Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless...

first off id just like to say thankyou to my opponent for this debate, and good luck :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ prequel args: Q- "The question is: since the Law already recognizes tax-exempt organizations as being legal entities, and human beings are also legal entities, why can't human beings receive tax exemption?" well, looking purely from a legal stand-point, organizations can only receive tax exemptions if they are productive enough and meet the requirements, and I am certain that no homeless person meets the same criteria. Bible reference: the bible, however, does not advocate your stance on how to use the govt in any way shape or form. don't you remember? Jesus said "give unto Caesar what's Caesar's..." (Luke 20:20-26) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ so rather than what my opponent says, I propose we deny them tax exemptions, because: we need to allow suffering because without suffering we are excluded from meaning. the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole. ~~~~~~points~~~~~ I~ In "softening the world for them are we really helping them?" without suffering, they have nothing to compare life as a whole to. thus, even if there life has positive experiences, they would not know so because you would have robbed them of the antonym of witch they could compare there meaning of existence. II~ 1st, homeless people wouldn't have taxes..... 2nd, the poor are poor generally because they rest too much, if they however, had un cushioned suffering, they would have comparison, and thus drive to do better, an causing them to find there "meaning is suffering" as Nietzsche would argue. III~ although "excessive" taxes are bad, the Govt does need money to run off of, and this would create a double bind: 1. tax exemptions would spread beond the poor, thus alleviating the suffering of a larger group and acting as a larger entity of evil -or- 2. people would be lazy, as is there nature, and would largely ignore the programs witch thus flattens your claim here IV~ this would be no better than the universal health care. here I advocate the status quo as it was prior to universal health care. lets "NOT" go the way that Canadian health care system, shall we? V~umm.... lets not go the way of Rome either... they fell majorly as a result of the fact that 51% of there population was on a Govt check, witch means that 49% of the population was providing for 100% of the population. VI~as long as the Govt exists, it will always be power hungry and even if your plan accesses this advantage, the nature of Govt will, inevitably, in time, over-write it. VII~how would it do this? also, extend my suffering argument. by alleviating suffering, we would be, consequentially, majorly harming the entirety of the U.S. population. VIII~They are poor for a reason.... do you really think they would wisely invest? also, extend my argument here about the volunteering/donations section. IX~so we bankrupt our Govt? I would ask "if the Govt barely has enough money as it is, and really doesn't have any at all, and we lessen the income of the Govt, how will it pay for these?" also, what % of the GDP would this take away? -------------------------------------- ....umm, homeless people don't pay taxes.... sooooo this would not affect half of the group you claim to help. ------------------------------------- now, I do believe that my opponent has good intentions, however, you know full well it is said that "the way to hell is paved with good intentions". He fails to Critically analyze the situation, witch is what I have successfully done. I argue that " we should do what immanuel kant called 'public use of reason' as opposed to 'private use of reason'. for kant, private use of reason is purely expert knowledge: some authority tells you, 'we have this problem'; you propose solutions. public use of reason is something more radical, where you don't just solve problems, but think about a larger scope of, first, is the problem itself formulated in the right way? is this the true problem? why do we have this problem? you know, you don't just accept..." (Zizek) -------------------------------------------------- ***Impact calc*** ============ 1. in his proposed world- we exempt people from taxes, but cause the govt to collapse by bankruptcy, and our health care system to go down the drain. also we rob a large portion (with the possibility of robbing almost the entirety of the population) of meaning. thus destroying the U.S. as it were. 2. my proposed world- we protect the necessity of the circle of life allowing individuals to discover there "meaning in suffering". also, we advocate for better health care, and we cause the Govt to flourish. and we arn't based off of false premises, we correctly analyze the situation. a critical framework of analization is necessary. Questions ----------- 1. how much of our GDP would this take out? 2. how do homeless people (and largely, poor people) pay taxes in any way shape or form similar to corporations? 3. would your points esentualy be the bill proposed? 4. how does the bible support your stance? 5. how would giving people free things heighten there morality? 5.5. what are your historical examples on the morality argument? 6. personally, what inspired you to to take interest in this matter?