• 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
megaprogman said:
Where is this financial data? I honestly might have missed it. Also, can this financial data show what impact it had on the poor or only that a certain amount of money was donated?
Click to expand...

Now prior to 1916, people in the United States had far more disposable income due to the fact there weren't that many taxes placed on them and the government didn't limit their choices regarding charitible giving. Combine this with the fact that there was a fixed currency that didn't devalue over time, inflation, that the average American's spending power was greater than it is today. All of this is the fault of the government by implementing laws that interfere with charitible giving, fiat currency that has lost its purchasing power, and the taking of most of the disposable income of many Americans through taxation. Link
 
Your Star said:
I stated that they were not effective at providing for all the poor, you claimed that that I was wrong, therefore you were stating that charities were effective at providing for all the poor. And I did provide proof, though I doubt you even clicked the link I provided.
Click to expand...

You 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 your statement regarding reliability.

In post #450 you 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 your statement about the effectiveness of private charity.

The link you 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.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
You 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 your statement regarding reliability.

In post #450 you 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 your statement about the effectiveness of private charity.

The link you 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 that 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.
Click to expand...

My proof is sufficient, it provides the fatal flaw in charities, in that even if they were able to provide for the people 100% of the time( and I'm not saying that they were) is that they are provided for by private donations. That are not mandatory, and that during a time of financial distress, like the great depression they can't be relied upon to help out the impoverished. That is why a government welfare program is necessary to help out the impoverished, and my numbers prove that welfare programs actually do help out the impoverished.
 
Your Star said:
My proof is sufficient, it provides the fatal flaw in charities, in that even if they were able to provide for the people 100% of the time( and I'm not saying that they were) is that they are provided for by private donations. That are not mandatory, and that during a time of financial distress, like the great depression they can't be relied upon to help out the impoverished. That is why a government welfare program is necessary to help out the impoverished, and my numbers prove that welfare programs actually do help out the impoverished.
Click to expand...

No, your proof fails to address the years between the 1700's-1919. As such it is invalid. Find proof that backs up your statements about the reliability and effectiveness of charities between 1700 till 1919. Also, the statistics I provided from the National Poverty Center have shown that the levels of poverty have remained unchanged in the United States even after the implementation of federal welfare programs.
 
The_Patriot said:
Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.
Click to expand...

Some of the christians force you to be "washed in the blood of jesus" in order to get aid.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
Some of the christian force you to be "washed in the blood of jesus" in order to get aid.
Click to expand...

A private organization can put any policy they want in regards to their money they give out. Just like the government can put any policy they want in regards to the money they give out to the poor.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
These states were in a state of rebellion at the time, refusing to abide by the Constitution. They also voluntarily chose to remove their representation. Since the state of rebellion threatened the security of the US itself, I'n certain that a case could be made that this was valid under national defense laws.
Click to expand...
I dont think so. Nothing in the Constution even comes close to giving the federal government the power to require a state to vote at ALL on an amendment, much less -require- it to vote one way or the other.

You may make such an argument if you like, but your road is long and difficult.
 
The_Patriot said:
No, your proof fails to address the years between the 1700's-1919. As such it is invalid. Find proof that backs up your statements about the reliability and effectiveness of charities between 1700 till 1919. Also, the statistics I provided from the National Poverty Center have shown that the levels of poverty have remained unchanged in the United States even after the implementation of federal welfare programs.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that charities are never as reliable as the government. What happens when the charity you are getting aid from looses its funding? That won't happen with government welfare programs.

The_Patriot said:
A private organization can put any policy they want in regards to their money they give out. Just like the government can put any policy they want in regards to the money they give out to the poor.
Click to expand...

But the governments requirements to get welfare are about need, not about religion.
 
The_Patriot said:
A private organization can put any policy they want in regards to their money they give out. Just like the government can put any policy they want in regards to the money they give out to the poor.
Click to expand...

No the government can not respect the establishment of religion when funding social programs.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No the government can not respect the establishment of religion when funding social programs.
Click to expand...

he said:
A private organization can put any policy they want in regards to their money they give out.
 
The_Patriot said:
Now prior to 1916, people in the United States had far more disposable income due to the fact there weren't that many taxes placed on them and the government didn't limit their choices regarding charitible giving. Combine this with the fact that there was a fixed currency that didn't devalue over time, inflation, that the average American's spending power was greater than it is today. All of this is the fault of the government by implementing laws that interfere with charitible giving, fiat currency that has lost its purchasing power, and the taking of most of the disposable income of many Americans through taxation. Link
Click to expand...

i can't find any data to support your disposable income claim......can you provide? all i can find is a study that directly contradicts your claim.

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus_fisher.pdf

see figure 1.
 
Your Star said:
I'm saying that charities are never as reliable as the government. What happens when the charity you are getting aid from looses its funding? That won't happen with government welfare programs.



But the governments requirements to get welfare are about need, not about religion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

you were refused help because of your skin color? i doubt that.
 
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
liblady said:
i can't find any data to support your disposable income claim......can you provide? all i can find is a study that directly contradicts your claim.

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus_fisher.pdf

see figure 1.
Click to expand...

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%.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

You made the claim so back it up. I never claimed that it was effective or reliable.
 
The_Patriot said:
It was back about 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

i hate to say this, but i don't believe you. a gov't program that you were entitled to turned you down because of your skin color? you'll have to be a bit more specific.
 
The_Patriot said:
You made the claim so back it up. I never claimed that it was effective or reliable.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, when you stated that charities could take care of people just as well as welfare programs.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No the current system is a plutocracy based entirely on class supremacy and individual dependency.
Click to expand...

No, plutocracy is an accurate description of what is being proposed by some members on this thread. Rule and power by those with wealth.
 
Your Star said:
Yes you did, when you stated that charities could take care of people just as well as welfare programs.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said that charities did a good job before the government got involved. You made the claim so back it up.
 
TurtleDude said:
your denials are foolish and you play evasive games. I know you don't like it but its a fact. I haven't posted a single thing you can actually prove as false--you utter an opinion which I reject as unlearned and statist
Click to expand...

You've presentd no rational refutations... only hyperbole. It's all you've got on this issue. I reject your opinion as nothing but plutocratic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom