First, kudos to your student for a response not entirely parroted from a liberal talk show. I suggest using follow-up questions and examples to nudge her, make her think, and hopefully come to a logical conclusion of her own.

What does equal according to their income mean? Higher income higher taxation? That's not equal. How about the same LOW percentage rate for everyone regardless of income level? Then no one gets penalized for increasing their income so the incentive remains to work harder for your own benefit and no one has more skin in the game than anyone else and if they vote for a tax increase its not just going to affect those evil rich people. Deep breath gasp.

Okay here's what I'm planning on saying.

-- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ --
“...should be taxed according to their income equally.”
“...all are taxed at an equal rate according to their income, or a flat rate per tax bracket based on income.”
Which is it? Do you want people taxed equally or according to their income?

If a government had a million citizens and cost a million dollars to run. It might tax every citizen one dollar. That is undeniably equal taxation in the purest sense. Every citizen would have equal claim to the Government because they all payed the same for it to do what it does.
If the government taxed every citizen 10% of their income, then that would not be equal (in the purest sense), but it would be an equal rate. This would be a compromise that would allow the less wealthy to get out of paying some large dollar amount (at the expense of the more wealthy) while still maintaining some small sense of equality in the tax system. Thus allowing the citizens to somewhat justify the desired equal representation.
If the government taxed citizens at different income rates based on income, then there would be no sense of equal taxation left.

Here’s some (unrealistic, but easy to work with) numbers to show what I’m talking about.
Incomes
$100.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
Equal Amount ($370)
$370.00
+ $370.00
+ $370.00
= $1,110.00
Equal Rate (10%)
$10.00
+ $100.00
+ $1,000.00
= $1,110.00
Different Rates (1%, 5%, 10.59%)
$1.00
+ $50.00
+ $1,059.00
= $1,110.00

You might make a case as to why unequal taxation is “fair” or “socially just,” but it will still be (by undeniable definition) unequal. You could argue that we shouldn't be considering how much someone contributes, but instead how much they keep. If the government taxed in such a way that every citizen walked away with equal amounts, then it would no longer be a tax, but a government takeover of the economy to redistribute wealth and put an end to capitalism.

I'm not advocating one approach to income tax over another. I just think that if people are going to advocate taxing one person more than another, then they need to face the inequality and find some way to justify it.

I agree that tax loopholes are a problem. I think that if taxes were less costly and simpler, there would be less abuse. Legislators should focus less time on pushing out new laws that contradict old ones (complicating everything) and more time cleaning up laws. They should be constantly correcting and adapting laws to make them more beneficial and approachable to the general public.

“...the voting on and instituting of laws should involve the people those laws are intended to govern...”
Lobbyists lobby because politicians are passing laws that will govern the lobbyists. If a government is more limited (and those limitations were actually respected), than would-be lobbyists would have less incentive to buy politicians. Let me first point out that any person or group can become a lobbyist. It’s important to understand that most lobbying comes in the form of contributing to political campaigns. Saying that some person or group can’t advocate a political candidate or position is limiting freedom of speech so we go on allowing people to fund whatever messages they want to fund. Of course none of this has any power if voters are, as you said, “enlightened.” If people stopped believing everything they heard and challenged ideas on the basis of rational thought, then lobbyists would be largely disarmed.

This is why I welcome discussion and challenge you, to promote more open consideration of our biases and ignorances.
-- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ -- _ --

Okay gulchers, tell me what you think.

If you like this discussion please rate it up.

Maybe you can explain this to CG. He did not get my point at all.

It's great you're digging into these questions and that the teacher is offering an opinion.

I agree with your teacher's opinion except I'm for some progressive taxation, not a flax tax. We're all for removing "loopholes", but what's a loophole is a thorny question when you get into particular details. Many people who promote a flat tax argue it's related to eliminating loopholes, but this is a stretch.

I also agree with the part about "corporations" having too much influence, but it's a little more complicated than that. Incorporation is just a business organization to raise equity capital and limit investors' liability. The trouble is when ownership is separated from the business, sometimes the business ends up doing things the owners wouldn't support if they controlled it directly. I don't have a solution to this problem.

Regarding the taxation w/o representation premise, it says "if we're taxed, then we're entitled to representation." That premise alone doesn't result in converse: "if we're entitled to representation we must be taxed."