I think your heart is in the right spot, however your argument does not match your debate.

First off, it does not make sense for the government to tax themselves, it just increases costs with no movement of funds from place to place. The fact that government employees pay taxes is actually kind of insane. That would be like your employer charging you to work for them (and yes it happens in some places, but still makes no sense).

Secondly a "Flat" tax does not prevent shelters. It only lowers the taxes for the ultra wealthy while imposing harsher taxes on the less wealthy, even if you cap it at a minimum. We have had progressive taxation since Lincoln, because it boosts economic growth. We have a long running source of proof on that topic.

However, I totally agree that loopholes, tax write offs, and tax incentives should be removed from the system. For those items such as child credit or start up incentives, hiring incentives, can be moved from taxes to grants, which have identicle benefits and value, while makes taxes less murky, and allows each incentive to be audited on it's own grounds without tax lawyers or shifting of funds (In other words less corruptible).

The problem with lowering taxes for the rich is and always remains that the rich do not spend that money as readily, and thus do not grow the economy, where the poor will always spend it, spend it locally, and thus provide a stronger and more stable economy.

Once we have a stable economy, we can shift money (with grants) to larger corporations where they will spend it on long term and risky projects that the poorer companies and people would not invest in, making a strong long term economy.

Basis: Government spends money (Hence debt), Microsoft has 1/2 a trillion they are sitting on (not flowing or growing the economy). Poor people nearly 100% of their income, middle class the rich much less and more importantly it is less predictable. Movement of funds is economic growth, especially when those movements can be predicted.

Many people argue that raising taxes and government spending limits economic growth. Problem is they ignore basic economics when making such claims. Economics is based on movement of money, not available money. If money is not moving the economy declines, if it moves a lot it grows. Money is a representation of real goods, so if it is not moving no one is producing goods needed by others (Basic Supply and Demand).

First, the problem with tax cuts for large businesses and rich people:

1) They tend to "sit" on money, for any number of reason. The more people have and the less they need, the more likely they will put it aside for a rainy day, or the "potential" project of the future. This declines economic growth. Companies are the same, Microsoft, Apple, Google all have billions stored up for the next big investment, this is good, because they are more likely to take risky investments and progress long term economics on the successes, however short term economics are hit hard. As of now the balance is too much in savings due to fear of economic stability, so we need to stabilize the economy before they will spend that money.

2) Smaller companies and poor people spend what they have, and often live in debt. This means they can't invest in large scale projects or take risks. And tend to spend everything they have to keep going.

This provides two benefits to short term economic growth and stability. First they will spend money on the same things each month: Food, Utilities, Car, Gas, etc... This grants a stable market for those items, allowing companies to cut costs in storage or loosing it due to over/under purchasing. In other words it stabilizes the economy.

While the government is fairly large, it's problem is not a surplus problem, but a debt one. Meaning ignoring the cost of debt (as that has little effect on the economy directly) we can look at the probability of that money moving from a tax increase. More or less government money may sit for periods of time, but rarely more than a few months or a year.

More importantly, the government allots that money ahead of time, and outside of natural disaster allows companies to predict demand from the government spenders. This means a more stable and growing short term economy.

More importantly the government is always spending on long term projects that even huge corporations will not take on. NASA has produced day to day technology that these large companies have profited from, because unlike businesses the government does not demand to be paid back. Ballpoint pen, asbestos free high heat elements, LEDs that make your computer screen light and small, and so on. Some would have came from other needs eventually, but face it, we owe these government projects for our very economic existence (Even the post WW2 golden age would not have happened if the government did not get funding to manufacture weapons).

Short answer, if we want a future in the world, we need a strong economy, stable economy, reliable economy, and a government able to support it. Without taxes we cannot achieve success.