority of people want something does not mean it's for the best. While I would agree, this country is a democratic republic. Voters elect politicians to represent them and their interests. When voters disagree, there is political gridlock and nothing is accomplished. When voters and politicians can agree on policy, it is probably better than when less or no people can agree. Con has not denied the significance of such a great number of people on both sides of the aisle agreeing on this particular issue; he's simply ignored it which is telling. 12. My opponent says he also concedes point #12 and that's fine. 13. In conclusion, Con repeats the alleged burden the flat tax would place on the middle class. In referring to point #10 along with consideration of aforementioned points, a flat tax provides a definitive opportunity for incredible growth. This would allow the middle class to grow and expand, so it cannot be compared to the middle class of today which is disappearing and struggling. More jobs, opportunity and growth would help the middle class thrive under a flat tax. Further less frivolous spending and more accountability for our tax dollars would alleviate the burden for tax payers. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://money.cnn.com...