In terms of quality of life, a flat tax places an unfair, substantially heavier burden on the poor.

Challenge Accepted.My opponent's claim runs thus: Flat tax is a substantial factor in burdening the life quality of the poor.I argue this claim false. Flat tax is not as substantial in its affect on the poor's quality of life as my opponent makes it out be.I will base this statement off of the following premises:1. Substantial - considerable in quantity : significantly great [1]. Part of my argumentation will be based on this word and its definition. What does my opponent mean when he asserts: "'substantially heavier' burden on the poor"? I will argue through mathematical, logical and theoretical means to deny the veracity of this statement.2. Calculations based on proportions aside, the actual amount of taxes paid by the wealthier is fair: They pay obviously more. I see no reason to ignore this.3. The quality of human life is determined, to a larger degree, by factors beside money, therefore, a flat tax does not generally place an 'unfair, substantially heavier burden' on the poor.Premise IThe definition of substantial means to large degree. At what point does a number or proportion cross into the territory of substantial?Let's do math:I will now regurgitate opponent's mathematical comparisons, but with a few changes. First, I will use several standards of comparison. THe greater the number of 'trials', the more accurate the data.Taxes:Poor Person: 20% of 30k = 6K in taxesPoor Person: 20% of 50K = 10K in taxesRich Person: 20% of 150k = 30K in taxesRich Person: 20% of 250k = 50K in taxesRich Person: 20% of 1000K = 200K in taxesRich Person: 20% of 1,000,000K = 200,000K in taxesNet Income:Poor Person: 30k - 6K = 24kPoor Person: 50K - 10K = 40KRich Person: 150K - 30K = 120KRich Person: 250K - 50K = 200KRich Person: 1000K - 200K = 800KRich Person: 1,000,000K - 200,000K = 800,000KThe rich pay a value that is numerically higher than the poor. This numerical value, when into proportions, tanges from 300% to a whopping 3,333%!! The income rate, whilte simultaneously higher, is arguably proportional to the amount paid. Doesn't this seem fair? The richest person is paying enough to cover the poorest person's annual income for several lifetimes. You want this person, who is already paying 3000x the other, to pay even more? Let me make a hypothetical anecdote to help better understand this unfairness:An owner of a gold shop owns a mountain of gold nuggets. An person comes in and takes a chunk, claiming the owner is morally obligated to share since she has so much gold. Is this fair? I own that the gold shop owner has rights to the basic freedom of property ownership. It doesn't matter how much she has, no one else has a right to take it unless given permission. The fact that she has a greater amount of luxury spending doesn't mean she no longer has property rights. My opponent seems to be implying that the wealthier you are, the less rights you should have. Flat taxes are fair. To increase the tax is to contend against the rights to equality.For the luxury spending charts, I will follow opponent's assumption that the minimum cost of living is the same for all economic categories of people (even though this varies region to region).Luxury Spending (after minimum cost of living):Poor Person: 24K - 20K = 4KPoor Person: 40K - 20K = 20KRich Person: 120K - 20K = 100KRich Person: 200K - 20K = 180KRich Person: 800K - 20K = 780KRich Person: 800,000K - 20K = 799,980KWhat do these numbers portend? The numerical/proportional difference is astronomical, but it is, in terms of luxury spending, none. I think my opponent would agree that there is only so much material wealth any individual can hold. The annual billion dollars vs. the annual million dollars will bring both wage earners a potential for a luxuriant life. Furthermore, there are many other outlets of spending that the wealthy go to other than luxury. This includes funding for campaigns, charities, investments, etc.Consider that most of a wealthy person's 'luxury spending' is placed in investments that aid in company's growth, not luxury. This investment is then put into the pockets of employees (including the poor person in your example) and capital purchase, which puts money into the pockets of those who sell/produce/maunfacture the capital. Instead of converting the money into taxes (and giving it to the government to spend on the retirement/pensions/medical aid of the baby boomers :|...) If this is where much of the free money goes, wouldn't allowing the wealthy more free money be more beneficial to the poor? Unlike progressive taxes, flat taxes allows for this very 'trickle-down' of money. The less you have in the start, the less you'll have in the beginning.A person's quality of life determines happiness. It is one of the main factors inWhat determines a person's quality of life? Are material comforts sufficient in being the standard by which we judge a person's quality of life? Many say yes. Many say no.Abraham Lincoln said:“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”Meaning no matter what your living standards are, your quality of life, or your happiness, is based on a subjective personal judgment. Allow me to move into some philophical musings:If we, as people, were to have all our work/life obligations removed, what are we to do then? You will, eventually, tire of spending, tire of luxury. Forgive me for using a personal anecdote. I remember one summer during my childhood in which I had no need to worry about any life concern: I could eat whatever I wanted (within budget), sleep whenever I wanted, go wherever I liked (I commuted to other cities), etc. Life was great for the first several days, but I eventually found myself in a predicament: I had nothing to do. I was given time to do anything, everything my small mind could contrive, and there was nothing I could think of doing besides eating, sleeping, running around, watching old cartoons.. I was bored. The hours melted away as time began to slip from my grasps. I began to forget the dates. Soon after, I forgot what day of the week it was, when was lunch? When was dinner? Who cares? I was pitted into a timeless torture, of eternity, of nothingness. My mind was melting as I desperately sought a purpose, a drive, anything to prompt me to continue this meaningless existence. In short, I was suffering and began to contemplate death [is this unusual?]. I had all the money a child could want, all the entertainment, all the food, all the freedom and yet, I was extremely unhappy. The quality of my life during that span of time can be explained in one word: horrid.My experience, however, is not unique. Samuell Beckett, in his renowned,Waiting for Godot, writes of two characters in a perpetual wait for a purpose. The unending wait and their unhappiness prompts them to go as far as consider suicide. Even the wealthy character in the story ends an unhappy, blind man. Tom Stoppard, in his work (also rife with existentialism), Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead also exhibits two unhappy characters who, despite their newfound wealth, find their lives to have no purpose or happiness (leading to their ultimately deciding to go to their deaths). There are many such works which means that the idea I've developed has a basis of support. My contention, flat taxes do not substantially affect quality of life (measured by happiness), stands.I. There is no reason to:1. limit the determination of quality of life to economic/material wealth2. limit the comparison of taxes to proportions based on available luxury spending, thereby forcing the conclusion of numerical unfairness.II. The degree by which luxury spending (or lack thereof due to taxes) only places a minimally weighted burden on the poor. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...