This is how our society works weather we want it or not. We get taxed on things like a penalty. For example we get taxed on liquor and cigarettes because both of those things put a huge burden on the health system.
so why not tax people who hate LBGTQ and people who hate other races or hate abortion or hate youthanasia. Because when you look at it the negatives from these people are costing the country.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well okay then but you didnt explain why. May be we could tax people who fart in elevators or people who dont dress well but how far do we go. We cant tax every little thing that might annoy a few people.
My examples are people who hate others for no reel reason and even unlawfully which causes much disruption and cost to society. Why should society pay for there ill doings. If they cant control them selves and change them selves then they should be made to pay for it. Not the rest of us.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
LBGTQ and people who have abortions are law abiding citizens but people who go round beeting queers and blocking abortion clinics are not law abiding and being counter productive. Thats why not only should they pay the penalty but they should also be taxed. If they don't like getting taxed well thats grate. Its the same as smocking. If you dont like being taxed on smokes then just stop getting them.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well we cant tax every thing and when you do make a new tax it should be beneficial to society as a hole.
For example if I think of some thing real random and Im only saying what if here because its hard to think that such a situation exists. But what if some one thinks in a certain way that he thinks eating garlic is good for you. Well we could impose a tax on eating garlic to counter act all the burden on the health system and lost days at work it causes from toxicity illness. But that would only apply to very few people and would not really impact on the grater society.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Barnardot
I do get what you're saying, I really do. But taxing hate, that's a podora's box that we would never be able to close. Thought police and the like, what ever minimal good one may think might be possible, the potential for weaponizing such laws would far out way any good. How does someone defend themself against being accused of thinking in a hateful way? That, and I think we (working class) are taxed enough.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Taxation of alcohol is not based on health considerations; it is based on old puritan morals, in conjunction with the lobbyists within the alcohol industry. I would make a larger point, supported by academic works of such prolific economists as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman: the overwhelming majority of taxes merely use moral considerations as rationalization of their existence, with the motives of their introducers being far more nefarious than what is announced to the public.
A good question to ask when it comes to adopting a new tax or increasing an existent one is, "Is doing this absolutely essential for the society and state to function?" If the answer is "no", then the discussion should be closed right there and then. The government sucks at running the economy, and the less it invades it, the better.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would make a larger point, supported by academic works of such prolific economists as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman: the overwhelming majority of taxes merely use moral considerations as rationalization of their existence, with the motives of their introducers being far more nefarious than what is announced to the public.
So true. We physical conservatives decades ago coined a word for that because it seems the left tries the tactic concerning taxation more than we on the right. When they start 'demonizing' a product look out, they've discovered a way to intrude into your personal lives...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra