Taxes Are Justifiable

I will begin by refuting Pros arguments, and then bringing up my own.====Taxation is justified for a few reasons====>>>Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society>>>Critical for Government>>>Reduce income inequality>>>Other Beneficial ProgramsR.C1: Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society--Basic Society--Pro's only argument here is that without taxation we would not be able to fund for "national defense, law enforcement, and a system of government." He claims that "If a government *was not* needed in society, we wouldn't *have* evolved to have them."First of all I would like to say that we, as humans (I assume he means by "we") did not evolve simply to have a government. Governments were created to organize the people, not as a result of evolution. There is no sufficient proof that a government is needed in modern society. There are nomads in the world that live just as well as we do here, according to their own standards. Nomads are those who do not settle in one area, essentially, they manage themselves, no set leader is in power, and no government is present. [3]Secondly, I would like to point out that all of the programs Pro has listed can be financed by other means than taxation. I can clarify this in a further round if need be, but private organizations, donations and charities are also a major factor in government funding. (If we are to keep the government point in this debate).Infrastructure:On Pros argument that "no person has gotten rich by themselves," I would like to bring up the point of the lottery. The lottery is an organization that gives away thousands to millions of dollars to a lucky ticket buyer. When you buy lottery tickets, they are not taxed. The money given away in the lottery is not tax money, but money paid for the tickets. No taxes are needed, because the lottery system itself is paid for by those who buy the tickets.I also urge a conduct vote to Con because of the clear abuse by the pro when saying "If you disagree with the rich on HOW they got rich, on WHY taxes are justifiable, and why they ARE critical to society, I question your sense of decency." By saying this, Pro calls anyone who is willing to refute this point a lack of decency. This is clear abuse by pro, and limits the Con ground, if the Con were to take it seriously.We can throw out Pro's quote (source [1]) because of this fact.Also, the point that taxes are our dues can be thrown out, because simply enough, they are not. "We pay our dues to be Americans..." can be argued by the simple point that not all people pay to be Americans. Taxes are not just a domestic issue, but a foreign as well. The fact is, if we are to debate taxes, Pro must prove that all taxes in the entire world are justified for his side to be legitimate. My point here is, that according to law, paying taxes is a voluntary act. According to Harry Reid, in an interview with Jan Helfeld, he states "Our system of government is a voluntary tax system." [4] This may be a controversial topic, and though the government can take forceful action, under Pros logic, there would be no government anyway. Therefore, if people do not pay taxes, the government can still exist just as it has. R.C2: Critical For Government:Pro challenges me to "name a modern society that survives and flourishes without taxation." I would like to provide a list. Andorra, The Bahamas, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, San Marino, Seychelles, and Switzerland. All of these countries are considered "tax havens" and survive and flourish without taxation. This point will stand on Cons ground. [1]We can throw away the rest of this contention being that it supports the side that governments of all modern societies are supported only by taxes. Again, I have already listed nations where this is not true. R.C3: Reduces Income InequalityThe tag line for this argument seems ineffective, but I will argue it anyway. "The progressive tax" are said, by pro, to have found to have numerous societal *benefits* for nations that have taxation. Here, Pro lists good things about the progressive tax, in his mind. But this does not cover income inequality. Lowering homicide rates, obesity, etc. promotes in no way income equality. This argument will be thrown out unless Pro can support his tag line within his arguments. [2]R.C4: Other Beneficial ProgramsCross-Apply my argument from Contention 1 about these programs being paid for by other means.====My Own Arguments====The resolution of this debate is simple: "Taxes Are Justifiable" This clearly states that all taxes created are completely justifiable. I will concede to Pros definition here. Essentially, if I can prove one tax ever created on this planet as unjustifiable, the vote defaults to Con.C1: GoodwillGoodwill is an organization that takes donated cloths and sells them at a knock-off price for those who don't have the money to buy the big name-brands. In fact, most teens will shop there just so they can save up. However, when we think about the tax on a Goodwill product, we can see a few flaws. 1. If this is a "charity" because of the lower price, why tax it? 2. This is simply double taxation, triple taxation, etc. Let's look at a pair of jeans from Holister that will usually sell for about $50. One will buy these jeans, wear them a few times and donate to Goodwill. That pair of jeans will be placed on the racks for a lower price, but for a tax. A teenager will buy these jeans again, wear them for as long as he/she likes, and donate them back. Now, the jeans have been taxed a total of 3 times, and who's to say the cycle ends there?If Pro can explain why taxing the same piece of merchandise over and over and over again is justifiable, let him. However, anyone can clearly see that this is not, and there can be no arguments sufficient enough to prove why one item should be taxed as many times as those at these donation centers.====Conclusion====The resolution states that taxes are justifiable.If one tax is unjustifiable, the resolution becomes false.I have proved that a tax is unjustifiable.The resolution becomes false.The round defaults to Con.Because grammar and spelling is a voting issue I have put *s around every word I quote from pro that is either mispelled or does not meet specific grammar rules.Though the debate should not be decided on that fact, I have already presented why the obvious vote is to Con. [1] http://www.investopedia.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4] http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...