flat tax

Rebuttal and Analysis"As I said, it would never be 100% until we get really dumb people in power."We don't already have really dumb people in power?"Well it seemed like you where sorry about that."I never said anything about a sales tax before pro brought it up so I don't see how it seemed like that Oh that has nothing to with debate sorry. Just kidding you can clarify but I cant.This actually does have something to do with the debate as I was further explaining the tax policy I am endorsing. Pro wrote, "Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass." The debate isn't, "a flat tax and a tax rate attached to a federal amendment vs. my tax system;" the debate is “a flat tax vs. my tax system." If Pro thinks he needs to add on to the flat tax by passing an amendment to protect tax rates from fluctuating, he admits that a flat tax cannot stand alone against a system with no income taxes."There is one flaw with that statement, everyone buys goods. ALMOST no one will not buy goods. So a sales tax is pretty much mandatory if your a NORMAL person."Actually, in your statement accusing me of making a flawed statement, you made a flawed statement by claiming my statement was flawed and then confirming my statement by admitting we have a choice."Well under your plan they still own it, so is it immoral for the states to own it or only if the feds own it." That is incorrect. Under my plan the states wouldn't have the right to tax income either. I said any tax but taxes on income. "Saving is better? It is better for the individual because you have more money. But not to the economy."Since when did it become bad for the individuals who make up the economy, to have more money? I thought that was the goal."The more goods are bought=more money made=bigger economy=better economy-everyone happy"This is not always true. In fact, this very idea is to blame for our current financial crisis. The Federal Reserve printed money making borrowing easy. People borrowed and borrowed and then put this money into the economy. Sure, at the time, there was an economic boom but that boom was just a bubble created by credit and when the debt became too much the bubble busted and the housing market crashed along with the economy. "Savings can cause a double dip recession."Actually, deficit spending is to blame. Eventually all the debt catches up and brings down the economy. Saving actually starts the healing process as it allows individuals to begin paying off their debt. The less debt there is in the economy, the more the economy expands."I'm not against saving, but to much saving is bad in the long run. And Keynesian economics proves my theory."Actually, it doesn't support your theory. Econlib.org, "the concise encyclopedia of economics," states, "Keynesians believe that what is true about the short run cannot necessarily be inferred from what must happen in the long run, and we live in the short run. They often quote Keynes’s famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead,” to make the point."[14] So yes, Keynes did believe that spending drove the economy but he knew his theory did not work in the long run. His theory only addresses short term problems which generally leads to more problems as the debt grows. Final PointsIn conclusion, I will list three points that show I am the winner of this debate.1. I showed that a flat tax is immoral because for there to be a flat tax the government has to own your income or steal it. Pro chose the first option but never explained how it is moral for government to automatically own property you earned through contractual agreement.2. I showed that a flat tax is not economically sound because raising taxes on about half the country would be detrimental to an already weak economy. Remember, Pro himself, in reference to the flat tax, said, "Well, It is not economically sound."3. I showed that a system with no income tax is better because there is no moral injustice of government stealing or owning your money and it is a much more economically sound system. When speaking of assumed tax cuts, Pro states, "Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy." Wouldn't this be furthered by having no income tax? I would like to, thank my opponent for a great debate and thank everyone who takes the time to read this debate. [14]http://www.econlib.org...