The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Taxation is on moral par with theft.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 106451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I assume we can agree that somebody pointing a gun at you in an alley and forcing you to give them your wallet is wrong. Taxes are not so different; the definition of a tax is a financial charge imposed on citizens by the state. That means taxpayers have to pay money or a SWAT team will likely show up at their house, point guns at them, and take them to jail. So the choice is: give someone your money or have violence incurred upon you, similar to getting mugged. It is a violation of property rights and therefore, I think it is morally unjust. You will argue that taxes are morally justified.


Sure I'll try.
I'll argue for taxes as being a moral construct.

If a person is walking down a street and over time they cause wear and tear to that street,
that street which has proved beneficial to them over time of seems immoral not to pay for it.
Even if mistakes are made by those in charge of the road and they make it a bad road, then it is immoral of them not to fix the road rather than the person not to pay for it's upkeep as part of society.

If you are part of a society and the well being of the society depends on individuals contributing to it, would it not be immoral not to enforce a code of sorts encouraging contribution? To not do so risks the society failing as a whole and all sorts of social and economic malaise.

It is not as though you are arguing that we go out and find people not of our society and demand they pay us tribute. As I understand it you are talking about people that the society has raised, people that have benefited or should have benefited from the society.
Debate Round No. 1


Well thank you for debating. So if I understand, your argument is "people benefit from society, therefore they should have to pay for it's upkeep." So if somebody benefits from a certain service such as roadways, they should have to pay, but that does not change the fact that tax dollars are taken from people under the threat of force, which is very similar to theft. The flaw in that argument is even though certain people don't mind paying for certain things, that doesn't mean they get to force their beliefs on others and force them to pay for things they may not use. So if I use roads that doesn't mean I get to take somebody's money and have them pay for roads even if they don't drive/use sidewalks. Society does have benefits that don't apply to everyone, and the state forces people to pay for stuff they may not get in return.


People cannot pretend that they are not part of the world and that their actions have an effect on the other people in it.

A detailed infrastructure is an important feature of society, of organizations such as police, of laws and the lawmakers.

The idea that all people be allowed to do whatever they would like and to follow some broad basic laws such as the golden rule seems flawed.

Without an overarching force to pull people together then division is inevitable, this can be seen in all the divisions we see in politics today even as they operate together within the framework of government.

We do not generally find it immoral for families to work together or for children to follow their parents directions and wishes. Is your thought that once someone is an adult suddenly all contact and obligation to ones family is cut off and it is immoral for them to expect anything of you?
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not arguing for a repeal for infrastructure, or a repeal of government, I'm arguing against taxes. People can still take care of each other and support their families, that is because they are willing to do so. Taxes take the "willing" part out of the equation and replace charity with force. That is the part I am against.


It seems to me that taxes are to a government as hunting is to a village.
Is it wrong if a village expects people who are able to hunt to pull their weight?
Is it wrong for a government to expect people to pay some taxes to pull their weight?
I admit at times things may seem uneven, as if you are pulling an unfair load in comparison to others. But the expected act to pull your own weight or even demand of it is not immoral, sometimes people are messing up the application of it.

I recall reading a book about Webster, Clay, and Calhoun once, mostly found it tedious to read, but something I found interesting was that one of the large issues back then seemed to be tariffs, taxes, public projects, and such.
Example, people from one state did not see why they should pay money to help build a road or a dam or some infrastructure in some other state. Even though such an action would improve the country as a whole and come back to them in time.

Point being that it seems doubtful that America would be what it is today if we had not implemented taxes. And that people have continually found it necessary to include in our country over time.

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.

My source here should not count toward best sources vote, as it doesn't really apply all that much to my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Hope I didn't sidestep the debate.
Mainly trying to say for Con, that taxes are a necessity and an expected action as citizens. Thus not immoral.
Might have sidestepped it if it was about forced taxes, but I don't think I did.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Do other people agree it has been debunked?
Not disagreeing, just curious.
I wouldn't say I have all that much acquired and well thought out thoughts and knowledge for this debate.
Have researched it a little bit, but forgot most of it. I have an older brother who liked the book "The Law by Brederic Bastiat"
I tried to read that book, but found it a bit hard to follow.
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
Con used the social contract argument, Libertarians like myself debunked this along time ago. I hope Pro does as well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.