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. it'd be like me claiming that since you have not defined what percent we should tax everyone, that that suddenly makes a difference in the debate. 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. at the end of the day though, my points about using more resrouces etc is why i agree with you about the rich paying more, due to the fact they earn more and would be taxed more even if all were taxed at like 20%, a flat tax. i felt i needed to explain all that. how else would you personally say that we should have a flat tax, and not, say, a flat fee? say, everyone pays ten thousand dollars a year. 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? i don't know the actual figures, those are just for argument's sake. (i could pretend it matters that you didn't define the actual percent, but i'm not going there) one's a millionaire, the other a billionaire. 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. con merely says that the free market would create more wealth. so that man with a thousand trees gets a thousand more trees... does that mean the poor man collecting rubble got anything? not necessarily. if it's through no fault of his own, society owes him a way to get his leg up. if we tell him to pull himself up by his boot straps, we need to ensure he has bootstraps to pull himself up with, kind of thing. and even if we did something that was a boon to society and created a lot of wealth, perhaps even causing some poor to be eleveate in wealth.... that dosen't mean that all poor did, or that there won't be new poor who exist. as for con's arguments.... "instant wealth creation": -first think about what a flat tax would probably do. it'd probably decrease the most rich's taxes and increase the less rich. unless we tax everyone at the highest 30+ tax rate, that currently exists, that is. this means some will be richer, the rich, but others will not -also con didn't define how this would create new wealth. how would income producing assets rise in value? all i can deduce is something like, a landlord once was being taxed at thirty percent, and now it's twenty, and so he makes more money "Simplicity": i agree it would reduce costs. that's not debateable. a progressive tax system similar to exists now isn't all that complicated, though. the complications in our current system comes from all the technicalities... deductions, credits, different types of business organization taxes, capital gain type stuff, etc etc. "fairness" this is of course the most debateable. i'd reiterate all my points about why we should ahve a progressive tax system. also, con needs to show why it's more fair to tax romney thirty million and bill gates three hudnred million. instead of finding a fixed amount. or why John has to pay ten thousand and frank has to pay twenty, even when both are in the same social class... i'm sure frank could see much more 'fairness' in the flat amount system. "corruption" i'll go with this general sentiment that you gave. but pretty much reiterating most of my points from the "simplicity" response i gave