Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

You've got good points, thank you. I will provide a rebuttal for all three. Rebuttal 1) My opponent begins by saying that is unfair to take a greater percentage of the money of rich people, in comparison to the percentage taken from lower income people. I do not dispute that rich people are productive members of society, nor do I dispute that it is unfair. I will say that it is necessary however. I say this because there are two evils to weigh against each other, and one must be chosen according to acceptance of reality. The first evil is what my opponent brings up in his first point, that the rich lose a greater % of their wealth, compared to other levels of income. The other evil that must be considered is the evil of taxing the poor to the point that they cannot handle it. It is completely unfair to allow either of these evils I have mentioned, however, reality dictates that we choose the lesser evil. The evil described in my opponent's first point is the lesser evil, because the rich are more financially able to deal with the evil than the poor are. The poor would be taxed to the breaking point by a flat tax, through necessity of providing the government funds(my opponent has a point to counter this, which will be defended against later in my argument). So, to summarize, the burden must fall somewhere, and though it is not fair, through decent treatment of our fellow man, the burden must be placed on the rich. Why? Because they can handle it far more safely than the poor can. Rebuttal 2) My opponent is not incorrect in saying that a flat tax would be simpler. Very few things are all wrong or all right, and neither is the idea of a flat tax. While there are many things wrong with it, this is not one of those things. However the right must be weighed against the wrong, and if that is done, I believe we can all see that this benefit does not outweigh the disadvantages. Rebuttal 3) My opponent's third point is his best, in my opinion. He says that a flat tax would reduce the tax on the rich, and consequently lower the price of the products their companies sell, and give them more money to invest into expanding their companies, and thus providing more jobs. He also says this increase in jobs will make up for the loss in government funds which would occur through the cut on taxes on the rich. I shall split my rebuttal into three parts to counter his arguments. A) The Idea of Lowered Product Prices I do not believe it is incorrect to say that lowering taxes on the rich lowers the cost of the products they will sell. Obviously this will be nice for whoever is buying their stuff. For instance, if the owners of McDonald's suddenly got $60,000 more than they did last year, and were able to cut their burger price from $1 to $.85, and did so, I'd be happy about that. However, if I'm dirt poor, getting fifteen cents off on my lunch is not going to be a significant help if I'm losing $1338.75 more than I usually do per year. Lower prices would not assuage the pain caused to the poor by the tax hike that would occur under a flat tax. B) Richer Rich People=More Jobs Additionally my opponent argues that the rich having more money would lead to them expanding their businesses, and thus creating jobs. If a flat tax were to be instituted, this would probably prove to be true. The unemployment rate in America is 7.8%[1]. Some of these people would receive low income jobs from big companies. My chosen example of this company and worker relationship is McDonald's. If the owners of McDonald's were to have their taxes dropped by 15%, they would no doubt hire more people. The average yearly income for a McDonald's worker is $28,000, and the low/high range is estimated at $18,000-$36,000[2]. All of those numbers fall under 15% taxation, with our current system. So, if a flat tax were to be instituted (continuing my theoretical rate) the rate would be 25%, and companies would be able to hire more. The people they would hire, who would usually be taxed at 15%, would now be taxed at 25%. And for anybody who had a job with these big businesses before the flat tax, and before the expansions, would have their incomes lowered. In summary, the flat tax would create low income jobs for a portion of the 7.8%, but would lower the value of all the low income jobs, due to the tax hike that would come. A portion of the unemployed would have their lives improved, but the entirety of people with lower income jobs before the flat tax would have their lives degraded. If this wasn't a flat tax(and it was just a tax cut for the rich), and there was no tax hike on the lower income, then this wouldn't be an issue. There are better ways to create jobs for the unemployed, ways that won't hurt those who already have low income jobs. C) Job Creation=More Taxpayers Lastly, my opponent says that the jobs created by owners of companies who have received tax cuts will create more taxpayers, and more than make up for the money lost by the government when they drop taxes on those earning $400,000 or more by 15%. I have two statistics that I will use to refute this. [3]The median income of Americans: $41,650 per year, and [4]that the median income falls under the third lowest tax bracket. That means that one half of Americans will receive a tax cut, and one half will receive a tax hike. The half that receives a tax hike makes less than the side that receives a tax break, and yet Pro asserts that the lower half will be able to make up the difference, because more jobs will be created by rich business owners, even though these will be lower income jobs. In summary, the kind of jobs and incomes created will not be enough to make for the four tax brackets (all with wealthier people than the bottom three) that will receive cuts. Even though there may be more tax payers on the bottom half, their lower incomes cannot possibly be greater than that of the tax break that the richer half will receive. Lastly I'd like to note that I agree with my opponent on the fact that tax cuts on the rich would be beneficial. However I disagree with him over the flat tax because while it would help the rich, it would do damage to the poor(despite lowered prices and some additional jobs), and this is what makes a flat tax not worth it. I