Flat Tax

"you have yet to explain why the definition of rich v poor is relevant. we're takling about the issues fine enough without definiing it, aren't we?" Because we are talking about making tax equal between the rich and the poor. With a progressive tax system, you tax based on a person's wealth. This debate is largely about the rich and the poor. Its about people of all wealth.My opponent believes the issue that I am "reluctant" to say what we should tax and at what bracket, but all I am debating is that a flat tax is good, not at what bracket or what, mainly because there are many different possible forms of a flat tax. Never in round 1 did I say we wold be debating over a certain bracket. I am using a 10% income tax as a mere example.My opponent believes that cutting spending is not a triumph of the flat tax, but the whole reason spending would be cut is because of the flat tax in the first place. If you raise taxes you can raise spending, which is triumph of raising tax. If you cut taxes you can cut spending, which is a triumph of lowering tax. Also, just because you have a flat tax in place does not meant you need to lower spending if it is enough to generate a surplus. A low flat tax would be able to cause low spending. My opponent needs to realize that what taxes you make allows you to spend, so taxes directly effects government spending."you say the flat tax would create economic increases. but how exactly? you can't just cite a source and not explain the details."Actually you can. The source has the details in it. If were to waste time typing up everything on how the flat tax creates wealth I might run out of characters. My opponent seems to live in this weird world where the only way the economy can do well is based on government spending. Yet the United States itself has had heavy spending before with record defecits and we can be in a time of economic properity.Also, demand might lower for some items, but in fact demand would increase because people would have more money to spend for other items that they might had not been able to buy before this (more cars, houses, food, a pet, furniture, etc.). They can also save and invest more, thus creating economic growth."you argue against the flat fee because we won't be able to support our spending with cuts like that. but, i could make the same argument with progressive taxes... we won't be able to support spending now if we cut taxes for everyone to a flat tax lower than the highest bracket."That is why you cut taxes before setting up the flat tax.You believe that anyone you cannot pay a flat fee of $10,000 should be exempt, but what about people barely making over that? If you have a household making $15,000 and they have to pay a flat fee of $10,000 as taxes then they will probably end up homeless. With a flat tax of 10% income you eliminate that problem for not just the ones barely oer $10,000 but also the ones under it. If you are right on the line paying $10,000 and you have to pay 10% in a personal income tax, then you just give the government $1,000. I don't think I have to give reason principles of why Bob pays $10,000 and John pays $20 because if you make everyone pay the same fee then you will have a huge revenue problem. The principle of a flat tax is to keep everyone at the same marginal rate which is fair. If you have more money yo should obviously pay more, but not excessively like a progressive tax system does."as to econ stimulation, you seem to like things that help the rich..... gates will surely invest more if he doesn't have to deal with the arguable inequialities of a flat tax, and pays a flat fee instead. course, this isn't optimal econ stimulation... but given it is in your book, you should be at elast admitting the benefits of getting gates' taxes as low as possible, including flat fees if necessary."With a low flat tax EVERYONE can invest more because they have to ability to. The poor and middle class also invest in things as well and more would be able to with a low flat tax. Its not just fort the rich, it is for everyone."as to the progressive nature of flat taxes on those who make more... that's not enough. obviously you and i both agree at a base level that john should pay ten dollars and bob should pay twenty if they were taxed at the same rate. the only difference between me and you though, is that i actually factor in redistribution some... and that translates into more than however you justify a flat tax, thus, a progressive tax results if i take your reasoning and add mine." If you tax people more then you there will be less economic growth and people maybe more poor. You can just cut the size of social programs and keep them. You can still have money going into social programs. That is why there is no redistribution tax as my opponent thinks there needs to be. Money that you want to redistribute obviously can be in the form of an income tax. You don't need a special redistribution tax. Otherwise, that will cause the IRS to grow with more paper work which is not what a flat tax is meant to acheive. ConclusionFirst off, my opponent broke the code of conduct because round 1 was just for acceptance. Instead he created a whole argument. I have had sources and my opponent has had none. I have proven that a flat tax is fair because everyone pays the same rate and that a flat fee tax is wrong because it is way to low. I have proven that you can still redistribute and have social programs with a flat tax. I have proven a flat tax creates economic growth because people can spend more and save more. I have proven a flat tax is simple. I have won this debate.