• 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
TurtleDude said:
no-an amendment to the constitution supposedly allows income tax but it was anathema to the founding fathers

lets suppose the income tax is being discussed prior to ratification-give us a good argument why we should have an income tax

and make it to the founders-for they were land owners and pretty much the top of society.


make an argument why winners would incorporate such a thing in a document they created
Click to expand...

Because they had a code of honor and were great humanists. A lot of them were Masons who believed in the betterment of mankind.
 
Your Star said:
The constitution allows taxation, income tax is a form of taxation. Therefore the constitution allows income tax.
Click to expand...

Once again the social contract was not entered into voluntarily and is thus null and void it is no more valid than a contract entered into by my great great grandfather to sell me into slavery before I was even born.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Because they had a code of honor and were great humanists. A lot of them were Masons who believed in the betterment of mankind.
Click to expand...

yeah but sadly many liberal confuse charity and helping others with government enforced redistribution.

what is also pathetic is that your master is trying to cut back private charity by eliminating tax breaks for giving. that will decrease private charity by increasing its costs and then Obama and his toads will claim that more socialism is needed to combat the decrease in private charity.

socialism does nothing to better mankind

all it does is better the political power of greedy lib elites who want to get rich through politics rather than producing something of value
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Because they had a code of honor and were great humanists. A lot of them were Masons who believed in the betterment of mankind.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were but they understood that by using the government to extract taxes via income taxes was theft and immoral. Their view was that the money generated from the labor of a person belonged to them. This is why they didn't have income taxes and every income tax that was pushed through up until the 16th Amendment was deemed unconstitutional. The first president to have an income tax was Lincoln.
 
TurtleDude said:
its better than the current system but tell me what is wrong with a regressive tax per se? The price of food, cars, tv's movie tickets, condoms, ping pong balls-in fact everything but government services is regressive.
Click to expand...

For one, it will actually hurt the economy. Businesses thrive on consumer spending. If the poor and middle class have to spend their money on a regressive tax, they won't have enough to spend on more consumer goods. And the wealthy do not consume enough to make up for it.

It would also not bring in enough revenue to pay for all of our government-provided infrastructure. While you always focus on welfare, there is also defense spending, law enforcement, disaster response, transportation infrastructure, public education and regulatory agencies. All those programs require funding. Which is why a national flat tax won't bring in enough revenue, as the U.S. covers a third of a continent and it's costly to maintain social order for a landmass that size.

To give an example, if we used a national flat tax, most people only purchase a very few of a particular good. For example, most people only have one bed or two or three TVs at most and one computer. While the wealthy may have the ability to purchase more goods, and probably do (for example, a wealthy person has 3 houses, so they buy 2 beds for each, 3 TVs for each, and 1 computer for each house) their level of consumption is not high enough to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

And while there are a larger number of poor and middle class people than there are of wealth, and so a larger number of poor and middle class consumers than wealthy consumers, the poor and middle class do not have the income available to purchase enough consumer goods to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

So to move to a national flat sales tax would cripple our government and the services they provides. And like I said before, that's not just welfare programs, such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, and unemployment; it also includes federal law enforcement, such as the FBI, ATF, and DEA, defense spending, such as defense contracts for military equipment that grants our servicemen the advantage of force multipliers to be much deadlier than their opponents, disaster response, such FEMA to respond to unexpected natural disasters and federal programs to support local emergency responders, such as police departments, fire departments, and paramedics, transportation infrastructure, such as our federal highway system built for fast military transport but used everyday for civilian movement and flow of commerce but also includes our waterways for shipping, public education, which everyone refers to as our public elementary and high schools but also includes universities and colleges that businesses hire their skilled and educated employees from, and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC to ensure ethical stock practices, the FDA to ensure the people buy safe foods and drinks, and the EPA to enforce environmental laws to prevent industrial waste from poisoning American citizens.

A national flat sales tax won't cover the expenses for all those federal programs and duties. And those federal programs and duties are what has allowed our nation to build itself up as a world power and sustain it.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Once again the social contract was not entered into voluntarily and is thus null and void it is no more valid than a contract entered into by my great great grandfather to sell me into slavery before I was even born.
Click to expand...

you ought to ask her if she lived in some muslim or African nations if it is legitimate that her father sell her to the highest bidder for a dowery. after all sharia law allows "arranged marriages"

Somehow I think she'd be upset at that or if she were in a society where her poor parents would sell her off for god knows what purposes to help pay their debts.
 
samsmart said:
For one, it will actually hurt the economy. Businesses thrive on consumer spending. If the poor and middle class have to spend their money on a regressive tax, they won't have enough to spend on more consumer goods. And the wealthy do not consume enough to make up for it.

It would also not bring in enough revenue to pay for all of our government-provided infrastructure. While you always focus on welfare, there is also defense spending, law enforcement, disaster response, transportation infrastructure, public education and regulatory agencies. All those programs require funding. Which is why a national flat tax won't bring in enough revenue, as the U.S. covers a third of a continent and it's costly to maintain social order for a landmass that size.

To give an example, if we used a national flat tax, most people only purchase a very few of a particular good. For example, most people only have one bed or two or three TVs at most and one computer. While the wealthy may have the ability to purchase more goods, and probably do (for example, a wealthy person has 3 houses, so they buy 2 beds for each, 3 TVs for each, and 1 computer for each house) their level of consumption is not high enough to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

And while there are a larger number of poor and middle class people than there are of wealth, and so a larger number of poor and middle class consumers than wealthy consumers, the poor and middle class do not have the income available to purchase enough consumer goods to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

So to move to a national flat sales tax would cripple our government and the services they provides. And like I said before, that's not just welfare programs, such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, and unemployment; it also includes federal law enforcement, such as the FBI, ATF, and DEA, defense spending, such as defense contracts for military equipment that grants our servicemen the advantage of force multipliers to be much deadlier than their opponents, disaster response, such FEMA to respond to unexpected natural disasters and federal programs to support local emergency responders, such as police departments, fire departments, and paramedics, transportation infrastructure, such as our federal highway system built for fast military transport but used everyday for civilian movement and flow of commerce but also includes our waterways for shipping, public education, which everyone refers to as our public elementary and high schools but also includes universities and colleges that businesses hire their skilled and educated employees from, and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC to ensure ethical stock practices, the FDA to ensure the people buy safe foods and drinks, and the EPA to enforce environmental laws to prevent industrial waste from poisoning American citizens.

A national flat sales tax won't cover the expenses for all those federal programs and duties. And those federal programs and duties are what has allowed our nation to build itself up as a world power and sustain it.
Click to expand...

You know what that tells me? It tells me the federal government is spending trillions of dollars that it has no authority in the Constitution to spend. Cut out the unconstitutional programs and the original system put in the Constitution would work. I say it would work, because the United States had paid off every debt it incurred during the War of Independence and operated in the black. This is also why there is a clause in the Constitution that guarantees that the debts the states incurred from the war and until the ratification of the Constitution. I give you Article VI Clause I.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
 
samsmart said:
For one, it will actually hurt the economy. Businesses thrive on consumer spending. If the poor and middle class have to spend their money on a regressive tax, they won't have enough to spend on more consumer goods. And the wealthy do not consume enough to make up for it.

It would also not bring in enough revenue to pay for all of our government-provided infrastructure. While you always focus on welfare, there is also defense spending, law enforcement, disaster response, transportation infrastructure, public education and regulatory agencies. All those programs require funding. Which is why a national flat tax won't bring in enough revenue, as the U.S. covers a third of a continent and it's costly to maintain social order for a landmass that size.

To give an example, if we used a national flat tax, most people only purchase a very few of a particular good. For example, most people only have one bed or two or three TVs at most and one computer. While the wealthy may have the ability to purchase more goods, and probably do (for example, a wealthy person has 3 houses, so they buy 2 beds for each, 3 TVs for each, and 1 computer for each house) their level of consumption is not high enough to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

And while there are a larger number of poor and middle class people than there are of wealth, and so a larger number of poor and middle class consumers than wealthy consumers, the poor and middle class do not have the income available to purchase enough consumer goods to make up for what would be lost if we moved to a national flat sales tax.

So to move to a national flat sales tax would cripple our government and the services they provides. And like I said before, that's not just welfare programs, such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, and unemployment; it also includes federal law enforcement, such as the FBI, ATF, and DEA, defense spending, such as defense contracts for military equipment that grants our servicemen the advantage of force multipliers to be much deadlier than their opponents, disaster response, such FEMA to respond to unexpected natural disasters and federal programs to support local emergency responders, such as police departments, fire departments, and paramedics, transportation infrastructure, such as our federal highway system built for fast military transport but used everyday for civilian movement and flow of commerce but also includes our waterways for shipping, public education, which everyone refers to as our public elementary and high schools but also includes universities and colleges that businesses hire their skilled and educated employees from, and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC to ensure ethical stock practices, the FDA to ensure the people buy safe foods and drinks, and the EPA to enforce environmental laws to prevent industrial waste from poisoning American citizens.

A national flat sales tax won't cover the expenses for all those federal programs and duties. And those federal programs and duties are what has allowed our nation to build itself up as a world power and sustain it.
Click to expand...

So apparently your argument is that the state has the right to violate the non-aggression principle and infringe upon the individuals right to self ownership because the state HAS to violate the non-aggression principle and infringe upon the individuals right of self ownership to continue to function. Well that's kind of the whole point, the state is an illegitimate entity which has to by its very nature enslave the populace through illegitimate actions in order to continue its survival.
 
TurtleDude said:
no-an amendment to the constitution supposedly allows income tax but it was anathema to the founding fathers

lets suppose the income tax is being discussed prior to ratification-give us a good argument why we should have an income tax

and make it to the founders-for they were land owners and pretty much the top of society.


make an argument why winners would incorporate such a thing in a document they created
Click to expand...

You should pay taxes proportionate to your income. Lets say the tax rate is 20%, and like you want it is the same for all citizens. The person making $500,00 will pay $100,000 in taxes, barring any deductions. A substantial amount, but it doesn't hinder the person making $500,000 as much as it hinders the person making $15,000 who will pay $3,000. Because the person making $15,000 is more likely to spend all of that money, maybe even more spending on just the basic needs to live. Like shelter, food, clothes, transportation, electricity, water,etc. While the person making $500,000 doesn't have that problem. So I ask the question, why do you want to take money from the less fortunate? Like were on food stamps because we want to be on them.
 
The_Patriot said:
You know what that tells me? It tells me the federal government is spending trillions of dollars that it has no authority in the Constitution to spend. Cut out the unconstitutional programs and the original system put in the Constitution would work. I say it would work, because the United States had paid off every debt it incurred during the War of Independence and operated in the black. This is also why there is a clause in the Constitution that guarantees that the debts the states incurred from the war and until the ratification of the Constitution. I give you Article VI Clause I.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Click to expand...

There are very few government programs spent by the federal government that are unconstitutional, and hardly in the trillions.
 
The_Patriot said:
You know what that tells me? It tells me the federal government is spending trillions of dollars that it has no authority in the Constitution to spend. Cut out the unconstitutional programs and the original system put in the Constitution would work. I say it would work, because the United States had paid off every debt it incurred during the War of Independence and operated in the black. This is also why there is a clause in the Constitution that guarantees that the debts the states incurred from the war and until the ratification of the Constitution. I give you Article VI Clause I.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Click to expand...

we would be better if we all had far more money to spend and the government had far less to spend

of course such a scenario keeps dem politicians out of power and unable to make class warfare advocates feel better
 
Your Star said:
You should pay taxes proportionate to your income. Lets say the tax rate is 20%, and like you want it is the same for all citizens. The person making $500,00 will pay $100,000 in taxes, barring any deductions. A substantial amount, but it doesn't hinder the person making $500,000 as much as it hinders the person making $15,000 who will pay $3,000. Because the person making $15,000 is more likely to spend all of that money, maybe even more spending on just the basic needs to live. Like shelter, food, clothes, transportation, electricity, water,etc. While the person making $500,000 doesn't have that problem. So I ask the question, why do you want to take money from the less fortunate? Like were on food stamps because we want to be on them.
Click to expand...

why? what good do I get by being forced to spend money on people who cannot hack it on their own.

I am not taking money from you anymore than Roger Federer takes prize money from guys who cannot return his serve. I compete, you compete, in nature, people like you don't survive. nature is a cruel master and when we ignore it, we often have problems--isn't that what the left wing tree huggers tell us?

really you haven't given me a valid reason why I should be taxed to pay for your existence. Your life is not my fault-your predicament is not caused by me. So why should I have to solve your problems?
 
samsmart said:
There are very few government programs spent by the federal government that are unconstitutional, and hardly in the trillions.
Click to expand...

in reality almost all the new deal and great society programs are unconstitutional. the new deal's first schemes were struck down before FDR threatened to pack the court. funny how dems didn't like stare decisis back then
 
samsmart said:
There are very few government programs spent by the federal government that are unconstitutional, and hardly in the trillions.
Click to expand...

Anything that is spent beyond what is listed in Article I Section VIII Clauses II-XVII is unconstitutional. That's how it goes so yes those are unconstitutional.
 
Agent Ferris said:
So apparently your argument is that the state has the right to violate the non-aggression principle and infringe upon the individuals right to self ownership because the state HAS to violate the non-aggression principle and infringe upon the individuals right of self ownership to continue to function. Well that's kind of the whole point, the state is an illegitimate entity which has to by its very nature enslave the populace through illegitimate actions in order to continue its survival.
Click to expand...

But the survival of the government is related to the survival of the populace. Therefore, the survival of the government is dependent on the survival of the populace. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the government to provide collective security and defense for the populace. Such security and defense is not slavery.

And trust me, the rights of individuals would not be far less respected in an anarchy without a government.
 
Your Star said:
You should pay taxes proportionate to your income. Lets say the tax rate is 20%, and like you want it is the same for all citizens. The person making $500,00 will pay $100,000 in taxes, barring any deductions. A substantial amount, but it doesn't hinder the person making $500,000 as much as it hinders the person making $15,000 who will pay $3,000. Because the person making $15,000 is more likely to spend all of that money, maybe even more spending on just the basic needs to live. Like shelter, food, clothes, transportation, electricity, water,etc. While the person making $500,000 doesn't have that problem. So I ask the question, why do you want to take money from the less fortunate? Like were on food stamps because we want to be on them.
Click to expand...

Switch out the money for say the use of your house. Would you say the same thing?
 
The_Patriot said:
Anything that is spent beyond what is listed in Article I Section VIII Clauses II-XVII is unconstitutional. That's how it goes so yes those are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the very detailed response about exactly which government spending is and isn't unconstutitional. Thanks for listing the numerous programs and examples of unconstutitional spending. It goes very far to prove your points.
 
Your Star said:
You should pay taxes proportionate to your income. Lets say the tax rate is 20%, and like you want it is the same for all citizens. The person making $500,00 will pay $100,000 in taxes, barring any deductions. A substantial amount, but it doesn't hinder the person making $500,000 as much as it hinders the person making $15,000 who will pay $3,000. Because the person making $15,000 is more likely to spend all of that money, maybe even more spending on just the basic needs to live. Like shelter, food, clothes, transportation, electricity, water,etc. While the person making $500,000 doesn't have that problem. So I ask the question, why do you want to take money from the less fortunate? Like were on food stamps because we want to be on them.
Click to expand...

you buying anything "hinders" you more than it does me. So what. that is an incentive for you to work harder and smarter and to delay gratification. I didn't get married until I was through grad and law school and had a successful practice. When I went back to my 25th reunion I thought very few people would have a child as young as my only son-8. Rather that was common. These high achievers waited until they were established in their careers before having children. It is amazing how many poor people were having children when I was having cram sessions or study groups

BTW if I pay 100K in taxes and you pay 3000 I am paying 30X more than you and I certainly am not getting 30 times the services. Indeed you use more tax dollars than I do since I am paying for people like you and I use very little federal services.
 
samsmart said:
But the survival of the government is related to the survival of the populace. Therefore, the survival of the government is dependent on the survival of the populace. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the government to provide collective security and defense for the populace. Such security and defense is not slavery.

And trust me, the rights of individuals would not be far less respected in an anarchy without a government.
Click to expand...

Ask the people, like the survivors of Waco and Ruby Ridge, if their rights were respected by the government.
 
Your Star said:
You should pay taxes proportionate to your income. Lets say the tax rate is 20%, and like you want it is the same for all citizens. The person making $500,00 will pay $100,000 in taxes, barring any deductions. A substantial amount, but it doesn't hinder the person making $500,000 as much as it hinders the person making $15,000 who will pay $3,000. Because the person making $15,000 is more likely to spend all of that money, maybe even more spending on just the basic needs to live. Like shelter, food, clothes, transportation, electricity, water,etc. While the person making $500,000 doesn't have that problem. So I ask the question, why do you want to take money from the less fortunate? Like were on food stamps because we want to be on them.
Click to expand...

This ignores the fact that the person making $500,000 would better serve the economy by reinvesting that $100,000 into the company which he owns, perhaps by giving the guy making $15,000 a year a raise or hiring another person who will, also, make $15,000 a year. Under the current system for each tax dollar collected for welfare programs 2/3's of that dollar goes to overhead costs. The only ones benefiting from state theft is the state itself.
 
samsmart said:
Thank you for the very detailed response about exactly which government spending is and isn't unconstutitional. Thanks for listing the numerous programs and examples of unconstutitional spending. It goes very far to prove your points.
Click to expand...

It's easier to deliniate what is Constitutional then isn't since there are hundreds of thousands of spending bills that aren't. Here's the list of what is Constitutional from Article I Section VIII Clauses II-XVI, Article VI Clause I, Article II Section I Clause VII, and Article III Section I Clause I.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
It's easier to deliniate what is Constitutional then isn't since there are hundreds of thousands of spending bills that aren't.
Click to expand...

I note that you didn't list that either.
 
samsmart said:
But the survival of the government is related to the survival of the populace. Therefore, the survival of the government is dependent on the survival of the populace. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the government to provide collective security and defense for the populace. Such security and defense is not slavery.
Click to expand...

It is when the state assumes a full monopoly on the use of collective security and defense especially when the state more often than not uses that monopoly to infringe upon the right of self ownership rather than defend it. In a free society there would be no monopoly on the just use of force. Security and defense would be provided through voluntary contractual agreements between private individuals and organizations.

And trust me, the rights of individuals would not be far less respected in an anarchy without a government.
Click to expand...

No they would actually be respected in a stateless society under an advanced market economy; whereas, under state capitalism they are not respected at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom