frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should taxation be limited to a 10% income tax?

Debate Information

All other taxation is unconstitutional.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    Do you mean getting rid of income taxes and only taxing 10% sales tax? 
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @piloteer Possibly, yeah, or a ten percent income tax.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    In my opinion, income taxes are legalized theft. As far as sales taxes go, that's usually figured out on a state by state basis. But if you're goal is to persuade others of eliminating redundant taxation, then I'm certainly on board!
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @piloteer Do you support any taxation?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5968 Pts   -  
    No, it should be limited to a 0% income tax. Taking away the fruits of one's labor is a manifestation of the ancient feudal system of tributes, where the local aristocrat unconditionally owns the land by their birthright and collects tax because he/she can.

    If the government cannot find ways to fund itself that do not involve an act of robbery from free private residents, then this government has not earned the right to exist.
    YeshuaBought
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    It's funny when people say "unconstitutional" or "robbery" when what they mean is "Something I don't like".

    There is nothing restricting taxation to 10% in the constitution. The relevant text of the Sixteenth amendment is "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    However they are not limited to income tax. Sure, income tax is the only one mentioned in the sixteenth amendment, but that's because other forms taxation are covered in the main body of the sonsitution itself e.g.Article 1 section 8: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Nope.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand You don't have the right to take all of my hard earned money. I am willing to pay a 10% income tax and NOTHING else. My money, my choice.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5968 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ;

    "Nope" what? What I said was both a position based on the ideals of individual freedoms and property rights, and a logical continuation of your idea. You are only willing to pay 10%; I am only willing to pay 0%.

    You should try putting some more thought into your ideas, as the contradictions are all over the place whenever you post anything.
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Nope. You are too extreme for society. You forfeit the right to use emergency services or government services if you want to worship money. I will not change my mind.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5968 Pts   -   edited November 2018
    @YeshuaBought ;

    "Too extreme"? The statist advocates did their work really well, if the idea of owning what one has acquired is seen as too extreme even by advocates for low taxes.

    There are many ways to organize private funding of emergency services and the like. I can pay, say, $10 a month for the "fire insurance" to a private company, which maintains a fleet of firefighters that serve their customers. Or I can avoid paying and have my house burn with no assistance, if I so desire. It is my choice, and not yours or that of the people I have never met.

    You are too used to being babysit by bureaucrats in the office thousands miles away from you, to the point where you cannot even consider the idea that there are alternative models out there.
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar You love to troll people, but I respect your right to your subjective opion. A ten percent income tax is not statist, in fact. I doubt you know the true definition of statism. I am a centrist, and think all of you selfish extremists are acting like whiney teenage brats when you don't get your way. Anarchists like you fail to realize that even a minarchist government costs money. Jesus paid taxes, why can't you? Did I mention that a ten percent income tax is the only tax I support? That leaves plenty of money left over for individual discretionary savings and spending. You fail to realize that a minarcho capitalist system that I am suggesting allows for minimum governmental regulation while allowing maximum freedom. That is what a minarcho government does. Anarchy is no government, minarchy is minimum government, centrism is more government, and statism is a complete governmental takover. What I am suggesting is a minarchist government, not free shitt for everone, but you are too far out there to care. Please grow up.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5968 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought ;

    What you provide is a random arbitrary number. It is 10%, but it could just as well have been 1%, 20% or 99%. The size of the government does not in itself depend on the amount of tax it collects; it depends on the presence or absence of various measures of control over people's freedoms and property. You may claim to be a centrist, but one who proudly wears light bronze shackles as opposed to heavy titanium ones still wears shackles. Your "centrism" is based on the scale which excludes the lack of shackles; include that natural state, and what you get is an extreme statism and authoritarianism. People are just too used to regularly pay tribute to the government, hence their scale is completely skewed compared to what a free society should have.

    There is nothing "extreme" in my position. Mass privatization is a standard method of pulling third world countries out of economical pits created by the previous authoritarian government, and has been employed for centuries. I simply take the ideas of individual freedoms and property rights to the unapologetic logical end, as opposed to making compromises with those who see it as "extreme". There is no compromise here: either your property is yours, or it belongs to the government that chooses what fraction of it you regain. Liberty does not allow for compromises: either you are free, or you are not.

    Your "10%" is based on nothing but what "feels" right. My 0% is based on what IS right from the liberal perspective.

    Feel free to pay your 10% and nothing more, and then defend your ideas in front of the tax collectors knocking in your home - and then tell me how "extreme" my views are, when in the courtroom.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    Obviously we can't be free of taxation. I don't believe in taxing people based on their income. Sales tax is a legitimate form of taxation.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    If you believe that the constitution is a living breathing document, like I do, then would it be daft of me to exclaim that I view the 16th amendment to be overbearing? It's not like an amendment has been considered a failure before and ultimately repealed (18th). A new amendment was needed to be able to "legalize" and " justify" the theft of peoples personal income. Before that amendment, it would have been considered unconstitutional to impose any federal taxes. I don't need to consider that to be a legitimate amendment. If we consider the constitution to be the law of the land without question or any ability to revise and reconsider, would women have the right to vote and would slavery be outlawed? I find the 16th amendment to contradict the due process clause. The Fifth Amendment clearly states  that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law" however, the 16th amendment asserts that citizens can be taxed without due process. The 16th amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." That means that citizens don't even have the opportunity to vote on such an oppressive measure. Article 1 section 8 also states that the taxes must be uniform, but if income taxes are based on a percentage of income, then some citizens end up paying more, that's not uniform. Lastly, I think it's funny that YeshuaBought disagreed with my post, then disagreed with your post, even though we have opposing views. I'm confused about what she actually agrees with.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand You don't have the right to take all of my hard earned money. I am willing to pay a 10% income tax and NOTHING else. My money, my choice.
    I specifically laid out in my last post how the US government does have the right based on the US constitution to tax you in numerous ways and to tax you beyond 10% on income. Therefore they do have the right to tax you and you claimed otherwise is simply wrong.

    If you'd like to put forward an arguement about why you think they shouldn't or why you think they're wrong to do so feel free, but so far your claims are 100% incorrect.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:


    If you believe that the constitution is a living breathing document, like I do, then would it be daft of me to exclaim that I view the 16th amendment to be overbearing? It's not like an amendment has been considered a failure before and ultimately repealed (18th). A new amendment was needed to be able to "legalize" and " justify" the theft of peoples personal income. Before that amendment, it would have been considered unconstitutional to impose any federal taxes. I don't need to consider that to be a legitimate amendment. 
    It was not "considered unconstitutional to impose any federal taxes" before the 16th amendment. In fact income tax was legal prior to the 16th amendment and income taxes were enacted including income tax to fund the civil war for instance. The issue was that although the government had the right to tax people on their income, they were restricted in how they could apportion the money. When the government tried to implement a form of taxation in the late 19th century prior to the 16th amendment passing it wasn't found illegal because it was an income tax, it was found illegal because it was a form of direct taxation that wasn't proportionate to the population of the states being taxed. They could have made the tax proportionate, but that would have been rather unfair to the people being taxed and a poor way of implementing it that would have caused a lot of illogical discrepancies.

    You also have to remember that things like Tariffs, which for over a century from the founding of the USA were the main source of government income, are a type of federal tax - just on imports/exports rather than income. The idea that it was ever "considered unconstitutional to impose any federal taxes" is therefore a complete non-starter. That is all as per the original text of the Constitution which as shown in my prior post specifically gives the government the power of federal taxation, contrary to your claims.

    piloteer said:


    If we consider the constitution to be the law of the land without question or any ability to revise and reconsider, would women have the right to vote and would slavery be outlawed? I find the 16th amendment to contradict the due process clause. The Fifth Amendment clearly states  that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law" however, the 16th amendment asserts that citizens can be taxed without due process.

    No it doesn't. The Sixteenth amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" No mention of a lack of due process.

    Congress is still elected by a popular vote, giving people the power to elect politicians which support their interests. Any laws on taxation are still passed in the regular way and applied to people in a manner which does not breach their constitutional rights or the laws set by the various branches of the government.

    If you feel the due process is being violated here, can you actually explain how?

    piloteer said:

    That means that citizens don't even have the opportunity to vote on such an oppressive measure.
    Yes they do, they vote to elect the politicians who enact them, just like voters do in pretty much every single democratic country in regards to 99.9% of the laws passed.


    piloteer said:
     Article 1 section 8 also states that the taxes must be uniform, but if income taxes are based on a percentage of income, then some citizens end up paying more, that's not uniform. 

    This refers to geographical uniformity, e.g. two thirds of the congresspeople can't get together and say "Our states pay 5% income tax, all you other states pay 70% income tax". It's a way to ensure that there isn't a political cartel that can abuse a minority of states that aren't part of the group. It gives no protection to individuals inside the states in terms of how taxation is applied so it is irrelevant for the purposes of this topic.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    I believe that it is worth noting that I never called into question the constitutionality of an income tax, I did state that I think it's a form of legalized theft, and I stand by that statement. Unfortunately, you're assertion that before the 16th amendment, people didn't consider income taxes to be unconstitutional, is only conjecture. First off, I highly doubt you were alive before 1913, if you were, my apologies. Secondly, I get the feeling that you and I both know that there are people today who consider income taxes to be unconstitutional, who's to say that those attitudes didn't exist before the 16th amendment and even as far back as the original text of the constitution? The fact that they are uninformed is neither here nor there, the fact that they believe It to be true is all that matters. Whether the original text of the constitution specifically says income taxes are legal, or they're not, I will still call it legalized theft. O.k, perhaps I misspoke when I gave the impression that in a legal manner, income taxes were considered to be unconstitutional, obviously that isn't true and has never been true. My bizzle!

    The supreme court ruling in 1895 that sided with Pollock did consider the taxes levied on the Farmers Loan and Trust Company to be a direct tax, and was considered to be in violation of the constitution. That case was probably one of the biggest reasons for the passing the 16th amendment. Before the 16th amendment, the federal government could be legally challenged (although, not directly) on how much taxes could be taken, what form of tax could be levied, and on who could be disproportionately taxed. The supreme court ruling in 1895 considered the taxation implemented by the Wilson-Gorman Act to be a direct tax, and those types of taxes needed to be levied proportionately according to states population. The 16th amendment effectively reversed the findings of the 1895 supreme court ruling. The purpose of that amendment was to solidify the federal governments power to levy taxes without the threat of frivolous lawsuits that call into question the constitutionality of their power to do so. So, when I say things like "A new amendment was needed to be able to "legalize" and " justify" the theft of peoples personal income", it's not just tax hating banter, it's at least a somewhat informed opinion. 

    The people of the United States cannot sue the federal government for imposing redundant taxes. We cannot have a federal proposal of which we can vote on, to call into question the power of the federal government to levy taxes. That, in my opinion is taxation without due process. Yes, we can elect people who should be conscious of absurd taxation, but that is not a direct power of the the people to voice their opinion on that specific issue. Obviously the federal government doesn't go around taxing everything they see and hear without specific guidelines in place, but the 16th amendment gives them greater power to tax citizens without question.


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @Ampersand

    I believe that it is worth noting that I never called into question the constitutionality of an income tax, I did state that I think it's a form of legalized theft, and I stand by that statement. 

    False. You stated that "Before that amendment, it would have been considered unconstitutional to impose any federal taxes" when in fact that isn't the case and the constitution provided provisions for federal taxation in its original articles way before the 16th amendment.

    Also the idea that you are upset about "legalised theft" is itself laughable and indicative of you not having an argument. If it's legal it isn't theft, it's taking what belongs to you. Either it's actually illegal somehow or it isn't theft, it's just a legal mechanism you disagree with.

    piloteer said:

     Unfortunately, you're assertion that before the 16th amendment, people didn't consider income taxes to be unconstitutional, is only conjecture. First off, I highly doubt you were alive before 1913, if you were, my apologies. Secondly, I get the feeling that you and I both know that there are people today who consider income taxes to be unconstitutional, who's to say that those attitudes didn't exist before the 16th amendment and even as far back as the original text of the constitution? The fact that they are uninformed is neither here nor there, the fact that they believe It to be true is all that matters

    Please don't strawman imaginary arguments and ignore what I actually wrote. 

    I stated "In fact income tax was legal prior to the 16th amendment and income taxes were enacted including income tax to fund the civil war for instance." Not "people thought it was legal" but simply "income tax was legal" - objectively true rather than simply talking about someone's opinion. People think a lot of things and contrary to your claims, what people thought doesn't matter. The topic is whether it is constitutional. The consititoun is not based on "did some random person at some point in time think something" so your point is entirely irrelevant.

    piloteer said:


     Whether the original text of the constitution specifically says income taxes are legal, or they're not, I will still call it legalized theft. O.k, perhaps I misspoke when I gave the impression that in a legal manner, income taxes were considered to be unconstitutional, obviously that isn't true and has never been true. My bizzle!

    People can call things whatever they want. That's not the same as it being true or being a reason to back it up. The piloteer said:
    The supreme court ruling in 1895 that sided with Pollock did consider the taxes levied on the Farmers Loan and Trust Company to be a direct tax, and was considered to be in violation of the constitution. That case was probably one of the biggest reasons for the passing the 16th amendment. Before the 16th amendment, the federal government could be legally challenged (although, not directly) on how much taxes could be taken, what form of tax could be levied, and on who could be disproportionately taxed. The supreme court ruling in 1895 considered the taxation implemented by the Wilson-Gorman Act to be a direct tax, and those types of taxes needed to be levied proportionately according to states population. The 16th amendment effectively reversed the findings of the 1895 supreme court ruling. The purpose of that amendment was to solidify the federal governments power to levy taxes without the threat of frivolous lawsuits that call into question the constitutionality of their power to do so. So, when I say things like "A new amendment was needed to be able to "legalize" and " justify" the theft of peoples personal income", it's not just tax hating banter, it's at least a somewhat informed opinion. 


    You're now just reiterating things I've already explained to you, e.g. when I stated "When the government tried to implement a form of taxation in the late 19th century prior to the 16th amendment passing it wasn't found illegal because it was an income tax, it was found illegal because it was a form of direct taxation that wasn't proportionate to the population of the states being taxed" and linked directly to the Wiki article on the supreme court decision which you are now referencing.

    Your argument therefore fails on multiple levels. 

    As I read it, your argument is that because you know a basic fact about the history of income tax, I should therefore automatically believe all your opinions in income tax and take it as the gospel truth even though:

    1) I am also aware of this fact, and hold the opposite opinions than you.
    2) You had to have this specific point explained to you by me.
    3) You were unaware of other basic facts about income tax which i had to explain to you.
    4) The idea that knowing a basic fact someone makes a completely separate subjective opinion worthwhile is completely illogical and fallacious.

    piloteer said:

    The people of the United States cannot sue the federal government for imposing redundant taxes. We cannot have a federal proposal of which we can vote on, to call into question the power of the federal government to levy taxes. That, in my opinion is taxation without due process. Yes, we can elect people who should be conscious of absurd taxation, but that is not a direct power of the the people to voice their opinion on that specific issue. Obviously the federal government doesn't go around taxing everything they see and hear without specific guidelines in place, but the 16th amendment gives them greater power to tax citizens without question.


    The people of the United States have the same power over taxation as they do over all federal governments powers and responsibilities, they democratically elect representatives to pass laws and enact constitutional changes that they support. They don't automatically change the entire procedure of how laws are enacted because some random guy on the internet has a preference about how they should work. You can either throw accept the constitution or you can throw the entire constitution in the trash because the protection from lawsuits that the government enjoys isn't specific to taxation, it applies to everything about it under sovereign immunity.

    You states "Yes, we can elect people who should be conscious of absurd taxation, but that is not a direct power of the the people to voice their opinion on that specific issue"; but that's how it works for every issue. People who do or don't like guns elect people to advocate for or stop guns. Same with free speech, managing the army, etc, etc.

    Based on this argument either you have to change your position to the entire constitution being thrown out as unrepresentative (ironically you think it is unrepresentative because it  sets up representatives for you!)  or you concede the point. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    Mmm mmm. That's some tasty argumentation you got going on up there. I ate it all up, nummy nummy. It was so good that you were almost able to make us forget that you didn't actually touch the argument. You asked me to explain how it is that we don't have due process when we're taxed. I explained plainly and simply, and all you were able to do is falsely accuse me of wanting to "change the entire procedure of how laws are enacted"?!?! Could you find the quote where I stated that we need to "change the entire procedure"? Just so we're on the same page going forward, I am only saying that in light of the fact that we don't have due process of the law when we're taxed (which violates the 5th amendment), the 16th amendment should be reformed, or repealed. At no point did I say that we need to have the power to sue the federal government. By the way, nice job proving to us that we have due process?!?! Ummm, I'm pretty sure what you're describing is representation, not due process. I never claimed that we don't have representation, so all that stuff you said, doesn't pertain to this discussion! 

    If we truly had due process of the law when it came to federal taxes, we would be able to legally appeal to the supreme court, or other minor circuits to at least slap a cease and desist on a new tax law before it's enacted, so it can be reviewed on whether it's constitutional, or be brought up to a vote. I'm not calling for that in any way, I'm just saying that because we can't do that, the power of the federal government needs to be able to put into check more easily! The 16th amendment is a double whammy in my mind, because even if we could halt a tax law before it's implemented, it wouldn't matter because the federal government has the power to enact any tax law they want without regard to whether it's constitutional. It will always be considered constitutional because of the 16th amendment. 

    By the way, nice job on going right ahead and assuming I'm "some random GUY!!! I get the feeling that you normally would have the forethought of not recklessly assuming peoples gender when all you know of them is what they've typed. I think DI could become a little bit better if people tried not to do that. K :smiley: 

    I guess I can't argue with your claim that I just don't like legalized theft, because you're plain old right!! I'm not against the federal government collecting taxes, so long as the method is at least somewhat in line with the constitution! I get the feeling that you think, if something is legal constitutionally, it shouldn't be questioned and can't be changed. I disagree vehemently!!! I hate the fact the we needed an amendment to free slaves, because they shouldn't have been slaves to begin with. I hate the fact that an amendment was needed for women to be allowed to vote, because women should have been allowed to vote from the start. I would have certainly hated the fact that alcohol was illegal had I been alive to witness it. The 18th amendment of the constitution was repealed, and there's nothing in the constitution that says we can't change the constitution, it was made to be changed if need be. I don't want to throw away the constitution, I want it to remain a living, dynamic document.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5968 Pts   -   edited November 2018
    @piloteer ;

    I think your approach to lawmaking begs for abuse for the sake of perpetuating specific political agendas. While I do agree that the law should be dynamic, there is a world of difference between the old irrelevant parts of the law being changed along with the changing times - and simply changing the Constitution because it does not serve one's agenda.

    Let us not forget that 16th amendment, that legalized personal income theft on the federal level, resulted from the government wanting to be able to collect taxes legally, but being inconvenienced by the version of the Constitution at the time. So Wilson and his cronies decided: "Constitution prohibits us from collecting the tribute from our servants? Well, the solution is easy: let us alter it so it does not!" You can see the problems with this mentality.

    Our Constitution is interesting in that some of the Amendments to it were better than the original version itself. At the same time, other Amendments were worse. Apparently, constantly amending the existing version of the Constitution is not the solution to its faults, as that introduces faults of its own.

    In my opinion, the solution is to develop the version of the Constitution that is clean at its core, and that incorporates the possible technological and social developments in the future into its philosophy. It is that core Constitution that defines what world we will live in, not the bundle of Amendments. If Amendments are needed, then there is something wrong with the Constitution, then it has not been written to last and needs to be rewritten.

    Recall the famous "Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?" speech by Patrick Henry, one of the Founding Fathers and one of the most vehement critics of the proposed and approved version of the Constitution. He warned that this document laid down the grounds for future tyrannical form of the government, and that even if initially the spirit of the Founding Fathers' philosophy was to be preserved, eventually the political system would become twisted and abused. This is exactly what happened during Wilson's presidency, but also much earlier, perhaps before even the Civil War period. It is not that the required Amendments were not implemented; they could not be implemented in this political climate simply because at its core Constitution promoted tyranny (very soft and slowly built tyranny by the standards of the rest of the world, but nonetheless). The 16th amendment was, in a way, the consequence of the Constitution encouraging this kind of lawmaking.

    In my opinion, the Constitution should guarantee, fully and unapologetically, individual freedoms and property rights. Everything going beyond these base guarantees can be added as Amendments - but these guarantees must be constitutionally protected from ever being amended. That, in my opinion, is the only way to build a truly free society that cannot be abused no matter who is in charge. Otherwise, when the government has full control over any changes to the Constitution guaranteed (very ironically) by the Constitution itself, currently popular views will define what freedoms people do or do not have. And if the popular views shift to a political authoritarian extreme... Then we will lose this country, and it will become just one more banana republic.


  • midoprealmidopreal 21 Pts   -  
    I enjoy paying taxes to make sure I didn't for get to pay the private fire department and my house burns down, police don't come. You can be raked over the coals to access roads because you have no other choice. As much as taxes suck to pay, having standardized systems in areas that competition can't exist and the consumer has no buying power is important. People have a obligation to live in a country like this, through taxes or through service in a time of need. This is assumed.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch