Should we abolish taxes?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: I think yes.

I think we should abolish taxes because money shouldn't exist period. Taxation is theft, and having money is evil.

anarchist100

theinfectedmaster said:

I think we should abolish taxes because money shouldn't exist period.

You don't need money to have taxes, just tax people in commodities. The king used to tax a certain amount of your harvest.

Barnardot

@theinfectedmaster ;Taxation is theft, and having money is evil.

Well thats a pretty Exstream way of thinking because what are we going to do without money. Like Ill swap my peace of baloney for your banana. And then ....well no because my banana is worth more and I only want half your baloney and I cant swap half a banana. And then next thing you know war brakes out all over the world because people are disputing swaping stuff all the time. So when you analize it in the end I reckon that the only people who wing about money is those who dont have enough so all just a mater of sower grapes in the end 

jack

theinfectedmaster said:

Should we abolish taxes?

Hello the:

No taxes, no roads, no nothing..  It's just you and your village with nothing..  That doesn't sound good to me at all.

excon

BrunaAdrianodaSilva

@theinfectedmaster ;abolishing taxes would create big problems. I don't know if you understand this subject and I don't know much either, but I'll explain what I do know.

Here's the thing, the government has no income of its own, they don't make money, they manage the money that has been collected through tax, in theory, the money that has been collected from tax would be returned to the people through improvements in the state, such as better infrastructure, education, basic sanitation, public health, job opportunities and countless other investments, among other things, however this is something that doesn't happen, what happens is the exaggerated collection of tax, for things that shouldn't even be taxed, such as income tax, which occurs in almost every country in the world, including Brazil, which is where I live.

Income tax is levied on your salary, i.e. the higher your salary, the higher the tax rate. What happens is that because of these things, people get irritated by tax charges, and so they believe that it would be better not to have tax, whereas tax is not the problem, but rather the mismanagement of the government and the continual theft of the people's money by politicians. What makes the situation even worse is that, as many people know, wealthy people often pay less tax than lower- and middle-class people, increasing people's dislike of such taxes.

(In case there are any typos, English is not my first language, my mother tongue is Portuguese.)

theinfectedmaster

@BrunaAdrianodaSilva If we abolish money though, then we wouldn't have to worry about any of that.

MayCaesar

@theinfectedmaster

Without money, getting 1 lb of apples would have you embark on a week-long adventure. Bartering would make obtaining anything that you cannot produce yourself an ordeal. Is that what you want, to go back to the primal times when, to find food, you had to go to the forest for the whole day?

GiantMan

theinfectedmaster said:

I think we should abolish taxes because money shouldn't exist period. Taxation is theft, and having money is evil.

I don't understand.  Just how would people 'earn' the things they get with money - housing, food, cars, vacations, clothes, etc?

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar We could just use a gift economy. A gift economy is where everything is given instead of sold.

John_C_87

theinfectedmaster said:

I think we should abolish taxes because money shouldn't exist period. Taxation is theft, and having money is evil.

Taxation without representation might be proven in a court of law as theft. We the people, often use a United States Constitutional Right broken by practice of law from inside a trial held by a court or without working on legislating United States Constitutional Right based on the subject matter of grievance inside the court. Female President and Pregnancy Abortion are on two of the two largest united states to be used as examples. This means there is no representation of rights, there becomes only representation of crime written as criminal law. That is then organized and held in the process of filing grievance for the people. History shows us something might and can be found in a Court to be unconstitutional due to lack of legislation meaning it is not ever been properly legislated as a United States Constitutional Right. It is not ever found to be unconstitutional as a united state constitutional wrong for there is effort to not describe a perfect right to align with establish justice. The people describe a criminal wrong otherwise declared as criminal law, then after the fact say and argued before justice of this crime as wrong. The reason why the attack on Federal Reserve Note is described as just money, a motive may be the Note is good for all debt foreign and domestic. 

The common defense toward a general welfare is a President holds all men created equal by their creator and thus a Presadera can hold all women equal by their creator. A pregnancy abortion as a direct order given to officially stop that which is officially been started can be described more perfectly as a right constitutional with female-specific amputation. Stopping an immigration created by only by birth in which the women is the only life placed at risk by the process of immigration itself. This type of practice of unbroken United States Constitution of the 1st Amendment is more in line with the guides of Freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the freedom of religion. The freedom of religion describes an ability of the public to read and listen to shared beliefs to be held without cost, not as a sin like crime but as a right like self-evident truth.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

@MayCaesar We could just use a gift economy. A gift economy is where everything is given instead of sold.

You think that people would go through all the hurdles involved in creating complicated technology... just to give it away? Have you yourself ever done anything of this sort in your life, or do you hope that other people will do it for you?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

A great deal of people have started gifting economies after winning lotteries of substantial value.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar We could just use a gift economy. A gift economy is where everything is given instead of sold.

Not everything in an economy is sold a Federal Reserve Note is a receipt on all debt this means a % of economic exchange may become gift or is gifted shaping how it is recorded as 

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I think some people would. I think some people would be willing to work just to help society.

theinfectedmaster

@MayCaesar I would because I care about helping society. That's why I want to become a tech engineer in addition to coding 

MayCaesar

@theinfectedmaster

Some people certainly would - but not many. The evidence is clear: virtually everyone spends the vast majority of their income nowadays on themselves, their loved ones and dear friends. If your thesis was correct and people were inclined to live in a gift-based economy, then you would see people spending a significant fraction of their income on gifts to random strangers - which is demonstrably not the case.

Let us look at this statistic:
Total private charity organization income in the US in 2022: $499 billion.
Total personal income in the US in 2022: $21.8 trillion.
In other words, charity organizations receive approximately 2% of all private resources. 2% of the people's output being gifted in your economy is what you can expect. The rest 98% people will spend on themselves, which implies bartering - which is far less efficient than money-based trading.

If you want to live in a gift-based economy, you can live in it right now: find like-minded people, build a community with them and live and let live. Instead, you want to force everyone into your bizarre system, when 98% of the resources people spend they do not spend on gifts.

This is the difference between freedom and tyranny. In a free world, you can build your utopias wherever you want, as long as you can find people who voluntarily want to build them with you. In a tyranny, you force everyone else into your utopia projects. Why are you playing a tyrant, my friend?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
The statistics can be thrown off as you describe the gifts to be made from only the people who earned or collect the reciept and not from people who require a donation of the reciets earned to spend on others as tax. Tax is a United State Consitutional Right the question is can and is it the more perfect United State held with a complete Preamble and established justice, is it a perfect connection with something else in Preamble like a common defence for the Gedneral Welfare alone with no connection to establish justice?

This is the difference between freedom and tyranny. In a free world, you can build your utopias wherever you want, as long as you can find people who voluntarily want to build them with you. In a tyranny, you force everyone else into your utopia projects. Why are you playing a tyrant, my friend?

No, it is not the difference between Freedom and tyranny it is the difference between liberty and tyranny Freedom is a broken state of the union made by the practice of law in civil rights that are not properly legislated as law towards the more perfect form of legislation. Freedom is something that is explained by the separation of been without cost by the people who have liberated the idea of freedom from its roots of having no cost as grievance. Held by the 1st American Constitution and the 1st Amendment, though the1st is somewhat incomplete. We argue a crime within law as our own lawyer and not a right within a more perfect connection to a united right. The obvious tell would be the silence to making any improvements to a constitutional right, be it by our silence or lack of understanding of the full context of the criminal law. It is lawyers who specialize in this function of a well-regulated society is it not?

The base established justice in argument was the use of land ownership and taxation, intended to alienate only women as a form of discrimination with simple majority voting or something more outside legal prejudice, whereas both women and men are captured by legal prejudice being the disqualification of those women and men who could not and failed to hold all men as created equal by their creator as President and could not vote. Unconstitutional in America means a law that is not written as a right based on American Constitutional Preamble legislation is written as a crime is a unconstitutional act unless it is written as a united right. The best of the united rights are self-evident truths in which facts are made part of the truth and become inalienable as a right.

BrunaAdrianodaSilva

theinfectedmaster disse:

@MayCaesar Acho que algumas pessoas fariam isso. Acho que algumas pessoas estariam dispostas a trabalhar apenas para ajudar a sociedade.

theinfectedmaster  disse:@MayCaesar Poderíamos apenas usar uma economia de presentes. Uma economia da dádiva é onde tudo é dado em vez de vendido.

I sincerely believe, his idea of a gift economy is ridiculous, but his belief that people would be willing to fight for the good of society has great meaning, being in fact ⁇  by the world all the people we know. ⁇  its ⁇  for a gift economy is without foundation. Analyze ⁇ : In a world where money does not exist, and the economy is like you said, being a gift system, we have the following solution, any man who wants to build a market, he ⁇  he builds Until then, it's okay, seeing as there's no money, and everyone gives things and doesn't sell, having more markets would be a good way to protect society, right? But there is one problem, the prices of food products only have enough to supply a market, and before you think of "it is only to divide the quantity of products in two" ⁇  the idea that they are quite different with different ⁇ So there's only one left to decide who will stay, what raises the question how they can decide that? Now we ⁇ , if we had money as the main way to move the economy, there would not be so much trouble, because in a world where we make money as the main way to exchange material goods, deciding something like that can be even simple! 
(obviously it's not that simple, but in the end it can be said that when you put both situations into evidence it becomes clear, which can become simpler to resolve)
English is not my first language

MayCaesar

@BrunaAdrianodaSilva

That is the crux of it: money provides a means of trading goods directly. Whether money is present or not, gifting is always available: anyone is free to gift anything to anyone else. Furthermore, theoretically a society is possible in which there is money, but in practice no one uses the money: people just give each other gifts, which is what the OP seems to want.

However, taking money away does not make people magically start gifting things if they were not doing so already. Taking money away simply prevents people from trading goods directly. No longer can I sell my labor and buy 1 lb of apples directly: now I need to find someone who both wants my labor and has apples to sell - or find some other sequence of exchanges, such as me selling my labor in exchange for a set of TV subscriptions, then give someone these subscriptions in exchange for a car, then give someone that car in exchange of...

That is the only direct consequence of abolishing money: exchanging goods becomes extremely inconvenient, sometimes impossible (you are not going to find anything you can sell to a helicopter owner in order to get the helicopter, for the amounts of goods you can possibly produce that the helicopter seller will accept are going to be insurmountable). The OP's hope seems to be that, having no better option, everyone will suddenly become generous and start exchanging gifts (someone might gift me a helicopter - that would be a sight to behold indeed). But I fail to see why that would be the case. History has very few precedents when people were deprived of something essential in their lives and suddenly became good and generous. If anything, it almost (?) every time resulted in explosions of violence. Uncontrolled violence would be the only gift the OP's proposition would produce, I think.

John_C_87

How does abolishing tax become abolish money and why does psychic debra predict the winner of the debate to be a person who is not even debating on topic, we will be taxed even without money and a barter system is not a gift system.