• 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
Thank you for conceding that you cannot prove your point that charities cannot keep up with the needs of the poor, per post 445.

:shrug: I have not conceeded it. In fact it your argument is illogical as you have not given a valid difference between federal and state government per the argument that you are putting forth. I have showed you what is wrong with it. The fact that you ignore its flaws is your problem not mine.

However, if you wish to persist in this illogical argument in an attempt to win, feel free.

Ultimately though, charity is charity and government taxation is just that, in terms of its effect, the source does not matter. The fact that you think it does, speaks volumes about the depths about the consistency contained in your personal philosophy.
 
I must be misunderstanding something.

As I understand things, you responded to someone's post, and megaprogman then responded to your response, demanding proof of your disagreement.

Where is the demand for proof of an arguement you didn't make?

Or are you for some reason claiming that because you were responding to someone elses post, THEY made the arguement, and you simply disagreed?

Still, why would that mean you didn't argue something?

And why would it mean you didn't have to provide proof?

This is the internet, not a court of law for goodness gracious.:argue
 
Taxation isn't slavery unless all or close to is taxed. You are working for yourself, but a portion of the taxed money is used for various purposes which also goes to helping other people. You are not explicitly working for other people. You are working for yourself but a part of the income also goes to helping other people as one of the various uses. You are also not even forced to work. When you do work, the incentive is for yourself and it does benefit yourself but a portion of it goes to other purposes other than yourself.
 
Says the person who stated that the 13th amendment gave Congress the power to create Social Security.

ouch, i heard that one connect
 
Moderator's Warning:
Talk about the topic, and not the other posters, or there will be consequences
 
Says the person who stated that the 13th amendment gave Congress the power to create Social Security.

I made a typo. I was not talking about social security and did not try to connect it to the 13th amendment typo.

So, why don't you kill me?
 
:shrug: I have not conceeded it. In fact it your argument is illogical as you have not given a valid difference between federal and state government per the argument that you are putting forth. I have showed you what is wrong with it. The fact that you ignore its flaws is your problem not mine.

However, if you wish to persist in this illogical argument in an attempt to win, feel free.

Ultimately though, charity is charity and government taxation is just that, in terms of its effect, the source does not matter. The fact that you think it does, speaks volumes about the depths about the consistency contained in your personal philosophy.

You failed to produce proof that the federal government is more effective and reliable then charity was. I do appreciate your concession.
 
You failed to produce proof that the federal government is more effective and reliable then charity was. I do appreciate your concession.

icon_lol.gif


And you have failed to produce a logical argument. I appreciate YOUR concession.
 
icon_lol.gif


And you have failed to produce a logical argument. I appreciate YOUR concession.

I did present a logical argument backed with facts. To date you have produced nothing in regards to the point of debate you took issue with. Therefore, under the rules of debate you lose. Declaring yourself the winner and proving it are two different things.
 
I did present a logical argument backed with facts. To date you have produced nothing in regards to the point of debate you took issue with. Therefore, under the rules of debate you lose. Declaring yourself the winner and proving it are two different things.

You think there is a fundamental mathmatical difference between taxation between the federal government and state government. sorry dude, but math is math and no human law can change it.
 
You think there is a fundamental mathmatical difference between taxation between the federal government and state government. sorry dude, but math is math and no human law can change it.

Sorry that you think that there is no fundamental difference between the state and federal government. The fact of the matter is that they both are constrained by the Constitution(s) they must follow. States can do one thing while the federal government cannot.
 
Sorry that you think that there is no fundamental difference between the state and federal government. The fact of the matter is that they both are constrained by the Constitution(s) they must follow. States can do one thing while the federal government cannot.

I didn't say that I think there is no fundamental difference between federal and state government. I stated that the rules of math are not subject to constitutionality or any other human law.
 
I didn't say that I think there is no fundamental difference between federal and state government. I stated that the rules of math are not subject to constitutionality or any other human law.

It's an invalid comparison since you're basically saying that state government=/=federal government in the use of the only piece of proof you've brought forth.
 
It's an invalid comparison since you're basically saying that state government=/=federal government in the use of the only piece of proof you've brought forth.

So you do think that the fundamental laws of math can be changed by what type of government it is?
 
So you do think that the fundamental laws of math can be changed by what type of government it is?

Yes, since they are only allowed to do what their Constitutions state. Since you are unable to produce proof that charities were ineffective and unreliable on the federal government level then you have lost.
 
Yes, since they are only allowed to do what their Constitutions state. Since you are unable to produce proof that charities were ineffective and unreliable on the federal government level then you have lost.

Debates don't work that way. You can not offer an opinion as reason to claim that your opponent has lost. That's kind of puerile.
 
Yes, since they are only allowed to do what their Constitutions state. Since you are unable to produce proof that charities were ineffective and unreliable on the federal government level then you have lost.

Great, so you think constitutionality changes the laws of math. Well, if that is your belief about government, anything you say about it and taxation is pretty much irrelevent.
 
Great, so you think constitutionality changes the laws of math. Well, if that is your belief about government, anything you say about it and taxation is pretty much irrelevent.

You keep moving the goal posts which I find hilarious. Face it you can't prove your statement that charities are ineffective and unreliable while the federal government is. I'll take this as a concession, since you have failed to produce proof in 5 pages of debate.
 
You keep moving the goal posts which I find hilarious. Face it you can't prove your statement that charities are ineffective and unreliable while the federal government is. I'll take this as a concession, since you have failed to produce proof in 5 pages of debate.

I never moved goal posts. You put forth the argument that people could afford to give more to private charities when taxation was low. And that that increased amount was enough to take care of the needs of the financially handicapped.

You seem to think there is a mathematical difference between federal and state taxes. However, since 5 = 5 or any other number equals itself whether there is a tax increase by federal or state, there would be the same net effect on taxation if taxes were increased the same amount from any source, city, county, state, or federal.

You are not accepting my argument based on this flawed reasoning. However, since math does work and does not change between a federal and state level, poor houses are a perfectly good example of the government stepping in to help the poor, even during the last century when taxation was lower and people were supposedly more prosperous because of it.

The constitutionality and whatever other laws pertaining to the state and federal level are not revelent to this discussion and your objection does not address any useful points. If you had wished to make a legal based argument, your objection would mean something, but you chose to make a mathmatical and taxation based argument instead.

So, in trying to change the argument from a taxation one to a legal one, you are the one moving the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom