Tax - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

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


Debate Information

I feel like we shouldn't have a tax; anyone wanna persuade me otherwise?
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @basic ;
    Think about it this way, if you went into someone's house and used their stuff and utilities for years, it would only be fair that they asked you to pay rent so that they can be compensated for the stuff you are using from them. If you refused to pay, they would be perfectly in their rights to kick you out.

    The same is true of taxes, but instead of a house it's a state or country and instead of utilities it's fire, police, mail, schools, roads, and everyday public resources like streetlamps. Instead of a homeowner it is everyone else who lives in the country in democratic nations, and dictators in autocratic ones.

    We should all pay taxes because it is in our best interest to do so in order to make public goods available to everyone, so we can all do the things that we need to do. If we could only use these services on paying for them, they would not be as prominent due to lack of funding and this would likely stifle everyone's ability to do anything.

    The bottom line is, if you are using these services but not paying for them like the billionaires who use loopholes to get out free, you are stealing from the rest of us who are paying.
    [Deleted User]Plaffelvohfenbasic[Deleted User]AlofRI
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5327 Pts   -  
    @basic ;
    basic said:

    but cant you also say that taxation is stealing in the first place? For example, it is illegal for one person to point a gun to another persons head and demand money. Wouldn't it also be immoral if the government pointed a gun to your head and demanded money?
    It isn't exactly stealing, consider the services paid for by taxes such as policing. When a criminal is arrested, you have been done a service even if you have never interacted with this individual, because now they are not going to harm you through criminal action. Once this has occurred, you can't not pay for it.

    Now let's say we privatized the police (made them a pay-for service) now to get police protection you must give them money. What motivation do they have to arrest a suspected criminal on the streets who might steal, rape, or murder? They have none. They can't do this job effectively, so what exactly are you paying for then?

    The fact of the matter is for most public services you have already used them before you paid for taxes even if you are unaware of this. For a government to demand payment for these services isn't immoral at all, and on top of this it is in your best interest to pay the taxes anyways, so it is a win-win for everyone.
  • @basic
    Haha but the government should not be compared to gun people lol as every country wants development and government gives you by taking taxes...
    See practically infrastructure education health is not possible without levying taxes...As there is no guaranteed way on which government could completely depend as similar to tax...

    Haha but if we compare government with police then also thieves (problems) are not area specific...natural calamities are not specific to any one area......So practically it is impossible for one part of country to not pay as they get a permanent safeguard under the police(government) and thus government couldn’t allow this anyway if that area comes under the presidency of one government...

    Har Har Mahadev
  • basic said:
    I feel like we shouldn't have a tax; anyone wanna persuade me otherwise?

    At one time America did not have taxation and in basic principle, taxation is not necessary. The tax was originally proposed as the necessary way to do away with corruption in governing. However, after scrutiny, it became apparent that there were legal advantages to taxation.

    The complex issue with taxation is paying a cost twice while being taxed or being charged a cost using tax without representation in the governing process. The largest example of this is a woman as President of The United States. The idea of prejudice is believed to be the motivation for all men being created equal and women are to be negated by prejudice.

    However, often with equal representation, prejudice can be easily turn around having a woman stand before congress, while under oath to be sworn in as a titled Presadera, this title meaning the woman who is chosen by election by all who can cast a legal vote to speak on behalf of all women, then creating them equally in legislation to each other on legal matters by their representation to a documented united state.

    This one simple detail using a legal process is creating a power of authority as the women elected by the many then have a legal obligation to represent a specific duty to constituents of governing and basic principles that have an influence on women directly, and on men by the burden of finding representation from a male on both legal and private perspective.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Post Argument Now Debate Details +


  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] 106 Pts   -   edited September 2020

    Hmm...We should have tax or not quite controversial thing...But I agree that tax should obviously be there...

    The following arguments in my support are:-

    1.Abolishing tax would mean that the government will have to identify other sources of revenue to meet its funding requirement for undertaking social objectives, which may be herculean task.

    2.The government have to solely depend on the things rather if they have no other resources then it is not possible (I am discussing this ahead with example of Saudi Arabia).

    3.The avenues from which the necessary revenues can be augmented to meet the larger socio-economic development agenda like infrastructure development, healthcare, education, etc. as well as other welfare schemes in various sectors in the absence of income tax is not possible.

    4.Every developed country as Japan,US etc or developing countries as India,China etc levy tax.


    Now let’s talk about the countries which do not levy taxes...

    A few countries in the world who have no income taxes (e.g. Middle East countries) are either relying heavily on other sources of income for government spending (i.e. sale of oil for such Middle East nations) or are potential tax heavens.

    See most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, North Korea are monarchy so if they levy tax from people they have to be answerable to the use of money but in monarch countries is never accepted.

    As in North Korea...

    The date of 1 April is the North Korean "Tax Abolition Day" that North Korea is the world's only tax free country.The North Korean state, however, still collects revenue from its citizens in the form of hidden taxation  various sales taxes In particular, the turnover tax consumption provides for the majority of the state revenue in North Korea.

    So the tax is one of the most essential part of economy of one country.

    Tax also plays an important role in achieving the objective of economic stability, limiting the level of inflation and balancing the equilibrium on the market.


    In fact, the OECD has initiated a drive to ensure that every country imposes a minimum level of tax. 

    But still some economies should definitely decrease their tax with respect to the situation of economy all over the world.


    Thus, while the idea of abolishment of tax looks attractive in theory, practical implementation has not been tested in the past....

    So have u got any arguments in favour you can respond that if major economies like US or India or China take risk to not levy tax then on what favourable points the risk should be taken...

    Signing off...


    Har Har Mahadev

  • ScienceRulesScienceRules 941 Pts   -  
    Wouldn't deny that tax is important, but when people who don't do certain things or don't follow certain ideals, have to pay taxes for those same things are not fine in my opinion.    
    [Deleted User]
    Your love became a chorus played only by my memory.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] 106 Pts   -   edited September 2020
    Haha but in democracy country elects one after choosing their favourite ideology so if they think that now I would not pay tax as this leader is not accomplishing our demands or he/she is against your ideologies then lol you are putting whole nations economy at risk...thus the people who don’t pay tax and collect black money they have to run at last or have to keep millions behind their house decoration  ....

    So simply the economy is far far different from any ideals or like that....

    So Economy should be kept far from “ideologies”....

    Har Har Mahadev
  • @basic
     No tax would be good, but there are some things we need, like A&E. I doubt it would be a good state of affairs for the first question the doctors ask you once you regain consciousness to be “do you have health insurance?”,
  • basicbasic 9 Pts   -  

    but cant you also say that taxation is stealing in the first place? For example, it is illegal for one person to point a gun to another persons head and demand money. Wouldn't it also be immoral if the government pointed a gun to your head and demanded money?
  • basicbasic 9 Pts   -  

    I realize that it hasn't worked in practice, but the fact that it can work in theory means that it's possible.

    My main thinking is that it's wrong for someone to point a gun to another persons head and demand money. But if you were to switch the first person with the government, isn't it still wrong for the gov. to demand money? 

    And i'm thinking maybe instead of taxation, we could simply have people pay for police if they want to. So basically there is government police but they are only funded by the population on their own will, meaning that if nobody in a certain area pays for police, then there would be none, but if everyone bands together in a certain neighborhood and decides to pay for police, they will have it. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021, all rights reserved. | 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch