• 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
The only taxes placed on 18th century Americans after the Constitution was ratified was distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auction and certain legal documents. In the 19th century there was the addition of property taxes upon homes starting in certain cities in the 1830's and became standard in all states by the end of the century. Using the data table you provided in the document the wages in gold dollars will have to be converted into gold ounces then using the Coinage Act of 1790 to find the equivalent amount. The current spot price for gold is $1,206.40 for an ounce. Thus on the table the $2500 disposible income is converted into 2 ounces of gold. That translates into $20 gold dollars. At the upper end of the scale, it is 33 ounces of gold which is $600 gold dollars.









In the 18th-19th centuries wages ranged from $1 and up per day depending upon the job of the person. I'll use a miller that made $2 a day for this with a weekly wage of $14 gold dollars. He didn't have to pay any of the taxes we have to pay now, so his average expenses would have been roughly $2-4 a week in gold dollars (assuming he's single), so he was left with $10 gold dollars. That is a half an ounce of gold, so in today's money that would be $603.20 per week or
$31,366.4 a year. His total disposable income would be at 72%.

i'm sorry, the info i provided was disposable income in 2000 dollars . no conversion necessary. and you still provided nothing to back up your disposable income claim.
 
He that asserts must prove. I did provide proof, but the onus is on you to buy the book to read it. There's an old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Like I said before it's up to you to buy the book since you expressed interest in the subject. Also, scanning in a book is a violation of copyright and I cannot believe you're asking me to break the law. Is this standard for your 'honest discussions'?

I'm just reading this and had to comment. This is the most riduclous assertion I've seen at DP. It's YOUR assertion, therefore it is YOUR responsibility to prove it. It is NOT someone else's responsibility to confirm your position. It is YOURS. Either buy the book and confirm, or your source is irrelevant. The onus to prove YOUR position is on YOU. If you cannot do your own research, don't blame others.
 
i'm sorry, the info i provided was disposable income in 2000 dollars . no conversion necessary. and you still provided nothing to back up your disposable income claim.

Actually, you have to convert the fiat currency over to the gold currency. They are two completely different currencies. Also, I did provide proof of wages and taxes paid back then which shows the disposible income of the person. You just don't like that people had more money back then or the proof provided.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you have to convert the fiat currency over to the gold currency. They are two completely different currencies. Also, I did provide proof of wages and taxes paid back then which shows the disposible income of the person. You just don't that people had more money back then or the proof provided.

why do you have to convert anything if the link compares apples to apples? the link i provided compares periods using the year 2000 dollars. my link lays out, very cleary, trending of disposable income from 1900 to 2000.
 
why do you have to convert anything if the link compares apples to apples? the link i provided compares periods using the year 2000 dollars. my link lays out, very cleary, trending of disposable income from 1900 to 2000.

Because in 2000 we are using fiat money not backed by anything. Under the Coinage Act of 1790, an ounce of gold is set at $20 an ounce and it remained there until the Federal Reserve Note entered circulation in 1916. The current spot price for gold is $1,206.40 an ounce, which we have to go by for the year 2000 dollars. Between 1789-1916, people were paid in gold, silver, nickel, and copper coins. There were Treasury Certificates issued that functioned as a metal coin since they were payable upon demand in gold or silver, which was .999 pure. The Treasury Certificates made it easier to carry large sums of money since the coins got rather heavy.
 
Last edited:
Is taxation Slavery? Absolutely not. If the government did not exercise taxation as a viable avenue to generate revenues, then our Government would be more appropriately labeled as follows:

U.S.Government, LLC...
 
Because in 2000 we are using fiat money not backed by anything. Under the Coinage Act of 1790, an ounce of gold is set at $20 an ounce and it remained there until the Federal Reserve Note entered circulation in 1916. The current spot price for gold is $1,206.40, an ounce which we have to go by for the year 2000 dollars. Between 1789-1916, people were paid in gold, silver, nickel, and copper coins. There were Treasury Certificates issued that functioned as a metal coin since they were payable upon demand in gold or silver, which was .999 pure.

what don't you undersdtand about the table being in yr 2000 equivalent dollars?
 
what don't you undersdtand about the table being in yr 2000 equivalent dollars?

Because the data I presented for the period of time, 1789-1919, that you asked about isn't covered in the document you provided. The data you presented about disposable income is from the 20th-21st centuries while I was speaking about the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, the conversion was necessary to make a valid comparison of disposable income between the 18th-19th centuries and the 20th-21st centuries.
 
Last edited:
Show me the proof that backs up your first statement regarding charity for the years 1700-1919. I have been waiting patiently for it.

The government can limit you to get welfare based upon skin color (actually happened to me back when I was poor and needed help) or any other criteria they want to put into place. It is not guaranteed.

:waiting: Keep waiting. I have an appointment with my psychiatrist.
 
I'm all for making those programs more efficient, but I'm definitely not for getting rid of those programs. Also charities can not provide for everyone like the government can.

A) The government can not provide for everyone.

B) Even if they could it is not their right, the government's purpose (if there is one) is to defend the right of individual sovereignty not to violate it, because when you say the government can violate your rights like this, this and this, but not like that, that, and that, the line to be drawn is arbitrary and will continuously shift through the cycles of minimal tyranny and absolute tyranny due to the fickle whims of the masses at the moment, the only way to solve this problem is to say simply that the state has no place violating the rights of individual sovereignty no matter if they say it is for the public good or not.

Also your self ownership comes after taxes. :2razz:

lol you either have the right to individual sovereignty or you do not, there is no grey area, you are either the master of your own body with exclusive rights to use of said body and all capital, services, and goods generated by the labour of that body or you are property left to the capricious devices of the state come what may.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, quite a bit of conversatin’ going on in this thread lately…
 
I'm just reading this and had to comment. This is the most riduclous assertion I've seen at DP. It's YOUR assertion, therefore it is YOUR responsibility to prove it. It is NOT someone else's responsibility to confirm your position. It is YOURS. Either buy the book and confirm, or your source is irrelevant. The onus to prove YOUR position is on YOU. If you cannot do your own research, don't blame others.

Yep. Also since this was the basis of his argument, he does not actually have one.
 
Yep. Also since this was the basis of his argument, he does not actually have one.

Claiming that I didn't have an argument when you had no proof and by moving goal posts is quite humorous. :lol: It also wasn't my argument, but Yourstar's about the effectiveness and reliability of private charities. She also hasn't presented any proof to date.
 
Claiming that I didn't have an argument when you had no proof and by moving goal posts is quite humorous. :lol: It also wasn't my argument, but Yourstar's about the effectiveness and reliability of private charities. She also hasn't presented any proof to date.

I do have proof that you do not have an argument. You have admitted yourself that you cannot provide information to substantiate your claim and instead claim that I must buy a book to prove you right -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-46.html#post1058858541. Also, I have shown you the initial post in which I asked you to prove your claim and I have shown that I have not moved goal posts as you were responding to LiberalAvenger -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476.

So I will ask again, can you cite that private charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped?
 
Pay unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's.
Don't use his money and add to his cause if it is against your morals or code of honor.
 
The poor pay sales tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, utility tax, license fees, interest on indebtedness, high interest payday loans (up to 500%), property taxes (indirectly, even though they rent), etc. After all those taxes they can not afford to pay income taxes.

I believe I am correct that private charities can not handle the burden. I have to research it, though.

the political issue is income taxes. that is the tax that is applied at different rates to some and is the political hot potato. Most of those "taxes" aren't at issue involving the poor and the rich in terms of politics
 
:waiting: Keep waiting. I have an appointment with my psychiatrist.

recognizing liberalism is a mental disorder is the first step in the road to recovery

I salute you:mrgreen:
 
Um, it's your job to prove that it was effective as a suitable replacement to welfare. You have provided no such proof.

No they can't do anything like that. I'm white, and I'm getting food stamps, and they have many laws on the books stopping such discrimination. Getting welfare is based on need, and nothing else.

why? I am still waiting for you to provide a rational argument why I have a duty to support your existence by force. Your existence does not benefit me so why should I be forced to pay for your inability to provide for yourself?
 
No matter how much you Libertarians moan and groan, you still you have to pay your taxes, or go to jail.

ricksfolly
 
No matter how much you Libertarians moan and groan, you still you have to pay your taxes, or go to jail.

ricksfolly

that's a great argument in a forum like this

we will tell all the gays that they shouldn't argue for marriage since most states don't allow it

all the gun haters can take a hike because the supremes slapped them around twice

great intellectual premise there
 
I do have proof that you do not have an argument. You have admitted yourself that you cannot provide information to substantiate your claim and instead claim that I must buy a book to prove you right -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-46.html#post1058858541. Also, I have shown you the initial post in which I asked you to prove your claim and I have shown that I have not moved goal posts as you were responding to LiberalAvenger -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476.

So I will ask again, can you cite that private charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped?

I didn't change the goal posts, but you did. If you want to know then educate yourself since it was never my argument. It was always Yourstar's argument.

Youstar stated in post #446, "Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that." There is no link to back up Yourstar's statement regarding reliability.

In post #450 Youstar claimed, "Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die." Again no link to back up Yourstar's statement about the effectiveness of private charity.

The link Yourstar provided in post #453 never goes back to the 1700's and starts in the 1920's. It is invalid as a source against the data of private charities from the 1700's-1919. You asserted that private charities in the 1700's-1919 were unreliable and ineffective and you failed to provide proof.

If you are going to credit someone for an argument at least do it with the right person.
 
Pay unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's.
Don't use his money and add to his cause if it is against your morals or code of honor.

Except the people are Caeser not the government. The government is a servant not a master.
 
I didn't change the goal posts, but you did. If you want to know then educate yourself since it was never my argument. It was always Yourstar's argument.

If you are going to credit someone for an argument at least do it with the right person.

Don't give me that red herring. Just be honest and admit you have no evidence to support your claim that charity can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped.
 
Don't give me that red herring. Just be honest and admit you have no evidence to support your claim that charity can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped.

There we go again moving the goal posts when I provided proof that the effectiveness and reliability of charity was not my argument. You have a tendency of doing that since this will make the third time you've moved the goal posts. You make an argument then prove it, so far you haven't proven that charity was unreliable and ineffective (since you are on Yourstar's side of the debate you have to prove it.)
 
There we go again moving the goal posts when I provided proof that the effectiveness and reliability of charity was not my argument. You have a tendency of doing that since this will make the third time you've moved the goal posts. You make an argument then prove it, so far you haven't proven that charity was unreliable and ineffective (since you are on Yourstar's side of the debate you have to prove it.)

First of all, I am on my own side of the debate. It is up to her to defend herself. Second of all, please show me how I am moving the goal posts. I have shown at least twice now that all I want is for you to prove your assertion that you claimed against LiberalAvenger's post. Once you have either proved it or rescinded the statement, we will move on.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom