Income Taxation should be abolished
Debate Rounds (3)
First round is acceptance. Challenge open to anyone interested.
Now according to the Oxford dictionary the act of stealing is 'taking another person's property without permission. Tax is a 'compulsory contribution to the state.' For some people they want to give money to the government to provide for currently state funded services but other people may not want what they earn of their hard work to go to something that might not necessarily affect them but only other people. Therefore in this case they are being relieved of their property without their permission therefore the Governement is commenting theft. The income tax's implementation suggests that the state owns the labour of its citizens. Some may argue that this forced theft is necessary but I will argue on the contrary.
In America before 1913 all Americans kept 100% of all their earnings and despite this they still had roads, schools, military (who won several wars and drew one) and every other of these services income tax supporters claim are dependant on the income tax. As Ron Paul points out 'You might be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only one-third of federal revenue.' The money other two thirds of the federal revenue and the money supplied for the services before 1913 were and are in the form of excise taxes, tariffs and property taxes. So only a third is supplied by this immoral tax on a productive individual's labour and I could also argue that over a third of the spending needs to be abolished.
The income tax gives government a claim on people's life and work! It isn't even necessary!
Roads could easily be built in a voluntary society. Think about it. People want roads to improve their lives, otherwise people wouldn't go ranting on about their necessity. So if people want them people will put their money together to pay for their construction. And that is just one example. I could apply the same principle for almost every public service including prisons and police. This will sound risky and controversial but it will work because if people want these essential services so much than they would pay for them! People are being brainwashed to think that the funding of these services requires the initiation of force. No government has the moral right to lock an individual in a cage for refusing to hand over their justify acquired money which they don't even know is going to- it might not affect them. This goes against man's right to exist for his own sake and not the sake of others. I am partly an Objectivist in this way but I do not altogether oppose altruism. In fact I once gave 10 quid to a homeless guy on the London tube. I just oppose FORCED Altruism which is wrong. I do not understand why people accept a state forcing them to let the government choose how their money is used.
So, how should we decrease spending? In Britain we need to replace aid to foreign countries with trade to foreign countries which will be beneficial for both countries and in America and in Britain we need to remove our military from foreign countries where we should not have got involved in the first place.
SenatorZhen forfeited this round.
The argument for the income tax is 'who will build the roads and prisons' but as we have seen in the previous argument, people have the incentive to voluntarily put their money towards these things. Also there is something that is provided by the private sector much more important than roads- food. Imagine if food was publically funded. Then people's argument would be 'Who will provide the food because if we privatise food, no one will have the incentive to make and sell it so we will all starve!' Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And complex inventions such as the mobile phone and television are provided by the private sector, so why can't roads which are FLAT things be provided by the private sector. And even if normal people do not have the incentive to build roads (which obviously they do), then Car Companies and Petrol Companies will. And that's another thing- Petrol. Imagine if petrol was provided by the government. Everyone would be shocked at people wanting to privatise it.
So in conclusion the Income tax is wrong and we do not need it because we can decrease government spending dramatically and also because other taxes provide for most of the spending anyway.
SenatorZhen forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.