We are not going to agree on this and do not mistake me I am comfortable not rich but I digress. I paid my student loans back and had some scholarships both athletic and academic not that any of that is really your concern. Ten percent of $100 is $10. Ten percent of $1000000 is $100000. Unless I am failing to grasp basic math here then the person who makes more is paying substantially more. So yes those who earn more are paying more under a flat system they are just not getting the extra dig and twist because they must be evil if they make that money....inherit it whatever.
Le sigh. Yes, the richer person is contributing mroe dollars. But are they shouldering an equal burden?
If I give you $100 to make it through the next week or two, and then take $10 of that away, I have probably just taken a meal out of your mouth. If I give you $1 million to make it through that same period, and then take away $100k, you... are not going to suffer in any appreciable way. At worst, you might not be able to afford quite
as many top-flight luxuries. This is my point. I also note that you completely ignore the bit where taxes on the poor would have to go up under a flat system. This isn't about saying the rich must be evil, this is about recognising that higher taxes are less burdensome to them, and that they benefit far more from the things those taxes pay for.
I work for the government. Government does not do things well or efficiently ask anyone who has ever been in the military. But I am not saying we should charge no taxes what I am saying is taxes should be used to fund the programs and not to try and rearrange the economic and social order.
First, I would very strongly challenge your extremely broad blanket statement that "government does not do things well or efficiently". My 100% government-fuinded single-payer health care system provides for healthier people at 10% of the overhead costs of the American system. Private charities can have efficiency ratings as low as 60% - how does the US food stamp program stack up against that? (Real numbers, not talking points that ignore most of the benefits handed out, please.) Government can
be inefficient. So can the private sector.
But this got off track, my point is to pick a number and call it a living wage. Lets say it is $20 an hour plus benefits just for argument. My original point was I do not think we can suddenly jack up the minimum wage to that level without wrecking our economy. So maybe lets save the minimum wage jobs for those starting out as a supplement and try and get those who are down on their luck what have you into a trade school or something so they can earn a living wage.
This point was... rather poorly expressed, then. I'd say we can't say whether or not it would screw up the economy without knowing what a realistic number looks like. Pulling a figure out of the air and saying "Of course
this would wreck things!" is hardly convincing.
I am out guys the productive portion of this conversation has ended. It turns into the divisive nature of world views in general and all any of us do is get angry.
I, for one, am not angry. I'll gladly reconsider my position if actual counterevidence is presented. All I'm asking is that you actually think through your arguments
instead of just regurgitating talking points.