The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income.

This being my first debate, I am unfamiliar with a response via youtube medium, as I have not seen this done on any of the other debates I have read. I should clarify, although my initial term was "flat tax", you are correct that it was a misuse of the term, rather, I meant flat percentage. As you pointed out, that's not what the debate is about. As for my pro stance of implementing a flat percentage of taxes, there are many other things to consider outside of the box of simple tax. Deductions and exemptions being two. Those earners that earn 10K a year, which is highly uncommon mind you, would obviously fall under certain exemptions and have deductions to where it would be like they hardly pay any taxes at all. In fact, would like end up with a refund at the end of the year. That covers the argument of low earners. As for the avergage household in America, and everyone else I will use the figures from census.gov. The median household income in 2011 was around 50K, and the median income for a family and married household is 63K and 74K, respectively, with family households making a large percentage of the populace. For my example, I will use the median family household income of 63K. If the flat percentage tax were used, and after exemptions and deductions, this family's taxable income is like to be around 50K. 25% of 50K is 12.5K payed throughout the year. All this to show, they would actually be paying the same rate they pay now, considering 35K-71K is currently at a 25% rate. So, in essence, my proposal lowers taxes for those making more than 85K a year and raises taxes for those making less than 35K. Yes, this provides less revenue for the government and might disrupt a balance budget, which isn't currently balanced anyway, but my debate was whether they should implement the tax to be fair, not to balance the budget. Is it a factor? Of course, because the government has made it a factor. If they were spending within their limits it would be much less of a factor, if at all. During the last Persidential race, there were big debates on whether to use trickle down economics, in where you give your top earners more to work with, or to have them pay more, redestributing the wealth to lower income families. So if I may change directions somewhat, I suppose that was the real debate I was arriving to. Lower taxes for higher income people works better than redestributing the wealth by taking from them in the form of taxes and handing it back out to lower income families in the form of welfare programs or tax breaks. Let's see two examples, both of which could have countless scenarios given the human mind and other variables, but I'm just going to assume. First example is a person making 2.5M per year is hit with a tax increase. His prior rate was 35% and now is 40%. That means his taxes went up 125K. After taking this tax increase John Doe decides the only way to compensate for the loss is to cut 4 employees currently making approximately 31K a year. Those 4 employees must now apply for unemployment benefits paid for by the government, welfare benefits paid for by the government, and stop contributing their own tax dollars that were once going to the governement. Now this affects many other things such as unemployment rate and the overall economic condition of the United States, but I won't debate about that. In the next example, the earner making 2.5M per year is given a tax break, lowering his taxes to the standard 25%. His taxes went down 10% or 250K. He can now hire 8 individuals making approximately 31K per year. Those individuals get off governement paid unemployment, welfare, and start contributing to the tax revenue to the governement. This improves the unemplyment rate and the overall economic condition of the United States, but I won't debate about that either. Furthermore, I think the flat percentage tax has a fair "sound" to hit. If I make 50K per year and am paying 25% taxes and John Doe is making 2.5M and is paying 25% we're both contributing the same percentage, just different amounts. John Doe did better for himself and shouldn't be penalized with a higher tax bracket. Could he afford it? most likely, but is it fair?