CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
21
0% in taxes 100% in taxes
Debate Score:45
Arguments:52
Total Votes:46
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 0% in taxes (21)
 
 100% in taxes (16)

Debate Creator

giverupper(247) pic



If you had only two choices, what would it be?

What would you choose if you had only two options - either 0% in taxes, or 100% in taxes.

0% meaning that everyone would pay all their bills, and get nothing at all from the government.

100% meaning that everyone would work but get no payment, the bills would all be paid by the government, and all the money euqally distributed.

0% in taxes

Side Score: 24
VS.

100% in taxes

Side Score: 21
2 points

I would like zero if anything, it's not so much the taxes, but the equal distribution that drives me away from the other option.

Side: 0% in taxes
Jace(5052) Clarified
1 point

What is wrong with equal distribution?

Side: 0% in taxes
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

Poor incentives.

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

Side: 100% in taxes
2 points

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.

Side: 0% in taxes
Jace(5052) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: 100% in taxes
AREKKUSU(275) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: 0% in taxes

There is zero government revenue with either option. I'm assuming you mean income tax?

Side: 0% in taxes
1 point

The other option sounds like Socialism and we are sure that won't last for long.

Side: 0% in taxes
1 point

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.

Side: 0% in taxes
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: 100% in taxes
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

Provided, not everywhere in Alaska is tax exempt, but there are some places there that serve as "tax-free" zones

Side: 0% in taxes
1 point
Side: 0% in taxes
1 point

Definitely Zero...motivates most to work.

Side: 0% in taxes
1 point

I think someone already mentioned this, but according to the Laffer curve, no tax revenue will be generated either way.

Therefore, 0% seems easiest and most reasonable.

Side: 0% in taxes
1 point

first off, if I go to med school and graduate and become a doctor, I wouldn't want to pay the EXACT same amount of money as a teacher or taxi driver.

Side: 0% in taxes
3 points

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.

Side: 100% in taxes
2 points

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.

Side: 100% in taxes
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

That's just authoritarian leftism, not necessarily any particular system.

Side: 0% in taxes
Warlin(1212) Disputed
2 points

You're not any particular system.

Side: 100% in taxes
1 point

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.

Side: 100% in taxes
giverupper(247) Clarified
2 points

Isn't 100% in taxes a legal kind of theft ?

Side: 0% in taxes
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

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?

Side: 0% in taxes
Jace(5052) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: 0% in taxes

I live for others. But I just hope that they will not waste what I work for

Side: 100% in taxes
1 point

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.

Side: 100% in taxes