You post screams more of jealousy than anything else.
Even in a flat tax system, the rich are paying more than the poor. No one is talking about taking the tax burden and dividing it up evenly. The rich will still be taking on more of that burden that the poor. The percentage of their income just happens to be the same. The final dollar amounts will be vastly different.
For all the whining about the poor, what exactly does the current system do to make them any less poor. How would a flat tax change that?
This is the most ridiculous accusation that gets made any time anyone but Warren Buffet makes this argument, at which point it switches to the equally stupid "so why doesn't he go first and just donate a bunch of money?" It's not jealousy to want a tax system that promotes opportunity and growth over doing the bidding of the 1%. I make plenty of money each year, and I'd be happy to pay more, because it would be better for the country. Some income inequality is a good thing since it promotes hard work; extreme income inequality is a serious problem for the country. Same for wealth.
The current system, though seriously flawed, doesn't force those struggling to scrape together rent, groceries, and utility bills to give 25% of that meager income to the federal government via federal income tax, on top of already existing sales taxes, social security, unemployment insurance, gas taxes, DMV fees, property taxes, and all the other taxes he already has to pay, just so the very rich can keep an extra few million that will make no difference to their daily life. I could afford to pay 25% of my income. A rich person DEFINITELY could afford 25%. A poor person cannot afford that.
However emotional you are about "welfare queens," in reality there are a huge number of working poor in this country who struggle to get by
without a 40" TV and whatever other BS "luxuries" you want to accuse them of having, and I want a tax code that takes the burden off of them so they can work their way out of poverty.
But then, I guess I don't take Jesus' commandment to hate the poor, as poor people are lazy, as seriously as I ought to.
I see they still don't teach classical economics in schools, only that new-age Krugmanesque shortsightedness.
To understand how it will actually work, you need to stop pretending that these changes and their results will occur in a vacuum. Classical economic theory is the study of not only effects of the changes, but the secondary, tertiary, etc. and human element.
Here is a simplified version for you and others who never learned how Economics was supposed to be taught:
Every economic action has a ripple effect. In this case, when the "rich" no longer have to pay excessively unbalanced and confiscatory rates they are NOT going to just sit on the money. Instead, they are going to do what human nature dictates: Use that money to make MORE money. New businesses, R&D, technology, factories, etc. will be invested into. The ripple effect? More goods need to be made for the factories which means more jobs. You then need people to operate those machines. You need people to transport the goods. Thanks to all of these new jobs, huge amounts of money, formerly in the pockets of the "rich" are now invested in employee salaries, resulting in not only raising the standard of living but giving them the means to buy all these new products they are making.
A flat tax would unleash the economy and money flow like you could not even begin to imagine. It is the equivalent of going from the Ford Fiesta to a Mustang.
Classical economics doesn't work in most macro-level real world situations. If you ever took a competent economics class you'd know that. Trickle-down economics is also complete nonsense, as anyone who's payed any attention to reality of the post-Reagan world should be overwhelmingly aware of. It's a pretty theory, but it doesn't work in reality.
The top tax brackets for decades after WWII were 90%+, and we experienced immense economic growth. But I guess that all never happened because it doesn't fit your pet theory, and therefore must be wrong. Reality takes a backseat to theory, I know.
You also don't WANT too-fast, unlimited growth. Look at US economic history in the 19th and early 20th century to see how awful the unregulated boom-bust cycles were for everyone. Steady, stable growth is the ideal, not foot on the gas.