Social Welfare Is Immoral

Pro agreed to the framework that requires the truth claim the resolution makes be true in all cases. If there is a single example of social welfare that is not immoral, pro loses the debate. This is one of the reasons Pro loses. While Con rejects the analysis of Pro; conflating the onerous nature of taxes with outright theft, Pro loses even if this was correct. Here’s why. Within the definition of welfare provided by Pro, we see that social welfare programs are not necessarily provided for by taxation. That is to say, while they often are provided for by taxes, it is not universally true that welfare is funded by taxes. Pro's definition reads: Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens without current means to support basic needs. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government from tax income. This definition acknowledges that while in many or even most cases states provide welfare via tax funds, it is not true in all instances in all countries. Since the truth claim supported by Pro is not true in all cases, pro loses per his own definitions. There are certainly examples where welfare is or might be provided without relying on direct tax. For example, war reparations distributed to a state’s populace is a welfare policy that is not funded by taxes. In many US states, municipal worker pensions are funded by bonds, sometimes sold by government and sometimes bought by government and allowed to mature. We could model a state that funds a welfare program through tariffs and fees. A nation could even in theory borrow money to fund welfare, and then default on the loan. These are all examples of welfare that do not involve direct taxes. Since we have examples of welfare programs that can exist without taxing people, Pro loses the debate; Pro has to show the resolution is true in all cases, which Con shows is not true. All this said, Con rejects the analysis provided by Pro, that taxation is tantamount to theft. For starters, USD is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government the same entity that assesses tax on USD. The value of US currency is inherently linked to the ability to tax USD, since they both precipitate from the same entity. When Pro rejects the right of the US government to assess taxes, they are rejecting the same institution that give the money value to begin with. Taxation cannot be theft when the value of what is taxed is a feature of what is taxed. “IE: money is worthless without the taxman to give said money value to begin with.” Even outside of this concern, real property rights and their legal protections precipitate from the same sources as the value of USD and the ability to tax American commerce: the US Federal Government. Pro is rejecting the institution that legally provides for property rights when they reject the institution that assesses taxes. “IE: property rights and tax collectors are defended by the same barriers.” In both of these example Pro rejects the same instrument that he practically derives property rights from: the law.Most damning though is Pro’s misappropriation of the ideas of theft and force. Pro compares taxes to an actual violation if rights, and even goes as far as to compare it with rape and murder; this is perverse! Simply put nobody broke into anyone's home, held a gun to somebody’s head and forced them to fill out a 1040 EZ form.When we earn money in the US taxes are a known and a given. They could be onerous or even unfair, but that does not constitute robbery. The day Pro starts any job, or sets up any direct deposit account, Pro will be advised of his tax obligations and provide instruments of his own taxation as part of the terms of employment. Pro can reject the deal if he feels that strongly, or could even try to claim, “exempt” but he has not been violated without warning and consent. Pro confuses not liking the rules with a violation of his rights, and tries to compare it to rape. Show us the rape victim that says, “it was kind of like paying taxes when he raped me.” Pro should have a little more respect for those that have actually been violated.Disliking the rules is not the same as being cheated. But in any case, we can reject the Pro analysis since be his own definition the claim the resolution makes is not true in all cases. Pro is wrong about the truth statement the resolution makes, and Pro is wrong about the comparison of taxes to theft. Even if Pro were right in his analysis of the topic, he would still lose since we can see examples of welfare taht don' depend on taxes, so teh resolution is not true in call cases. But worse for Pro still is the fact that taxes are not theft, taxes are a known and inherent proposition of earning money in society, and the authority to tax earners is robustly established and recognized.