• 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:
I reject the From each according to his ability nonsense,
Click to expand...

You can reject it all you want, means little as it is our system for the time being.

TurtleDude said:
my wife has a black belt and a USPSA Class A card-feel free to try, I hope she cleans up the mess before I get back home
Click to expand...

You act like it would be rape? :mrgreen:
 
Any tax that is spent on anything that violates individual rights or is otherwise unconstitutional is definitely SLAVERY.
 
Your Star said:
A.) If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. Therefore you are a member. But you can leave when you are 18 if you feel the tax system is unfair.
Click to expand...

Once again I did not agree to grant this group of people sovereignty over me, being born is not a voluntary action, and furthermore, this once again pre-supposes that the state has legitimate claim over the territory which I am born into, you are committing the begging the question fallacy because your conclusion is assumed in your premise.

B.) The government of the USA has control over the lands of the USA. If you live within those lands the government has control over then you are subjected to pay taxes. Just like if you live in a specific state you have to pay the state's taxes. People from Georgia don't pay Texas taxes, but they are obligated to pay Georgian taxes.
Click to expand...

The state has no legitimate claim to the territory which it claims. Original appropriation can only be obtained legitmately through mixing your labour with the land or by acquiring title to the land from someone who has, and so on and so forth. The state is just another group of people living within an arbitrary land mass with no more right to infringe upon my right to self ownership than any other group of people.

C.) This is a flawed argument, because it assumes that the state has control over the people. It doesn't, the state can't tell me what job to do, when I can go to bed, when I have to work, if I have to work, how long I have to stay here, stop me from leaving.
Click to expand...

Either the state has the right to violate your right to individual sovereignty or it does not. You are either property or you are not. You sit here and say the state can violate your right of self ownership on this, this, and this, but the state can not violate it on that, that, and that, your argument is not consistent, I on the other hand argue flat out that the state can not violate your right of self ownership period. Your argument is flawed not mine.

The state can't do any of that, well unless I broke a law, and I wouldn't think you are advocating the abolishment of laws now are you?
Click to expand...

I most certainly am advocating the abolishment of quite a few laws which infringe upon the individuals right of self ownership. The law should exist only to protect the right of self ownership not to violate it.

So what if I went driving drunk, what makes the government think it has the right to take away my freedom by putting me in jail!!! :roll:
Click to expand...

This is different because upon obtaining a license to drive you enter into a voluntary contract to abide by a set of rules and the penalties for violating those rules when you operate a motor vehicle.

Taxes are a necessity of life, you need to deal with that.
Click to expand...

No they are not a necessity of life and they are a violation of individual sovereignty.

Or you could boycott taxes,
Click to expand...

Then I would be arrested, imprisoned, and physically assualted/killed if I resist.

and everything the government does with them. Just remember to not use any road, unless you make it yourself.
Click to expand...

Roads could just as easily be produced by private entitities who would then charge a fee for use of those roads. This would not violate the non-aggression principle because the cost of those roads would be obtained through voluntary consent of the user.

Oh and just turn in that drivers license you have, because it's was made using tax dollars.
Click to expand...

The last time I checked drivers licenses are issued upon paying $40.

Oh, and quite your job, because your being "forced" to give up some of your paycheck to the government, and there's no way to get around that besides quitting your job.
Click to expand...

I am advocating the abolishment of the state, because it is an illegitimate entity whose authority comes about through the illegitimate use of force. How is this a response to that?

And just take your kids out of public school, no need for them to benefit because of evil taxes. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Click to expand...

The public administration of the education system is destroying the future of this countries youth while wasting billions in stolen capital.
 
TurtleDude said:
I prefer a system where everyone pays the same rate.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the super wealth pay no income tax at all. They earn their riches though investments and pay only 15% on capital gains. Warren Buffett has famously said that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. He also say there is a class war going on and his side (the rich) are winning.
 
Your Star said:
So then you think poor people shouldn't have the right to vote. Gotcha!

Then you can vote for people who agree with you. But 10% of $15,000 hurts more than 10% of $500,000.

We already have a sales tax.

When rich people are going hungry because of taxes you can talk, but when people want to cut spending on welfare programs that could very well make me go hungry I think I should have equal say.
And I don't plan to be in this situation forever, I hate having to be on food stamps, but when I am fortunate enough to get out of this situation, I will gladly pay taxes to help other people who have fell on hard times.
Click to expand...

I would prefer you be able to vote but that the system is such that if you vote to raise taxes on me, you suffer an equal raise in what is taken out of every additional dollar you earn. Then you would be far less likely to vote yourself more public wealth. Right now you have absolutely NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER, to limit government spending since you have no skin in the game

being dependent on others really should mean you have no right to force them to pay more for you.

What you should say is that if you get out of your dependency predicament you would give to charity to help others since that is far more effective than voting for more taxes and more government
 
Well, I’m in the middle of taxation is slavery and theft issue. It’s a complex issue that pulls from discussions about small government, consent of the governed and what should be taxed, etc. I think in the end the people should have more money in their pockets.
 
pbrauer said:
The fact is that the super wealth pay no income tax at all. They earn their riches though investments and pay only 15% on capital gains. Warren Buffett has famously said that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. He also say there is a class war going on and his side (the rich) are winning.
Click to expand...

what oozing BS- I have already destroyed buffett's hypocrisy-he only takes 100K in salary and the rest in capital gains--yet he still pays a higher percentage on his salary than she does and if he took the sort of salary similarly situated executives of equivalent standing did he'd pay a lot more

so he is a guy who has the control to structure his compensation to avoid as much taxes as possible and he whines about it

15% on a billion sure is far more than he uses. So take that crap about the superwealthy paying no income tax at all and flush it down the toilent. your master Obama isn't just targeting Buffett and Gates with his tax hike schemes.
 
Blackdog said:
You can reject it all you want, means little as it is our system for the time being.



You act like it would be rape? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

NO it would be pest control

but for a conservative you sure seem to be a fascist-statist.

because something is the way it is that precludes debate on a subject?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You believe in plutocracy, I do not.
Click to expand...

what I believe in is freedom and if people want to vote then they should have to have some skin in the game. I would limit voting to tax payers which is hardly a plutocracy. Since you seem unwilling to support a system where one group cannot vote up the taxes of others while not suffering anything themselves, I would prefer they not be able to vote.

so the choices are-

let everyone vote-producer or looter, net tax payer or net tax consumer, parasite or contributor but we have a flat tax or sales tax

OR more votes for more taxes you pay

or Taxpayers only voting.

That you ignore the fact that there are plenty of people out there who want the top tax payers paying 3X or 4X what they are paying now (including some scumbag from the AFL-CIO) undercuts your credibility with me
 
TurtleDude said:
what I believe in is freedom and if people want to vote then they should have to have some skin in the game. I would limit voting to tax payers which is hardly a plutocracy. Since you seem unwilling to support a system where one group cannot vote up the taxes of others while not suffering anything themselves, I would prefer they not be able to vote.

so the choices are-

let everyone vote-producer or looter, net tax payer or net tax consumer, parasite or contributor but we have a flat tax or sales tax

OR more votes for more taxes you pay

or Taxpayers only voting.

That you ignore the fact that there are plenty of people out there who want the top tax payers paying 3X or 4X what they are paying now (including some scumbag from the AFL-CIO) undercuts your credibility with me
Click to expand...

Again, I have addressed this in a proposal that all people should have to pay a minimum progressive income tax, and instead of paying cash people can instead donate time for services to the public good. That way, if the poor aren't able to spend money into the system, they can instead spend time into it.

That's much better than a too regressive flat tax.
 
samsmart said:
Again, I have addressed this in a proposal that all people should have to pay a minimum progressive income tax, and instead of paying cash people can instead donate time for services to the public good. That way, if the poor aren't able to spend money into the system, they can instead spend time into it.

That's much better than a too regressive flat tax.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to go after other's property by using the government?
 
samsmart said:
Again, I have addressed this in a proposal that all people should have to pay a minimum progressive income tax, and instead of paying cash people can instead donate time for services to the public good. That way, if the poor aren't able to spend money into the system, they can instead spend time into it.

That's much better than a too regressive flat tax.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Your Star said:
The Constitution. :2razz:
Click to expand...

wrong

but tell me what is the moral authority you point to that justifies me having to support your existence. frankly your existence doesn't benefit me so why should I have to (morally-don't quote dem created redistributionist laws designed to buy your vote) pay for your share of government services.
 
Your Star said:
The original :2razz:
Click to expand...

In the original, there is no provision for income taxation. There is a provision for generating money through duties and through enumeration of people by state. By using that, what right do you have to someone else's property?
 
The_Patriot said:
In the original, there is no provision for income taxation. There is a provision for generating money through duties and through enumeration of people by state. By using that, what right do you have to someone else's property?
Click to expand...

sadly the dems have created generations of people who believe they are entitled to the wealth of others

remember the old adage-beggars cannot be choosers? well the dems have an attitude that not only are people entitled to the wealth of others, if you are being soaked you should be happy that the goverment doesn't take more to buy the votes of their supporters
 
The_Patriot said:
In the original, there is no provision for income taxation. There is a provision for generating money through duties and through enumeration of people by state. By using that, what right do you have to someone else's property?
Click to expand...

The constitution allows taxation, income tax is a form of taxation. Therefore the constitution allows income tax.
 
TurtleDude said:
sadly the dems have created generations of people who believe they are entitled to the wealth of others

remember the old adage-beggars cannot be choosers? well the dems have an attitude that not only are people entitled to the wealth of others, if you are being soaked you should be happy that the goverment doesn't take more to buy the votes of their supporters
Click to expand...

Well it all started with the Republicans and the welfare given under Lincoln's administration to pay for the votes of the German immigrants in the northern states. He created the Department of Agriculture with the sole purpose of giving handouts to farmers.
 
Your Star said:
The constitution allows taxation, income tax is a form of taxation. Therefore the constitution allows income tax.
Click to expand...

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
 
sound point but FDR and LBJ really screwed the pooch
 
Your Star said:
The constitution allows taxation, income tax is a form of taxation. Therefore the constitution allows income tax.
Click to expand...

Nope it doesn't. I give you the Constitution of the United States in Article I Section IX Clause IV.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

To head off the argument about Article I Section VIII Clause I's statement of 'To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' James Madison stated, in regards to general welfare, that all of the grants of power pertaining to it is self-contained and listed in that section. Therefore, using his reasoning then the only taxes allowed are by enumeration or by duties. Imposts are the same duties since they're both tariffs placed on the manufacturers of said goods. Since it's placed on the manufacturer a person is not taxed.

Here is the rest of the Clauses pertaining to taxes in the Constitution from Article I Section IX Clause V, Article I Section IX Clause VI, and Article I Section X Clause II.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
wrong

but tell me what is the moral authority you point to that justifies me having to support your existence. frankly your existence doesn't benefit me so why should I have to (morally-don't quote dem created redistributionist laws designed to buy your vote) pay for your share of government services.
Click to expand...

Morality has nothing to do with the tax code. It's irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about Sunday school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom