• 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:
I never moved goal posts. You put forth the argument that people could afford to give more to private charities when taxation was low. And that that increased amount was enough to take care of the needs of the financially handicapped.

You seem to think there is a mathematical difference between federal and state taxes. However, since 5 = 5 or any other number equals itself whether there is a tax increase by federal or state, there would be the same net effect on taxation if taxes were increased the same amount from any source, city, county, state, or federal.

You are not accepting my argument based on this flawed reasoning. However, since math does work and does not change between a federal and state level, poor houses are a perfectly good example of the government stepping in to help the poor, even during the last century when taxation was lower and people were supposedly more prosperous because of it.

The constitutionality and whatever other laws pertaining to the state and federal level are not revelent to this discussion and your objection does not address any useful points. If you had wished to make a legal based argument, your objection would mean something, but you chose to make a mathmatical and taxation based argument instead.

So, in trying to change the argument from a taxation one to a legal one, you are the one moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

I never changed the argument, but you tried to. You still haven't proven that charities were ineffective and unreliable before the federal government got involved.

The Constitution is relevant to this discussion since I brought forth the argument to begin with. You keep moving the goal posts when you were unable to disprove my statement that charities are reliable and effective prior to the federal government got involved. I used the numbers from the fiscal years of 2007 and 2008 to show that charities were more then able to keep up with the federal government in terms of giving and they were able to reliably be there. You cannot disprove this. Ergo, you lost and conceded.
 
The_Patriot said:
I never changed the argument, but you tried to. You still haven't proven that charities were ineffective and unreliable before the federal government got involved.

The Constitution is relevant to this discussion since I brought forth the argument to begin with. You keep moving the goal posts when you were unable to disprove my statement that charities are reliable and effective prior to the federal government got involved. I used the numbers from the fiscal years of 2007 and 2008 to show that charities were more then able to keep up with the federal government in terms of giving and they were able to reliably be there. You cannot disprove this. Ergo, you lost and conceded.
Click to expand...

So, you never changed your argument then? Hrm, lets see

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...

You should have perhaps been more specific in your original post? I am simply contending what you posted here :shrug:

Now, I have shown you where you have changed your argument, please do the same kindness and show me where I have changed goal posts. I am still trying to find out if you can back up your statement on post 445.

Also, again, to your point about 2007 and 2008. That does not show the impact to the community, so it cannot be used to prove whether private charity can be used to keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped. How can it be used to prove that all of the financially handicapped are taken care of when there is no statement showing the needs of the financially handicapped to compare giving against? Lastly, Yourstar was the one who made the argument that charity was not reliable and I cannot lose an argument that another person made and I did not. Are you sure that you even know what you are arguing about since you cannot keep even simple things like who said what straight?

Also, please show me where the constitution has anything to do with you disliking this statement:
liberal avenger said:
Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
So, you never changed your argument then? Hrm, lets see



You should have perhaps been more specific in your original post? I am simply contending what you posted here :shrug:

Now, I have shown you where you have changed your argument, please do the same kindness and show me where I have changed goal posts. I am still trying to find out if you can back up your statement on post 445.

Also, again, to your point about 2007 and 2008. That does not show the impact to the community, so it cannot be used to prove whether private charity can be used to keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped. How can it be used to prove that all of the financially handicapped are taken care of when there is no statement showing the needs of the financially handicapped to compare giving against? Lastly, Yourstar was the one who made the argument that charity was not reliable and I cannot lose an argument that another person made and I did not. Are you sure that you even know what you are arguing about since you cannot keep even simple things like who said what straight?

Also, please show me where the constitution has anything to do with you disliking this statement:
Click to expand...

Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I have already replied to them. You ignored it and kept moving the goal posts.
 
The_Patriot said:
Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I have already replied to them. You ignored it and kept moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Your reply was insufficient to address the initial argument. Either you know this and you are trying to take me on a red herring or you do not understand the proof you are posting.
 
megaprogman said:
Your reply was insufficient to address the initial argument.
Click to expand...

My replies sufficiently addressed your points with facts and supporting proof. You have yet to produce anything to counter it, except to move the goal posts. The onus is on you to produce data to counter what I posted.
 
The_Patriot said:
My replies sufficiently addressed your points with facts and supporting proof. You have yet to produce anything to counter it, except to move the goal posts. The onus is on you to produce data to counter what I posted.
Click to expand...

1. I find it interesting that you continue to claim that I am moving the goal posts when I keep quoting post 445 word for word :lol: I think this shows your desperation.
2. I have pointed out the flaws with your data. You ignore those flaws. It is not my fault that your data does not support your argument.
3. I have supported my argument with showing you poor houses and you proceeded to babble on about constitutionality, which is an issue that has nothing to do with your original argument, which is an economic one, not a legal one.
 
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

No question that some people "back then" had more disposible income, but the price of goods was also much higher than today, based ,of course, on the time worked to buy an item.
Did the "regular working man" have more "disposable income" in the 1800s or the 1700s ?
no
 
earthworm said:
No question that some people "back then" had more disposible income, but the price of goods was also much higher than today, based ,of course, on the time worked to buy an item.
Did the "regular working man" have more "disposable income" in the 1800s or the 1700s ?
no
Click to expand...

Proof that the price of goods was higher.
 
megaprogman said:
1. I find it interesting that you continue to claim that I am moving the goal posts when I keep quoting post 445 word for word :lol: I think this shows your desperation.
2. I have pointed out the flaws with your data. You ignore those flaws. It is not my fault that your data does not support your argument.
3. I have supported my argument with showing you poor houses and you proceeded to babble on about constitutionality, which is an issue that has nothing to do with your original argument, which is an economic one, not a legal one.
Click to expand...

Since you cannot produce anything that supports your position, I'll disregard anything that you have to say. You claimed you wanted an honest discussion, but have proven that you did not. Come back when you can actually defeat the data I posted all through this thread. Let me guess you're just doing this because you want to want to adhere to your rules of engagement for hyper-partisans.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Since you cannot produce anything that supports your position, I'll disregard anything that you have to say.
Click to expand...

I did produce evidence. You will not accept it because of factors that have no bearing on our conversation.

The_Patriot said:
You claimed you wanted an honest discussion, but have proven that you did not.
Click to expand...

I do want an honest discussion, but I am waiting for you to produce a real argument.

The_Patriot said:
Come back when you can actually defeat the data I posted all through this thread.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out the flaws in your proof, multiple times.

The_Patriot said:
Let me guess you're just doing this because you want to want to adhere to your ....
Click to expand...

Linking to the basement is a bad idea. I will report you now.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I did produce evidence. You will not accept it because of factors that have no bearing on our conversation.



I do want an honest discussion, but I am waiting for you to produce a real argument.



I already pointed out the flaws in your proof, multiple times.



Linking to the basement is a bad idea. I will report you now.
Click to expand...

I'll take your reply to mean that you have no interest in debate and are following your own rules. This means I can ignore what you have to say in this thread and any others.
 
The_Patriot said:
I'll take your reply to mean that you have no interest in debate and are following your own rules. This means I can ignore what you have to say in this thread and any others.
Click to expand...

If you wish, however, this does not make your argument correct and mine wrong.
 
megaprogman said:
If you wish, however, this does not make your argument correct and mine wrong.
Click to expand...

It does when you flat out state in another part of the forum that you do not want an honest debate.
 
The_Patriot said:
It does when you flat out state in another part of the forum that you do not want an honest debate.
Click to expand...

If you wish to discuss that thread, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Notice that I said stop making an income

No income no income taxes

And you can live without earning money,


Buy about 500 acres and farmstead. You wont have electricity, a computer or a car but you will live
Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain, your political persuasion is undisclosed, but I bet you're a liberal democrat. Assuming you're a typical liberal democrat, wouldn't it be more appropriate for your *kind to give up all the consumption habits of a capitalist society to go live a self-sustaining prophecy on a farm? Isn't that the sort of egrarian lifestyle that so many luddite, anti-capitalist, anti-consumptionist, pro-environment liberals yearn for? According to the most extreme strand of environmentalism, it is our large societies, with their unsustainable living and consumption habits that are tearing a hole in the precious Earth. Time and time again, the solution has been to go back to the farm, perhaps to even go further and give up on agriculture altogether! Aren't you opposed to sweat shops? Given that 90% off all goods are made in "sweat shops," that would mean you would have to give up all manufactured products and spin and weave your own clothes. So, in all fairness, shouldn't you be considering a move to the corn belt?

Just one thing about taxes, and I'm taking it from Milton Friedman:

The IRS is a part of the government. Is the government suppose to serve us, or do we serve the government? Do we elect politicians to represent our views, or to control our lives? If the government is suppose to SERVE you, then let me ask you another question. When you're being audited by the IRS and sitting opposite a government bureaucrat who has the power to garnish your wages, throw you in jail, and take everything you've earned...who is the master, and who is the slave?
 
So anyway to rehash.

There issue is defined as (and I will once again link it in to show that I am not moving goal posts)

LiberalAvenger said:
That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.
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...
Click to expand...

The data about the founding of private charities and the data from 2007 and 2008 does not address the issue because it only shows that some philanthropic societies were founded and that people gave to charity. It does not show that the needs of the financially handicapped were met, only that money was given. Was it enough to meet the needs of the financially handicapped? I contend that it is not as there are still financially handicapped people with unmet needs.

For example : FRAC - Hunger in the U.S.

Now, your claim also was that before government got involved, the needs of the financially handicapped were met. You did not state federal government in your post, so to later redefine your statement would be moving the goal posts. As such, I will continue to address the statement in post 445, as you have not retracted it.

HISTORY

To be clear, constitutionality and legal legitimacy is not a proper part of the argument as this is primarily a financial discussion about taxation and how it related to charitable giving, so please stop using an argument that is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No. The government needs an income to support military, public works and roads etc. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes. It is when I see them throwing good money after bad on failed programs I have a problem. Otherwise no, it's not in any way slavery.
Click to expand...

Yes, the government needs some source of revenue to support its <usually> ill-fated wars, public control programs, and roads. In a logical, mathematical argument, "fair" has little to no credibility. What you consider fair, someone else considers unfair. So, what is a fair amount to spend (of your income) on the federal government? Must the government take 90% of this person's income, 50% of another person's income, and 0% of yet another person's income. Is that "fair?" For the average individual, how much is enough? 40%? 50%? 60%? "Failed programs?" How often does the Feds come up with a successful program? I know there are some examples. But by and large, the Feds waste the MAJORITY of funds they receive, and the increasing revenue only allows the government more power to limit our personal liberties. I guess you consider the garnishment of wages, the imprisonment of tax evasion, and heavy penalities to be associated with a representative government? Who is the master in that equation? Are you not a slave to the federal government, given that they have the power to throw you in jail for not paying your "fair" share of taxes, or not sacrificing your life for an ill-fated war, or not abiding by all the social customs? You can be thrown in jail for dealing in marijuana distribution, for dealing in prosititution, etc. And the laws and limits to freedom continue to pile on each and every day.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Lord Tammerlain, your political persuasion is undisclosed, but I bet you're a liberal democrat. Assuming you're a typical liberal democrat, wouldn't it be more appropriate for your *kind to give up all the consumption habits of a capitalist society to go live a self-sustaining prophecy on a farm?
Click to expand...
I wish America would start a neo-indiginous program. Where it would be ok to walk into the forest and hunt without permits so long as you live like a hunter-gatherer. I would go venture into the forests and build a cottage hastily. At least then if true liberals ever win in elections (and not odd fakeys who mooch of the TEA parties momentum *cough Palin cough* I could come back to society as a Survival trainier.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Lord Tammerlain, your political persuasion is undisclosed, but I bet you're a liberal democrat. Assuming you're a typical liberal democrat, wouldn't it be more appropriate for your *kind to give up all the consumption habits of a capitalist society to go live a self-sustaining prophecy on a farm? Isn't that the sort of egrarian lifestyle that so many luddite, anti-capitalist, anti-consumptionist, pro-environment liberals yearn for? According to the most extreme strand of environmentalism, it is our large societies, with their unsustainable living and consumption habits that are tearing a hole in the precious Earth. Time and time again, the solution has been to go back to the farm, perhaps to even go further and give up on agriculture altogether! Aren't you opposed to sweat shops? Given that 90% off all goods are made in "sweat shops," that would mean you would have to give up all manufactured products and spin and weave your own clothes. So, in all fairness, shouldn't you be considering a move to the corn belt?

Just one thing about taxes, and I'm taking it from Milton Friedman:

The IRS is a part of the government. Is the government suppose to serve us, or do we serve the government? Do we elect politicians to represent our views, or to control our lives? If the government is suppose to SERVE you, then let me ask you another question. When you're being audited by the IRS and sitting opposite a government bureaucrat who has the power to garnish your wages, throw you in jail, and take everything you've earned...who is the master, and who is the slave?
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Focus on the topic rather than attacking the poster.
 
The_Patriot said:
This is based off what someone said in another thread. Since the 14th Amendment prohibits slavery of any kind does income, consumption based, and sale taxes a form of slavery that economically ties a person to the government and by default the poor?

I would have to say yes since the Congressional Budget Office has stated many times that the route the country is going that many people working in 2020 and beyond will have to pay roughly 90% of their income in taxes to keep up the rate of services the government provides. This, to me, is economic slavery to the government and a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
It is slavery only when some must hand over the fruits of their labors to others, simply because those people are poor.

"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his own will." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:237
Click to expand...
 
American said:
It is slavery only when some must hand over the fruits of their labors to others, simply because those people are poor.
Click to expand...

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:
 
megaprogman said:
So anyway to rehash.

There issue is defined as (and I will once again link it in to show that I am not moving goal posts)

The data about the founding of private charities and the data from 2007 and 2008 does not address the issue because it only shows that some philanthropic societies were founded and that people gave to charity. It does not show that the needs of the financially handicapped were met, only that money was given. Was it enough to meet the needs of the financially handicapped? I contend that it is not as there are still financially handicapped people with unmet needs.

For example : FRAC - Hunger in the U.S.

Now, your claim also was that before government got involved, the needs of the financially handicapped were met. You did not state federal government in your post, so to later redefine your statement would be moving the goal posts. As such, I will continue to address the statement in post 445, as you have not retracted it.

HISTORY

To be clear, constitutionality and legal legitimacy is not a proper part of the argument as this is primarily a financial discussion about taxation and how it related to charitable giving, so please stop using an argument that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Even your own links fail to show the effectiveness and the reliability of government charity. Both of your links fail to properly cite where they got the information from and fail to include links. It's just empty rhetoric with very few facts to support their theories.
 
The_Patriot said:
Even your own links fail to show the effectiveness and the reliability of government charity. Both of your links fail to properly cite where they got the information from and fail to include links. It's just empty rhetoric with very few facts to support their theories.
Click to expand...

It was never my intention to show the effectiveness and reliability of social programs. It was to show that they exist and that there still is need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom