• 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
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.

The problem is that you claimed that private charities weren't reliable and effective. You have failed to prove it.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that you claimed that private charities weren't reliable and effective. You have failed to prove it.

Please show me where I made that claim.
 
In post #452 (Is Taxation Slavery?) you replied, "No because it does not address the real question. Yes there have been examples of philanthropy throughout time, what I want to see is that if it is enough to take care of everyone in need."

This does not mean that charity is not reliable and effective, it means there was not enough charity, no matter how good it is. There were still people who were financially handicapped who's needs were not being met as shown by the existance of poor houses.
 
This does not mean that charity is not reliable and effective, it means there was not enough charity, no matter how good it is. There were still people who were financially handicapped who's needs were not being met as shown by the existance of poor houses.

And you have no proof to back up your claim that private charity isn't effective and reliable.
 
That's not proof. Prove to me with historical facts that governments can remove poverty and eliminate it once and for all.

This is not the argument. The argument is whether private charity can meet the needs of the financially handicapped.
 
This is not the argument. The argument is whether private charity can meet the needs of the financially handicapped.

Since you stated that the government can meet the needs of the poor I want you to back up that statement with historical facts. Show me that a government anywhere in the history of the world has removed poverty and met the needs of the poor equally.
 
Since you stated that the government can meet the needs of the poor I want you to back up that statement with historical facts. Show me that a government anywhere in the history of the world has removed poverty and met the needs of the poor equally.

Show me where I stated that?
 
OK. I've been following this conversation for a couple of days. This is where it all began:

That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.

Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.

Mega then asked The_Patriot to prove this assertion. The_Patriot then posted a link. I think we need to define one term to determine whether The_Patriot has substantiated his assertion. The term in question is, "keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped," specifically, "keep up". Now, I would define "keep up" as "to match" or "maintain". If this is the case then to prove the assertion that The_Patriot has made, what must be substantiated is that private charities have been able to maintain or match the needs of the financially handicapped. In other words, financial private charity contributions would be equal to the financial needs of the financially handicapped. I do not see substantiation for this from The_Patriot.
 
Show me where I stated that?

When you posited the opposite that what I said was true that is when you took the position that the government can. It's quite simple show me where a government has ended poverty and the poor that was effective and reliable.
 
OK. I've been following this conversation for a couple of days. This is where it all began:

Mega then asked The_Patriot to prove this assertion. The_Patriot then posted a link. I think we need to define one term to determine whether The_Patriot has substantiated his assertion. The term in question is, "keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped," specifically, "keep up". Now, I would define "keep up" as "to match" or "maintain". If this is the case then to prove the assertion that The_Patriot has made, what must be substantiated is that private charities have been able to maintain or match the needs of the financially handicapped. In other words, financial private charity contributions would be equal to the financial needs of the financially handicapped. I do not see substantiation for this from The_Patriot.

I have and provided data to support it. It's all in the links.
 
When you posited the opposite that what I said was true that is when you took the position that the government can. It's quite simple show me where a government has ended poverty and the poor that was effective and reliable.

Where did I posit the opposite? All I did was show your claim to be untrue. Just because I think one thing is not true does not automatically mean I think the opposite is true.
 
Last edited:
I have and provided data to support it. It's all in the links.

If you mean the link that was in your initial response, there was no data there. Data would be some sort of financial accounting that would show a zero balance when comparing the monies presented by charitable organizations to the money required by the financially handicapped. I saw no link that provided that kind of comprehensive information. If I missed it, please direct me to it.
 
Slavery was always a tool of capitalistic interest. Clearly free labour is best. This argument is flawed in that slavery requires no wages to be paid to said slaves.. slaves can't pay taxes.
 
If you mean the link that was in your initial response, there was no data there. Data would be some sort of financial accounting that would show a zero balance when comparing the monies presented by charitable organizations to the money required by the financially handicapped. I saw no link that provided that kind of comprehensive information. If I missed it, please direct me to it.

I would request you to do the same then for the government expenditures onto welfare.

All these charities must meet the Combined Federal Campaign’s 10 accountability standards. These standards include low overhead: generally under 25%. (We tell you how much each charity spends on overhead.)
Link According that webpage to be a top choice for charity that the overhead has to be 25% or less of all money coming in. This puts the ratio of the charities there at 75 cents going out to people who need it and 25 cents going to overhead. What's the ratio for the government?
 
I would request you to do the same then for the government expenditures onto welfare.

Unless you can find the post where I made that claim, I have no reason to do that. It's not my position, anyway.

Link According that webpage to be a top choice for charity that the overhead has to be 25% or less of all money coming in. This puts the ratio of the charities there at 75 cents going out to people who need it and 25 cents going to overhead. What's the ratio for the government?

That does not even address your position. We are talking about whether charity can match, financially, the needs of the financially handicapped. I await a link to the accounting data that shows this.
 
Unless you can find the post where I made that claim, I have no reason to do that. It's not my position, anyway.

That does not even address your position. We are talking about whether charity can match, financially, the needs of the financially handicapped. I await a link to the accounting data that shows this.

In short, you'll do nothing required of you to prove your position. I guess this means that your contribution is at an end and I can ignore your comments from now on regarding the actual debate. I will still pay attention to your comments made as a moderator. I have provided data that shows that for every dollar given to charity that 75 cents goes out to the people that need it. You have yet to produce anything. Good day to you.
 
In short, you'll do nothing required of you to prove your position. I guess this means that your contribution is at an end and I can ignore your comments from now on regarding the actual debate. I will still pay attention to your comments made as a moderator. I have provided data that shows that for every dollar given to charity that 75 cents goes out to the people that need it. You have yet to produce anything. Good day to you.

1) I will not prove a position that I do not adhere to. YOU do not get to assign me a position. I do.
2) You STILL haven't answered the question. Tell me, does the amount of dollars that come into private charites equal the amount of dollars needed by the financially handicapped. THIS is the question that has been posed to you and one that you have NOT substantiated. When you do that, then we can talk. Until you can show that the intake equals the need, your position is not proven.
3) Once you either prove your position, or admit that it cannot be proven, then we can move on.
 
1) I will not prove a position that I do not adhere to. YOU do not get to assign me a position. I do.
2) You STILL haven't answered the question. Tell me, does the amount of dollars that come into private charites equal the amount of dollars needed by the financially handicapped. THIS is the question that has been posed to you and one that you have NOT substantiated. When you do that, then we can talk. Until you can show that the intake equals the need, your position is not proven.
3) Once you either prove your position, or admit that it cannot be proven, then we can move on.

I already answered and backed it up. My last reply to you concerning this, so you have a good day.
 
I already answered and backed it up. My last reply to you concerning this, so you have a good day.

No, you didn't, as I showed. If this is your last reply concerning this, then I suppose your position goes unproven. Good to know. Have a good day.
 
Well, he will no longer address me. I guess he got tired of being beaten, so I will be content to watch :)

:popcorn2:
 
Slavery was always a tool of capitalistic interest. Clearly free labour is best. This argument is flawed in that slavery requires no wages to be paid to said slaves.. slaves can't pay taxes.

As if 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 and can either use the right of self ownership to remain self employed or rent out his labour to an employer through a voluntary contractual agreement.
 
Last edited:
Well, he will no longer address me. I guess he got tired of being beaten, so I will be content to watch :)

:popcorn2:

Claiming victory and proving it are two different things. You haven't proven your position and refuse to do so. How typical.
 
Back
Top Bottom