• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%

  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%
  • Total voters
    72
megaprogman said:
That would be one of the posts where I am showing you that you are making an argument that you did not make. You will notice that I am quoting you.



Why would I ask for proof of your assertion to a person who does not believe it to be true? That makes no sense. Besides, your assertion stands on its own, if you wanted him to present proof of his assertion, you should ask him for it.
Click to expand...

I lodged a disagreement in a discussion. You and Your Star turned it into a debate. Thus, since you are arguing for the opposite in demanding proof to back up my statement you need to present proof first due to you taking up the original argument that charities are not effective and reliable as the government.
 
megaprogman said:
LiberalAvenger and I are not the same person. The correct pronoun would be he.
Click to expand...

No, I used the correct pronoun since you, Liberal Avenger, and Your Star contend that charity is not as reliable or effective as the government. They is the nominative plural of he, she, and it.
 
The_Patriot said:
I lodged a disagreement in a discussion. You and Your Star turned it into a debate. Thus, since you are arguing for the opposite in demanding proof to back up my statement you need to present proof first due to you taking up the original argument that charities are not effective and reliable as the government.
Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:
No, I used the correct pronoun since you, Liberal Avenger, and Your Star contend that charity is not as reliable or effective as the government. They is the nominative plural of he, she, and it.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I am taking up the original argument or stated that charity was not as reliable or effective as government? Can you show me these posts? I want my own words, not statements from other people I happen to be in close proximity to.

I am just asking you to cite your assertion. Again, you are assuming there are sides in this debate when we are all individuals with our own points of view.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
What makes you think I am taking up the original argument or stated that charity was not as reliable or effective as government? Can you show me these posts? I want my own words, not statements from other people I happen to be in close proximity to.

I am just asking you to cite your assertion. Again, you are assuming there are sides in this debate when we are all individuals with our own points of view.
Click to expand...

Then you need to demand that Liberal Avenger and Your Star to cite their assertation.
 
The_Patriot said:
Then you need to demand that Liberal Avenger and Your Star to cite their assertation.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to demand this? If you disagree with what they post, than it is up to you to hold them to account.
 
No it isnt and how autistic do you have to be to compare your tax bill to slavery.
 
megaprogman said:
Why do I need to demand this? If you disagree with what they post, than it is up to you to hold them to account.
Click to expand...

Because you took issue with the discussion. Since Liberal Avenger posited the argument to begin with then you should be demanding his proof before mine, but I guess since he's a liberal that he doesn't need to.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Because you took issue with the discussion. Since Liberal Avenger posited the argument to begin with then you should demanding his proof, but I guess since he's a liberal that he doesn't need to.
Click to expand...

I took issue with your assertion. Also, I am not the referee of this thread. If you don't like what LA posted, you are free to challenge him, but that is between you and him. I am concerned with our conversation.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I took issue with your assertion. Again, your argument stands on its own, you would have made it even if LA did not post what he posted because that is what you believe.

If you really want to know, I do not really have a high opinion of LA's arguments in general, so I tend to dismiss what he says anyway.
Click to expand...

Well since you now said openly that you disagree that private charities can do the job better than the government produce your proof. I produced proof that charity has kept up with the government from 2007 and 2008. I also provided proof of how the government hates competition in post #583. For further proof of how the government hates competition look at the reform of the tax laws for charitable organizations passed this year that it made it more difficult to be a charity.

In post #543 I provided proof that Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries had more disposable income and by the historical state of the economy we can infer that charitable giving was keeping up with the rate of poverty. Historically, Americans are more generous than any other country in the world when it comes to charitable giving. So far, no one has disputed this.
 
The_Patriot said:
Well since you now said openly that you disagree that private charities can do the job better than the government produce your proof.
Click to expand...

I did not take issue with the idea that private charities can do a better job than government, I took issue with the idea that charity can keep up with needs of the financially handicapped. You were not making a comparison between charities and government, charity alone was enough. Those are two completely different arguments.

The_Patriot said:
I produced proof that charity has kept up with the government from 2007 and 2008. I also provided proof of how the government hates competition in post #583. For further proof of how the government hates competition look at the reform of the tax laws for charitable organizations passed this year that it made it more difficult to be a charity.
Click to expand...

As I stated, I don't care about your assertion that government hates competition, so there is no need to prove it to me. Also, all that shows is that a certain sum was donated to charity, not that charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped. Per post #445 http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476

The_Patriot said:
In post #543 I provided proof that Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries had more disposable income and by the historical state of the economy we can infer that charitable giving was keeping up with the rate of poverty. Historically, Americans are more generous than any other country in the world when it comes to charitable giving. So far, no one has disputed this.
Click to expand...

Having more disposable income, and even donating that to charity does not automatically mean that charities have kept up with the needs of the financilly handicapped. You can not infer it as that would mean you are making an assumption without proof.

I agree that Americans are generous when it comes to charity, this is not in dispute.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I did not take issue with the idea that private charities can do a better job than government, I took issue with the idea that charity can keep up with needs of the financially handicapped. You were not making a comparison between charities and government, charity alone was enough. Those are two completely different arguments.



As I stated, I don't care about your assertion that government hates competition, so there is no need to prove it to me. Also, all that shows is that a certain sum was donated to charity, not that charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped. Per post #445 http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476



Having more disposable income, and even donating that to charity does not automatically mean that charities have kept up with the needs of the financilly handicapped. You can not infer it as that would mean you are making an assumption without proof.

I agree that Americans are generous when it comes to charity, this is not in dispute.
Click to expand...

Then prove that charities are unable to keep up with the poor since that it was you are supposed to do.
 
The_Patriot said:
Then prove that charities are unable to keep up with the poor since that it was you are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

I have already cited this, but I will do it again.

MISSION STATEMENT
Poorhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds.
Click to expand...

Government was picking up where charities left off in the 1800s.

Now, are you going to prove your assertion or keep going on red herrings?
 
The_Patriot said:
Invalid since you're bringing up a state government charity into a discussion about the federal government charity.
Click to expand...

Nope. If charity was enough to keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped, than no government charity would be needed.

I guess we are moving on to new topics in this conversation since you are not ignoring my request. Too bad, I really had wished that you could back up your statement, but I will accept it as you admitting that you have no proof since you have yet to answer the challenge.
 
Your Star said:
The fact is that charities are never as reliable as the US government. My argument was never that charities don't do good, or they can't take care of people. My argument is that charities can't of all of the impoverished, like the US government can. Until charities get taxes from every citizen, every year they will never be as reliable as the US government. If they were, charities would of gotten people out of the great depression, not the government. But that didn't happen, the government did.
Click to expand...

why does Obama and many dems want to engage in activity that will lessen charitable contributions by making it more expensive to engage in charity?
 
The_Patriot said:
They made the argument that charities weren't effective or reliable and I disagreed. I demanded no proof at that time since it was a simple discussion with the person.
Click to expand...
No, LiberalAvenger made that assertion.

When you disagreed, something in your argument caused megaprogman to, in turn, disagree with you.

Or at least, that's how I understand the situation.

Thus, I don't see how you can suggest that megaprogman must prove his disagreement, as you yourself have previously stated something along the lines of "the one who asserts must prove".

From megaprogman's perspective, you asserted something in your disagreement with LiberalAvenger that he (megaprogman) disagreed with.

That LiberalAvenger made an assertion has no bearing on megaprogman, as he was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement.

His only disagreement was with YOUR statement.

Thus, the burden of proof lies with you.

But perhaps I missed something.


-----------
Edit: I just realized that I'm arguing about an argument about an argument....

:lol:
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
No, LiberalAvenger made that assertion.

When you disagreed, something in your argument caused megaprogman to, in turn, disagree with you.

Or at least, that's how I understand the situation.

Thus, I don't see how you can suggest that megaprogman must prove his disagreement, as you yourself have previously stated something along the lines of "the one who asserts must prove".

From megaprogman's perspective, you asserted something in your disagreement with LiberalAvenger that he (megaprogman) disagreed with.

That LiberalAvenger made an assertion has no bearing on megaprogman, as he was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement.

His only disagreement was with YOUR statement.

Thus, the burden of proof lies with you.

But perhaps I missed something.


-----------
Edit: I just realized that I'm arguing about an argument about an argument....

:lol:
Click to expand...

You didn't he is just painted into a corner and I am waiting for him to either prove his assertion or admit his argument has no proof.
 
megaprogman said:
Nope. If charity was enough to keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped, than no government charity would be needed.

I guess we are moving on to new topics in this conversation since you are not ignoring my request. Too bad, I really had wished that you could back up your statement, but I will accept it as you admitting that you have no proof since you have yet to answer the challenge.
Click to expand...

Prove that government charity was needed from the federal government since you assert it. I stated that charities worked just fine before the government got involved and showed the disposable income of a person from the 18th and 19th centuries as well as their tax liability to produce their disposable income.
 
The_Patriot said:
Prove that government charity was needed from the federal government since you assert it. I stated that charities worked just fine before the government got involved and showed the disposable income of a person from the 18th and 19th centuries as well as their tax liability to produce their disposable income.
Click to expand...
Which info only speaks to the potential amount of money charities could have had.

It says nothing about the effectiveness of their charitable efforts, which is THE key piece of information to determine if their effectiveness was better or worse than the fed govs.

Personally, I would rather, if anything, that the fed gov worked through charities, instead of separately...
 
The_Patriot said:
Prove that government charity was needed from the federal government since you assert it.
Click to expand...

The Proof The_Patriot Desires said:
Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds
Click to expand...

Its on this very page :lol:

The_Patriot said:
I stated that charities worked just fine before the government got involved and showed the disposable income of a person from the 18th and 19th centuries as well as their tax liability to produce their disposable income.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as I stated, disposable income and tax liability do not show the effect of charity on the "financially handicapped" per post 445. Is this the best you have because its not proof, its just a record of giving. Can you even establish what the necessary amount of giving for charity to be enough for the financially handicapped is? If not, then this "proof" of yours cannot prove anything as there would be nothing to measure against.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Its on this very page :lol:



Yes, but as I stated, disposable income and tax liability do not show the effect of charity on the "financially handicapped" per post 445. Is this the best you have because its not proof, its just a record of giving. Can you even establish what the necessary amount of giving for charity to be enough for the financially handicapped is? If not, then this "proof" of yours cannot prove anything as there would be nothing to measure against.
Click to expand...

Nope you didn't since you cited a state government charity and not a federal government one. Ergo, no facts to back up your assertation. Let me guess you think that the state government=/=federal government.
 
The_Patriot said:
Nope you didn't since you cited a state government charity and not a federal government one. Ergo, no facts to back up your assertation. Let me guess you think that the state government=/=federal government.
Click to expand...

In this sense, yes, government is government. There is no fundamental difference between state government charity and federal government charity as they both take funds from taxes. It is your argument that taxes are what is preventing people from having disposable income needed to give to charity. Based on that argument, it does not matter who is doing the taxing, only that the taxation exists.

Now, are you going to back up your assertion? If not, I am going to go ahead and claim that argument over and that the loss of it is yours. Unless, of course, you can back up your claim :)
 
megaprogman said:
In this sense, yes, government is government. There is no fundamental difference between state government charity and federal government charity as they both take funds from taxes. It is your argument that taxes are what is preventing people from having disposable income needed to give to charity. Based on that argument, it does not matter who is doing the taxing, only that the taxation exists.

Now, are you going to back up your assertion? If not, I am going to go ahead and claim that argument over and that the loss of it is yours. Unless, of course, you can back up your claim :)
Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong in your belief since the federal government must adhere to the Constitution of the United States and the state governments have to adhere to the Constitution of their state as well as the Constitution of the United States in its prohibitions on the states. Therefore, you have not proved your point.
 
The_Patriot said:
Then you would be wrong in your belief since the federal government must adhere to the Constitution of the United States and the state governments have to adhere to the Constitution of their state as well as the Constitution of the United States in its prohibitions on the states. Therefore, you have not proved your point.
Click to expand...

:lol: My point was that taxes = taxes whether they come from the state or federal government. If the federal government taxes income at 5% or the state taxes income at 5% than the effect on disposable income is unchanged. Whether something is adhering to the constitution has no effect on basic math.

Also, thanks for conceding the point about whether charity can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped, per post 445.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
:lol: My point was that taxes = taxes whether they come from the state or federal government. If the federal government taxes income at 5% or the state taxes income at 5% than the effect on disposable income is unchanged. Whether something is adhering to the constitution has no effect on basic math.

Also, thanks for conceding the point about whether charity can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped, per post 445.
Click to expand...

Thank you for conceding that you cannot prove your point that charities cannot keep up with the needs of the poor, per post 445.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom