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

Before I get into my rebuttal, I would like to start off with a quote. "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization- Olive V Wendell Holmes Jr. "With a 100% tax rate, nobody has any control over their own lives or their own happiness." I disagree with this point you made. The income taxes being paid are still contributing to oneself and one's environment. I would like to point out that the amount for all taxpayers are different depending on income. Income tax still varies on the ability to pay. "100% tax rate takes away all choice." I disagree with that. The 0% tax rate doesn't give ultimate freedom of choice. It allows people to just rely on charity and regressive tax. Regressive taxes don't change. Examples include sales taxes, property fees, and user fees. Everyone depending on the amount of income they have may vary. Regressive tax causes lower income< people to pay a larger share than people above their level of ability to pay. Not being able to use income tax takes away an easier opportunity. That easier opportunity would be income taxes as it is. It does the redistribution throughout all levels of wealth. Just relying on regressive taxes and charity wouldn't make the economy better. Just relying on organizations that contribute to regressive tax and charity would be too relied upon. How would we know if the money going to charities are spread? How would the state pay its bills without income tax? The other percentage intended for charity could be taken by the organization that contributes to that. States without income tax have a high tax disadvantage on the poor. Income tax does not put strain on the poor. It's redistributing wealth. That ties in to the term "progressive". I believe it's better than relying on regressive tax. Regressive tax: (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes. definition from Oxford dictionary As I stated before, taxing people with income doesn't leave them empty-handed. The government would use the money for exactly what has room for improvement. Letting the people choose where the money goes would be unfair. There is a possibility the money would be spread unevenly and not through all levels of wealth. There are vital services for taxpayers.The government imposes tax for a reason. Income tax raises money for government spending, redistributing income, social development, correcting market failure, and management. Having a lower income tax could lower the quality of benefit. This is something that shouldn't be dependent on charity. We know that not all people would give to charity. Relying on that small amount that donates is unrealistic. We should face a contribution from a whole. "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." That point is just an assumption."This also means that if the tax burden were 0%, people would still contribute to the needy." This is also an assumption. It's even rare in some cases to find someone willingly donate to the poor. It is clear that the negative side of the resolution is the greater good for the greater majority. It follows with the definition of utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater majority. With this reasoning, how could one determine if the majority of people would contribute to society in that way? "We already have healthcare systems around the world which require payment, and return an improvement on quality if more money is spent." Those payments would have to increase in order to have stability within the community. That way would be unfair in this case. You are still relying on the people who have healthcare to do the rest. Relying on other sources besides income tax leaves behind the poor. There are moral reasons why we don't keep every cent earned. If each person kept every cent earned, the money in society wouldn't go through all levels of wealth. The wealthy would be limited and given more. This would lead to a higher percentage of the lower class. Tax has happened to affect people's behavior. Tax can be used to discourage the purchase of products that pose a risk to health. This includes tobacco, alcohol, and other items mainly useless when it comes to living. This applies to all types. Sources: https://apps.irs.gov... Because of this, I agree with the negative side of the resolution. Thank you and I look forward to your response.