CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Just giving everyone the same exact amount of everything seems arbitrary, especially when we already have our basic needs well met. Why not be a distributist, or a fascist? :P
I do not buy the "poor incentives" argument. Currently there are a significant number of people who work far harder than many others who remain trapped in poverty. If anything is a poor incentive it is the knowledge gained from first hand experience that working hard does not guarantee even minimally stable living conditions, accompanied by the knowledge that the majority of wealth and power is controlled by a very small minority of people. That ones productivity often yields greater benefit for someone other than ones self can hardly be construed as a positive incentive towards productivity.
In a system of equal distribution more people would be able to pursue their actual passions and interests, with less financial pressure and class expectation to do otherwise. People doing with their lives what they truly want to rather than what they are forced to do just to get by seems like a more efficient system to me. And a life lived outside the constraints of classism and financial restriction seems far more liberated and considerably less fascist.
The number is "big", but not at all in the sense that it represents a majority or even anything greater than a miniscule proportion.
If anything is a poor incentive it is the knowledge gained from first hand experience that working hard does not guarantee even minimally stable living conditions
Yes, it does. People are in poverty because their unwillingness to work has provided them with poor options, not the other way around.
Even if that wasn't true, I'm talking about having your basic needs met. Earning 7 dollars an hour, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 12 months earns you 20,160 dollars (plus gov't benefits if they are provided) a year, you can live on that.
That ones productivity often yields greater benefit for someone other than ones self can hardly be construed as a positive incentive towards productivity.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If people didn't have anything to gain, why else would they be working? Nobody lives like that and only a free market with the appropriate regulations can insure that.
In a system of equal distribution more people would be able to pursue their actual passions and interests, with less financial pressure and class expectation to do otherwise. People doing with their lives what they truly want to rather than what they are forced to do just to get by seems like a more efficient system to me. And a life lived outside the constraints of classism and financial restriction seems far more liberated and considerably less fascist.
100% tax is complete gov't overhaul of the system, the free market is made of voluntary transactions between people. It also creates 0 percent outside pressure, and when you have gov't deciding all your income and transactions, there is no way that you can have any reasonable amount of choice afforded to you in life.
Gov't money is not free, ever. Just because resources are equally distributed doesn't mean that resources will not be limited, in this case it just allocates them in an incredibly inefficient way.
If resources and income are supposed to be the same for everyone, it would've been arranged that way in our markets through equal efforts made by everyone; causing employees to be able to demand much much more (even with disabled people, the divisions of labor are high enough for most people to find a job that doesn't test certain abilities that people may lack and still have the same income and quality of life), they really wouldn't even need unions.
By the income figures, I'm stacking 28 workdays out of the month for days off, there are about 29-30 potential paid holiday days that I deliberately did not account for.
You misunderstand my argument. I never claimed that the number was large or represented anything even approaching a majority. My use of the word "significant" was very intentional, and was intended to indicate that any number is significant (small or large). My perspective is that a system of zero taxation would inherently entrench the inequity of opportunity along lines of privilege and class, wholly independent of individual effort. That any number of individuals should have lesser financial security than those they work harder than is unjust, and clear cause for reconsideration of zero taxation.
People are in poverty because their unwillingness to work has provided them with poor options, not the other way around.
Most people do not fall into poverty, but are born into it (hence, the cycle of poverty). Career opportunities are very closely connected to educational opportunities, and there are very clear differences in the latter based upon class origin. A person who is born into poverty is at an inherent disadvantage on this basis. Additionally, a child raised under circumstances of financial insecurity is less likely to have strong role models for financially sound practices. I could go on.
I'm talking about having your basic needs met. [...] 20,160 dollars (plus gov't benefits if they are provided) a year, you can live on that."
Your figures assume a certain cost of living that is not consistent. Perhaps in a rural community or in some places in the midwest one could survive on that amount. However, in places like NYC where just a single bedroom apartment costs upwards of $1500 a month (excluding utilities), shelter alone will cost 18,000. Factor in food, clothing, utilities, medical expenses, education, transportation to work/school/etc, and so forth and that level of income is no where near adequate. Most government benefits are not extended at poverty level, but well below that level so someone making 20K is unlikely to receive much aid.
If people didn't have anything to gain, why else would they be working?
The knowledge that you are getting screwed over does not create a positive incentive for productivity. This does not mean people quit working (as little as they gain, they have more to lose by quitting altogether); it means that the work they do is not as productive or well done because they don't care (and why should they?). A market that more evenly distributes the financial output of labor and more equally supports opportunity for personal financial security is also one which encourages greater productivity. Happy people make better workers, basically. Unfortunately, with a glut of unemployed and underemployed people that higher productivity is something corporations can write off at the cost of social stability and overall productivity.
Nirvana Fallacy
Yours is at least as equally fallible. "The free market is made of voluntary transactions by people" - are you serious? There is no such thing as an efficient free market in that sense. A totally unconstrained market naturally gives rise to monopolies which cripple national economies and stifle growth and progress. There is no pure free market economy for much the same reason as there is no pure controlled market economy (at least for any period of notable longevity). The reality is that this debate framework imposes an unrealistic standard for both sides to defend (both are highly fallible), and so the burden becomes not which is efficient and which is inefficient... but which is most efficient.
Certainly, a 100% tax with total government discretion at distribution is going to be problematic. I do not and never have denied that. However, if equal distribution is a guarantee within that program then to me a 100% tax becomes preferable to a 0% tax for this very simple reason: it seems more unfair to inherently prevent some from financial stability and security regardless of their efforts than to inherently benefit some freeloaders. It is more inefficient to have poverty and its associated ills than the problems associated with some freeloaders.
If resources and income are supposed to be the same for everyone, it would've been arranged that way in our markets.
Nothing is supposed to be any particular way. It is the way it is, and every system we produce is fallible because human beings are fallible. The trick is to minimize the cons and maximize the pros. Zero redistribution would incur the following: entirely private infrastructure, entirely private military and police forces, entirely private utilities, entirely private education, entirely private prisons, entirely private food systems, entirely private land, etc. Everything private. Nothing public. Those already situated with financial sway will have an innate advantage that those in poverty would have no way of breaking through.
With the financial incentives available for, say, those in the medical field, we still don't have enough staff to meet the demand in a timely matter.
Nix those, and you lose the proportion of those in the medical field for the money, leaving only those who do it because it is their choice. This exacerbates something that is already a problem.
The medical field is not the only one affected in this way, either.
The ONLY way 100% in taxes and equal distribution could possibly work would be if individuals were not given a choice in their career, but assigned one by the government. Furthermore, in this model, employers lose much of their ability to sanction their employees for underperformance; what does it matter if you are suspended 'without pay' or fired, if everything is being equally distributed? Where does that leave us; criminalizing underperformance? I don't really see much in the way of other options, so the equal distribution has an end result of the government dictating what career we choose and labelling us criminals if we don't perform. Yeah, fuck that.
Your analysis of the medical profession is highly simplistic. The field no longer has the dearth of workers it had briefly (some in medicine currently have difficulty finding employment). The financial incentives are not especially extravagant for most in the profession, and when they are they are a long term payout on a hugely expensive initial investment in higher education that places most of its students in massive debt. Admission to graduate institutions for the study of medicine is also highly competitive and exclusive. All that aside, you are aligning with popular assumption that those in the field are in it primarily because of the money without actually warranting your assertion. You are extending that assumption to multiple career fields, and the validity of your argument comes to rest on the notion that people are primarily motivated by money but have no proof at all.
You also seem to assume that 100% taxation necessarily means equal distribution regardless of performance or career tract. It is entirely possible that a 100% tax government could incentivize the selection of careers (and with greater efficacy than a 0% tax society) by rewarding extra benefits above the baseline. If the market experiences a dearth in any area deemed important to social function and individual well-being, the benefits associated with it are merely increased. Rather than being a wholly uncontrolled process as with 0% taxation the government would have a clear and direct hand in influencing job market choices.
I recognize that my analysis is rather simplistic. It's true that the medical field does not have what one would call a dearth of workers currently, but the staffing levels still mean very long wait times at most hospitals. I was not asserting that all people are primarily motivated by money, but a not insignificant percentage people most certainly are; surely you don't disagree with that? Between these two factors, the industry would certainly be negatively affected. One doesn't have to align with popular assumption to recognize that even if what is assumed isn't as prevalent as some would believe, it still does generally exist and is one of the reasons the perception is there in the first place.
I'm not assuming anything regarding equal distribution; if you'll scroll up, that was one of the parameters established for that portion of the debate. I recognize that as a system it could be workable if distribution wasn't always equal to incentivize needed jobs, but that's outside of the scope of this debate, is it not?
A not insignificant percentage people most certainly are; surely you don't disagree with that?
I absolutely disagree with that. I think very few people are actually motivated by money, or at least primarily motivated by it. Most people who want money want it so they can live a good life, so that they can care for their loved ones and be happy. Money is a means to an ends, and whether or not most people realize that I think that is how it tends to function. Actual money chasers, at least in my experience, are quite rare. If 100% taxation could secure that end more consistently and predictably, I think motivation would not cease.
That was one of the parameters established for that portion of the debate.
Well shit. To be completely honest, I lost track of the original parameters. They are so patently restrictive and pointless; the debate just gets reduced into which plan is the least terrible. I still think that would be 100% taxation, but I think neither of us is really going to be swayed and frankly this debate is yielding diminishing returns at this point (at least for me... how about you?). But you know, what the hell, what if the system did look like what you posited before? What if our skills actually and interests factored into a dictated career path for us? How is that especially different from now, when most children are pushed and trapped into careers/non-careers based on socioeconomic class? Currently, the determinants for career options and success are almost wholly arbitrary. Would it really be that bad if the government did decide, based on more objective criteria? I don't seriously support any of that, but being backed into that corner makes me think: is it really that terrible? Particularity when compared to the 0% alternative where socioeconomic disparity is exacerbated and power highly concentrated into a few hands. Frankly, I'd prefer to move up by my own merit and ability than to be locked in because of what class I was born into.
Although this is the harder life, to not pay the government to do anything, and the fact that the community itself would have to pay for stuff, I'd still prefer to make my own independent choices than to give it all to the government and rely on them to make the right decisions, where as I don't trust them.
You trust the general public to make better choices? You trust that those bearing the concentration of wealth and power will act with the collective interest at heart without the checks and balances afforded by government? Certainly government is not ideal but given the alternatives I would rather have some system of distribution and allocation of resources than none whatsoever.
You make a good point, however I'd need to government to have a major reform before I'd accept the 2nd option. However for the 1st one, we have no system to reference to know how it'll be.
We have no point of reference for the second option either. There is not instance of either existing, at least not for any period of time allowing for meaningful analysis.
The thing about a government is that you can have major reform. Rule by the majority is unchecked without governmental restraint and mostly dictated by emotion rather than reason or inclinations towards justice. Rule by an aristocratic minority necessitates a benevolence history teaches us does not accompany a concentration of power. If I must, I will opt for a system with some checks rather than one lacking them in entirety (or at least nearly so).
P.S. My apologies for the delayed reply and thanks for your clarification. I will understand if you do not reply, and will not take it as concession of any points discussed.
Oh, but we do. Do you think the earth was created with taxes? You are correct, we don't have much to reference... But let me ask you this; Is it harder to get rid of a 'community-like' system and go our separate way, and take care of ourselves... Or would it be easier to debate with other people that have the opposite ideals over and over to try to get the right ideals? Yeah, it's perhaps more barbaric, it would bring SOME more cruelty into the world, but it would also bring about a whole new type of freedom. It's all based on opinions more-over...
Of course not, but neither were complex societies and government. As long as those have been around, you have had some form of taxation in place. The type of anarchy you are referencing has never occurred among humans and it never will. Humans are not capable of sustaining it, of going our separate ways and taking care of ourselves. If you strip away taxation and dissolve government you may temporarily accomplish a "new type of freedom" wherein freedom is enjoyed relative to ones will to power. Perhaps that is preferable, however it will give way quite quickly to the powerful exploiting those with less power... leading to taxation and the reversion to complex societies and government. The only thing you will have accomplished is the dissolution of social controls honed through centuries of social evolution.
There are a mass number of societies in our past that didn't have any real taxation. Native Americans, amazons, tons. Yes, it would have dissolution... But who's to say that's a road of unhappiness? Who's to say a simpler life wouldn't be better? 0 taxes means work wouldn't be nearly as required. If you just grew your own crops you wouldn't really need to work a day in your life. Without taxes it'd be easier to strive to be or get whatever to want to aim for, with the fact that you'd have to do that somewhat more independently... Sure there'd be some problems, as you said with the power struggle. But even that would find balance. The powerhouses of America right now are the republicans and the democrats. One of while supports the little people and the other that doesn't. I see no reason that this would change just from a change of setting.
Generally speaking, I think all societies have had some form of taxation even if they did not call it that explicitly. I do not pretend to be an expert in ancient civilizations however. That being said, it is not particularly relevant. The size of societies today and the relatively massive population of the human species precludes earlier systems of social organization. That non-taxation may have worked back then under very different circumstances is not really much of a testament to it being able to work today.
You assert that a non-taxation society with highly individualized and independent production would have its power struggles but that they would "balance out". When has that ever happened? Upon what basis do you make that claim? So long as some people are driven to power and control, so long as some personalities are more dominant, etc.... I maintain that civilization will revert to a hierarchical structure that is better mediated than left alone. As it has consistently done in every part of the world with concentrated populations.
When has it ever happened? It's happening everywhere. There's ALWAYS power stuggles. Look at the U.S., Look at the Middle east, look almost anywhere in the world and there will be power struggles. And thing is, they're almost never 100% one sided. There are famous quotes revolving around things like that saying "The only time you've lost, is once you've given up" It get's equaled out due to what the population wants. And the population doesn't want all of the power in one man's hands. That's obvious enough by the general structure of major nations.
I think I misunderstood the point you were making about "balancing out," which made my response seem fairly asinine. At any rate, my point was not that power does not distribute itself but that the power is not "balanced" in the traditional sense of the word, but skewed to prefer some over others. I'm not saying that all power would become concentrated in one person's hands, but that it certainly would become disproportionately concentrated. My challenge was for you to present any society where that has not occurred, where power has resolved itself equally across the population without financial redistribution. My argument is that without some redistribution, the natural concentration of power will occur more rapidly and with less obstruction.
I want nothing stolen from me. All "taxation" is extortion and theft because it forcibly deprives the Individual of the fruits of their labor. The argument about infrastructure falls flat when one considers other options to pay for such things as roads, etc., etc.
I have never given consent to being robbed; it does not matter what you call something, it does not change what it is.
Well, I suppose that you could move to Alaska and live tax exempt, there are still other places that you can move to for that.
Although I don't pay a whole lot in taxes myself, I still pay them, and believe me, I don't 100% agree with where it goes or where it's taken, but they're still on the whole necessary.
There is a certain collective amount that we need to set aside for necessary programs and services, it's not based on being voluntary.
Considering that neither of these is ideal I would rather live within a society which distributes as evenly as possible the combined resources at its disposal than within one which necessarily and undoubtedly exacerbates income and wealth disparity.
That's like. Communism. Almost. I mean it's kind of communism. It's at least y'know, economic communism or communismish. But I mean whatever you've gotta do -some- taxes at least and I'd rather be in a society where everyone is forced to work together than the lack of a society where people just shoot eachother and take what they want.
0% taxes is anarchy, since no government can run on it. Anarchy is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (as Hobbes said). 100% taxes simply leads more along the lines of what I want: a Christian theocracy based in the Book of Acts.
Are taxes theft? If they are, then every country is immoral and we should only have anarchy, which is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. If they aren't, then what is the problem?
That is what I believe actually. Taxes are theft, and 100% in taxes is just a complete robbery, while a lower number in taxes is just robbery.
Imagining your house getting robbed, and they took every single bit of your house, and replaced it with less efficient stuff.
They replaced your fine house with an average house, they replaced your plasma TV with a regular TV, they replaced your smartphone with a more affordable phone.
That is how I look at taxes - something that blocks you from all luxury, and that is what every want, that is what we dream of, that is what keeps us working. If you take the dream away that one day you are going to afford that awesome yacht, then your eager to work will be gone.
That is why I vote for 0% in taxes, if that was my only choice.
Thats not what I'm asking. If you believe that taxing is theft, then by definition you cannot be giving your money up with your consent. You believe that taxes are theft, which means by definition you cannot approve of taxes at all. Therefore, by definition, meaning this to be a deductive argument that necessarily follows, you desire anarchy, since no government can stand without taxes.
Theft is a criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent. Residing within a society/government and benefiting from that residency creates an implied consent, particularly within the context of a participatory government.
Like you said '' taken without the person's consent '' - that sounds a lot like taxes to me. I know plenty people who unwillingly pay taxes, and I'm one of these people.
I feel like the country is taking my money without my consent, and that is a criminal act according to law.
Not at all like I said; you completely missed my point. If you accept the benefits of society and government you give tacit consent to taxation. In other words: if you have ever benefited from public roads, public utilities, public parks, community buildings, recreation centers, public education, the legal system, law enforcement, emergency response (fire, medical, etc.), financial institutions, garbage or recycling, etc. then you have willfully benefited from public infrastructure which you well know to be financed through taxation. Accepting such benefits is implied consent to the taxation that funds it. Living in a participatory society/government further underscores this tacit consent as there is a fundamental agreement amongst members to adhere to rules set by the majority until such time as redress is successfully sought.
Further your argument about criminality is sheer codswallop. Criminality is defined by law, and there is no international or national law that codifies taxation as criminal. This is owing to the point I made above that you have not actually addressed. If you want to make an argument against taxation at least use the right terminology: unethical, immoral, unjust, etc.
Although I lean more Libertarian than anything else, 0% in taxes is anarchy and that's even worse than totalitarian. So if I had to choose one or the other. Definitely not anarchy.