The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100%

First of all, my apologies - as I say, first debate on here and didn't really define terms etc still kinda getting into the swing of the site. You are most definitely correct, I was considering income tax. But you raise an interesting point which I'll get to shortly. So before I go on, I think it's important to nail down the premise of the question. I think of it more as considering the logical conclusions to the extremities of both sides of the argument. If you are arguing in favour of it being closer to 100% than to 0%, then you should logically be able to argue that a 100% tax rate would be better than a 0% tax rate. And, conversely, if I am arguing in favour of it being closer to 0% than to 100%, then I should logically be able to argue that a 0% tax rate would be better than a 100% tax rate. It's not necessarily an argument that either of these extremes are the right answer, but that one is demonstrably better than the other, thus leading to your belief as to where the rate should lie on the scale. With regard to your first contention, that's obviously true. However, I'd distinguish income tax as an enforced tax which is higher for those who do better, work harder, work longer and earn more - for the most part. The difference with the other taxes is, for the most part, they are a tax on things you choose to spend money on. In that respect, income tax is the government forcing you to contribute based on what you've earned, but other taxes are the government forcing you to contribute based on what you've chosen to spend. In that respect, I'd consider the question of taxation other than income tax a whole other issue with many complications of its own... so let's focus on income tax for now. "Taking away income tax could potentially violate one's right to life. I define one's right to life as the pursuit of happiness." I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. I would argue that forcing people to pay income tax forces them to compromise on their pursuit of happiness so that other people can pursue happiness without necessarily having to do the same level of work or commit as much to a career, or take the same risks in their life. As a society, we've generally been in silent agreement that this is a good way to do things. But I think it's founded on the expectation that people need to be forced by authority to be altruistic. I don't believe they do. In fact, I would argue - as I eluded to previously - that there are already people who contribute generously to charity, even though they potentially can't afford to do everything they would otherwise want to because of this contribution. There are people who struggle to get by who still contribute to charity. There are vast swathes of wealthy people who contribute large sums of money on a regular basis to many different charitable organizations. None of these contributions are enforced by the government and yet, despite their necessity to pay those contributions which are enforced, people still pay them. I would argue that it's logical to assume they would pay more if the tax burden were lesser. This also means that if the tax burden were 0%, people would still contribute to the needy. People would also contribute to their retirement funds, for benefits for veterans and for food and nutritional assistance. I therefore challenge your assertion that a tax rate closer to 0% would take away the things you suggested it would. It would merely take away the force behind which people are required to contribute. In fact, I would argue that in the presence of a 0% tax burden, more people would have far more income freed up in order to contribute to what they considered to be worthy causes. I think when people already contribute when they can't necessarily comfortably afford to do so, it can logically be assumed that those people would continue to do so, but an additional cohort of contributors would be added in the presence of a 0% tax burden. I would argue that a true pursuit of happiness involves the freedom to take home every cent of what you earn and decide where every cent you spend is going. This would also have a knock-on effect to those vying for your money - competition has always been known to improve the quality of goods and services, and if nobody is receiving anybody's income due to the authority of government, then this effect of competition would be more widespread. On the contrary, with a 100% tax rate, nobody has any control over their own lives or their own happiness. If every cent you earn goes to the government for them to decide what it's spent on, then what would be the point in working any harder when you can't save up for the specific holiday, car, boat, house or lifestyle you want to enjoy? Moreover, what would be the point in working any harder than you have to when your money is being used to fund those who cannot or will not work? The vast unfairness of a 100% tax rate are easy to see, but I'd like to see if you can make an argument in favour of it before I go into that any deeper. I do accept that there are services which require the enforcement of taxation. Infrastructure, emergency services and armed forces are most definitely in there. In real terms, these are all things which the majority of us receive an equal amount of protection and use from. However, if we are dealing with the hypothetical of a 0% tax rate, then I fail to see how these service would cease to exist. We already have healthcare systems around the world which require payment, and return an improvement on quality if more money is spent. We already have better roads and bridges to use if we're prepared to spend the money to use them. However, if we did have a 0% tax rate, it doesn't actually mean any of these things would require private ownership. Like I say, people give generously to charity as it is. With no tax burden, plenty more people could choose to give generously to the armed forces, to volunteer and professional emergency services and so on. Conversely, if we had 100% income tax, then nobody gets to contribute anything extra and nobody gets to have any say in where they get their teeth fixed or where their child goes to school. The 100% tax rate takes away all choice while the 0% tax rate gives the ultimate freedom of choice. So I put it to you again, and hopefully in a better and more direct premise - the closer the tax rate gets to 0%, the more freedom and choice people have in where they spend their money, how much they can give to charitable organizations and the more impetus there is to do better and make better life choices. The more personal responsibility and freedom you hand people, the better they can pursue and actually catch that happiness you mentioned. The more trust you put in humanity to be altruistic, the more it will be. A 100% tax rate does the complete opposite of all those things and so I believe the closer we are to a 0% tax rate, the better. I look forward to your rebuttal.