• 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
Agent Ferris said:
Ya because every Communist society has not used slave labour on a massive scale. :roll: In actuality capitalism and slavery are mutually exlusive concepts, because the basic premise of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned whether that be a factory or the human body. Under a truly capitalist sytem the individual is owner of his own body and has exclusive rights to control over and use of all services, goods, and capital generated through the labour of that body.
Click to expand...

uhh. .in a communist society their wouldn't be any slavery. I can't argue that there are any communist countries I have ever known. All models in history have used currency in one form or other while true communism is cashless. However they may be cashless they are enfranchised by the state, as such they are working for self benefit as well as collective benefit. Though individual gain is sacrificed to a large degree it would not indicate slavery. Working for the economic gain of someone else without personal economic gain is slavery if no wealth is transfered in the contract between buisness and employee. It was the southern cotton farmers that benefited mostly in recent history from slavery. Again though slaves are not paid.. even in a capitalist economy. The cost of labour is the primary expense in any business.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between a theoretical communist society, and what a communist society actually becomes. In a theoretical communist society, slavery could not possibly occur. However, because of human psychology, this kind of pure communism is not possible. That's why, pretty much all communist societies become either oligarchies or dictatorships, usually the latter.
 
The_Patriot said:
Claiming victory and proving it are two different things. You haven't proven your position and refuse to do so. How typical.
Click to expand...

Its not my fault if you do not accept my proof :shrug:

But I guess I can see where you would be confused since you cannot be consistent in what you are asking me for.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think I already did. If it is different, please clarify.
Click to expand...

This is from another thread and I put it here where it belongs to avoid confusion.

Funny, but you'd be wrong on what I think about taxation. I do not view indirect taxation, as specified in the pre-16th Amendment Constitution as slavery nor do I view it as stealing. I do view direct taxation to be slavery since the gains of your own industry do not belong to you, but the government. I also view the current taxing schemes that violate the the taxing specified in the pre-16th Amendment Constitution as illegal.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Its not my fault if you do not accept my proof :shrug:

But I guess I can see where you would be confused since you cannot be consistent in what you are asking me for.
Click to expand...

Your proof doesn't cite sources so no it's not good enough.

Projecting I see.
 
The_Patriot said:
This is from another thread and I put it here where it belongs to avoid confusion.

Funny, but you'd be wrong on what I think about taxation. I do not view indirect taxation, as specified in the pre-16th Amendment Constitution as slavery nor do I view it as stealing. I do view direct taxation to be slavery since the gains of your own industry do not belong to you, but the government. I also view the current taxing schemes that violate the the taxing specified in the pre-16th Amendment Constitution as illegal.
Click to expand...

Like I said "taxation=slavery". You gonne try that 13th Amendment case? I check for it in the papers.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Like I said "taxation=slavery". You gonne try that 13th Amendment case? I check for it in the papers.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole so not worth the time to actually come up with a reply beyond this.
 
The_Patriot said:
Hyperbole so not worth the time to actually come up with a reply beyond this.
Click to expand...

Taxation=slavery is in and of itself hyperbole. Responding to hyperbole with anything else gives credence to the position. It has no credence, so I responded accordingly.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you think it is slavery, then start a lawsuit based on a violation of your 13th Amendment rights. Go see how far that gets you. :roll:
Click to expand...

if all claims were only righteous based on what a corrupted US Court system would do this board would be boring and this country doomed. For example, Taney's decision with Dred Scott would have precluded Frederick Douglas from arguing that slavery was wrong and blacks would have never been able to claim separate but "equal" was unjust.

Or given most courts-gays shouldn't discuss getting married.

the fact is, one can make an honest argument that when more than half of your income is taken by taxes (it is for anyone in the top bracket) you are a slave to the government to some extent. true, you aren't being beaten, scourged or imprisoned so its technically not the same that Africans were subjected to 200 years ago
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Taxation=slavery is in and of itself hyperbole. Responding to hyperbole with anything else gives credence to the position. It has no credence, so I responded accordingly.
Click to expand...

First, you're misattributing what I actually by saying that all taxation is slavery. I never said that, so if you don't mind provide proof of where I actually said that all taxation is slavery. Secondly, the part I did say was slavery was not hyperbole, but an opinion based upon the fact that we have the right to the gains of our own industry. It's actually protected under Missouri Constitution under Section II and it applies to me since I live in Missouri. Based off this legal fact, yes, 90% taxation is slavery since the government enjoys the gains of my own industry while I do not.
 
TurtleDude said:
if all claims were only righteous based on what a corrupted US Court system would do this board would be boring and this country doomed. For example, Taney's decision with Dred Scott would have precluded Frederick Douglas from arguing that slavery was wrong and blacks would have never been able to claim separate but "equal" was unjust.

Or given most courts-gays shouldn't discuss getting married.

the fact is, one can make an honest argument that when more than half of your income is taken by taxes (it is for anyone in the top bracket) you are a slave to the government to some extent. true, you aren't being beaten, scourged or imprisoned so its technically not the same that Africans were subjected to 200 years ago
Click to expand...

Well... you can go to prison and lose all of your property for not paying taxes... the government just has to have it. This applies to any tax the government levies.
 
TurtleDude said:
if all claims were only righteous based on what a corrupted US Court system would do this board would be boring and this country doomed. For example, Taney's decision with Dred Scott would have precluded Frederick Douglas from arguing that slavery was wrong and blacks would have never been able to claim separate but "equal" was unjust.

Or given most courts-gays shouldn't discuss getting married.

the fact is, one can make an honest argument that when more than half of your income is taken by taxes (it is for anyone in the top bracket) you are a slave to the government to some extent. true, you aren't being beaten, scourged or imprisoned so its technically not the same that Africans were subjected to 200 years ago
Click to expand...

See, I agree with most of what you say above, but if you look at it from a societal standpoint, most SCOTUS decisions, especially those that change from one era to another, are based on interpretations consistent with the state of society at the time. The 13th and 14th Amendment have been narrowly construed duing the 19th century, and less narrowly constued during the 20th. Yet, both times, the Constitution has been followed.

The issue I have is with the use of the word "slavery". No, you can't make an honest argument using that word. It's hyperbole and an appeal to emotion. It is being used, incorrectly, to evoke a reaction. It's like using Hitler in ANY argument.

I actually agree with your position on a flat tax rate... though I'd like to see some figures on whether that would work in sustaining government expenditures. The issue I have is when folks use incorrect terminology to evoke an emotional reaction. All that is, is hyperbole.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
See, I agree with most of what you say above, but if you look at it from a societal standpoint, most SCOTUS decisions, especially those that change from one era to another, are based on interpretations consistent with the state of society at the time. The 13th and 14th Amendment have been narrowly construed duing the 19th century, and less narrowly constued during the 20th. Yet, both times, the Constitution has been followed.

The issue I have is with the use of the word "slavery". No, you can't make an honest argument using that word. It's hyperbole and an appeal to emotion. It is being used, incorrectly, to evoke a reaction. It's like using Hitler in ANY argument.

I actually agree with your position on a flat tax rate... though I'd like to see some figures on whether that would work in sustaining government expenditures. The issue I have is when folks use incorrect terminology to evoke an emotional reaction. All that is, is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

without getting into a semantic battle over "slavery" (he was her "love slave", he is enslaved by tobacco, "I work like a slave") the issue isn't whether the government can continue to spend at the wasteful rates now. The clear answer is that the government cannot continue to spend at its current rate no matter what the tax system. Even the most avid class warriors admit that if you jack taxes up too high, the revenues decrease as people leave. Sweden found that out. So, there is no tax system available that will sustain the current spending.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
See, I agree with most of what you say above, but if you look at it from a societal standpoint, most SCOTUS decisions, especially those that change from one era to another, are based on interpretations consistent with the state of society at the time. The 13th and 14th Amendment have been narrowly construed duing the 19th century, and less narrowly constued during the 20th. Yet, both times, the Constitution has been followed.

The issue I have is with the use of the word "slavery". No, you can't make an honest argument using that word. It's hyperbole and an appeal to emotion. It is being used, incorrectly, to evoke a reaction. It's like using Hitler in ANY argument.

I actually agree with your position on a flat tax rate... though I'd like to see some figures on whether that would work in sustaining government expenditures. The issue I have is when folks use incorrect terminology to evoke an emotional reaction. All that is, is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Except that slavery is defined as actually ownership of a person or economics ie wage slave. I used the term slavery correctly. Here is the definition of slavery and slave.

slavery: state of subjection like that of a slave

slave: One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
 
TurtleDude said:
without getting into a semantic battle over "slavery" (he was her "love slave", he is enslaved by tobacco, "I work like a slave") the issue isn't whether the government can continue to spend at the wasteful rates now. The clear answer is that the government cannot continue to spend at its current rate no matter what the tax system. Even the most avid class warriors admit that if you jack taxes up too high, the revenues decrease as people leave. Sweden found that out. So, there is no tax system available that will sustain the current spending.
Click to expand...

Again... I would agree with this. There is so much inefficiency in government. We need another Hoover Commission.
 
The_Patriot said:
Except that slavery is defined as actually ownership of a person or economics ie wage slave. I used the term slavery correctly. Here is the definition of slavery and slave.

slavery: state of subjection like that of a slave

slave: One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
Click to expand...

So... when are you going to work on that 13th Amendment case?
 
The_Patriot said:
First, you're misattributing what I actually by saying that all taxation is slavery. I never said that, so if you don't mind provide proof of where I actually said that all taxation is slavery. Secondly, the part I did say was slavery was not hyperbole, but an opinion based upon the fact that we have the right to the gains of our own industry. It's actually protected under Missouri Constitution under Section II and it applies to me since I live in Missouri. Based off this legal fact, yes, 90% taxation is slavery since the government enjoys the gains of my own industry while I do not.
Click to expand...

The 16th Amendment says you're wrong. But feel free to work that 13th Amendment case.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The 16th Amendment says you're wrong. But feel free to work that 13th Amendment case.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the 16th Amendment granted Congress no new power to levy taxes and defined the four categories of legal taxes under the 16th Amendment as capital gains, corporate earnings, dividends, and illicit transactions. I guess you can't discuss but have to use hyperbole.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When you do the same. And I am discussing this. Read my responses to Turtle.
Click to expand...

Except your replying in a discussion with Turtle and not me. With me you are using hyperbole and showing no intention of discussing it with me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Again... I would agree with this. There is so much inefficiency in government. We need another Hoover Commission.
Click to expand...

THIS [COUNTRY] NEEDS AN ENEMA

Jack Nicholson as the Joker-slightly modified
 
The_Patriot said:
Except your replying in a discussion with Turtle and not me. With me you are using hyperbole and showing no intention of discussing it with me.
Click to expand...

Then try not to throw hyperbole my way. Tell me... what do you think would be a reasonable solution to tax laws?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then try not to throw hyperbole my way. Tell me... what do you think would be a reasonable solution to tax laws?
Click to expand...

I never threw hyperbole your way. The moment you stepped into this thread you were throwing it at me.

Remove all of the unconstitutional spending by dismantling the welfare state, severely cut back on the military and remove the warfare state, convert to a gold standard as mandated in the Constitution, and to revert back to the tax system that is in place in the Constitution.
 
The_Patriot said:
I never threw hyperbole your way. The moment you stepped into this thread you were throwing it at me.

Remove all of the unconstitutional spending by dismantling the welfare state, severely cut back on the military and remove the warfare state, convert to a gold standard as mandated in the Constitution, and to revert back to the tax system that is in place in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

While that would be nice that's not gonna happen so what do you want that would work? seriously. I agree with most of what you say in theory. I want the death confiscation tax gone or hit every estate with a 55% tax bill since that would get those who want the rich to get soaked should put their money where their mouthes are. I also think the progressive income tax is an improper power grab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom