Flat Tax

you have yet to explain why the definition of rich v poor is relevant. we're takling about the issues fine enough without definiing it, aren't we? i'd probably keep the way the progresive taxes are sex up now, a stair ladder approach... but the point of the debate is whtehr we should be progresive about it at all. that i'd do the staire ladder or how i define rich is irrelavant to the debate. if anything your relucktance to say what we should tax at is more of an issue that is relevant. do we tax all at the higher bracket of thirty plus percent? or lower? it matters cause some people's taxes are going down, or up, depending on the number. if we used your example and say ten... that matters cause it has effects on other things, like how we pay for things. we'd have to cut spending to allow all people to have the lowest tax bracket. not a triumph because of the flat tax but an accounting trick that causes it to be lopsided to those with more, or via spending cuts. you say the flat tax would create economic increases. but how exactly? you can't just cite a source and not explain the details. the only way it'd create increases is either by.... cutting spending to ensure all can pay ten percent. this economic increase is by spending cuts, though, not a victory due to flat taxes. or if we try to keep spending similar to now or not reduce all the way, we'd have to increase the lowest brackets that we currently have in order to offset the highest being lowered. this would be an increase for the richer people... not everyone. (con probably thinks anything good for the rich is good for everyone else... and i will refute that if that's his case) moreover, we live in a demand economy where it's more important for those who creat teh demand to exist, cause the rich or the supply side has the money if only tehres a place to make more... that means we'd be hurting the over all economy given the demand is being lessend, by increasing lower brackets. you might try to argue it's fairer, a flat tax.. but you've yet to show how it'd be an increase economically. even if you examined increased values, it's only because of decreasted spending, or at the expense of other brackets going up.... eg, landlord pays ten instead of thirty.... now his property produces more income so his assets are worth more. but only at the expense of spending or other people, and not due to a victory of the flat tax. you argue against the flat fee because we won't be able to support our spending with cuts like that. but, i could make the same argument with progressive taxes... we won't be able to support spending now if we cut taxes for everyone to a flat tax lower than the highest bracket. as to the fact some don't make ten thousand a year etc... i meant to address that in the qutoe you quoted but it was typo'd. "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 meant, we'd have to make an exception for poor people. it wouldn't be a true flat tax any more... but at least it'd be more truly even. besides the inability to sustain current levels, and simply calling it stupid though.... u haven't given any philsophic or reasoned prinicples about why bob pays ten thousand and john pays twenty, or romney pays thiryt mill and gates pays three hundred. as to econ stimulation, you seem to like things that help the rich..... gates will surely invest more if he doesn't have to deal with the arguable inequialities of a flat tax, and pays a flat fee instead. course, this isn't optimal econ stimulation... but given it is in your book, you should be at elast admitting the benefits of getting gates' taxes as low as possible, including flat fees if necessary. as to the progressive nature of flat taxes on those who make more... that's not enough. obviously you and i both agree at a base level that john should pay ten dollars and bob should pay twenty if they were taxed at the same rate. the only difference between me and you though, is that i actually factor in redistribution some... and that translates into more than however you justify a flat tax, thus, a progressive tax results if i take your reasoning and add mine. actually, you say the rich do pay more as if they are playing their part in the "being responsible" thing that you responded to... but then you go on to say they aren't responsible for it. i agree that the poor have a fast or faster rate of increase overall. i'm familiar with said statistics. but, that doesn't maen there's a man collecting rabble, or dying, because he doesn't have food if we don't redistribute some. you can be sure, people would be robbing etc if they didn't have food to eat. per food stamps. some people aren't made to increase much on the econ scale... but they are made to be able to get by, at least if we give them a decent shot. think about those in the ghetto... unable to get out and get a formal job but able to get by if only they had a means. like that apple tree over there that we won't let him eat of. why does man's law that the apple tree is bob's trump the natural law that he can go pick one, espeically when bob has thousands and doesnt' ened them all? that's why social philsophers often say a person should have to put actual labor etc into an object more than legal transactions and man made laws.