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

Thanks to guitargod, for taking me up on my debate. You, my friend, are awesome-sauce! _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prequel arguments: Q-"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." From a certain perspective, it could be argued that a homeless individual doesn't really meet the requirements for productivity. Certainly, it's extremely difficult to meet such productivity and requirements, when one has lost so much, and must now redirect concern toward survival itself. However, as my drill sergeants were quick to remind us, you can't help anybody else, until you get the help you need for yourself. In other words, the argument could likewise be made that, in attempting to become a productive member of society, the person in question is, in fact, becoming productive; and the issue really centers around whether or not the person in question will continue to endeavor toward meeting the requirements, or not. There are special cases, in which the I.R.S. will allow an organization a sort of "grace period", to meet requirements. It may be that such a grace period could be extended to individuals. "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)" While I respect my opponent's research, I must disagree on the point about the Bible's perspective on taxation and government. Firstly, the remainder of the text reads, "Give unto God what's God's", thereby reminding us to give what is owed to those to whom we owe it. However, in ancient Israel, the Law of Moses demanded charity from the people; both in the form of personal charity, and in a form of taxation we know today as "tithing". If necessary, I can provide specific references; however, there are many references throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. My opponent takes a difficult position, in arguing for the necessity of evil. However, when considered in it's totality, it is a noble argument. My opponent claims that, without suffering, there is no use for us; however, I do not support that concept. In a biblical sense, suffering is an unintended result of sin; which is an attempt to perform in a manner uncommon to the intention of the Creator. The connotation of Genesis 1 and 2, is that an individual's meaning is in how well suffering is averted, by proper stewardship of those creations put under his or her charge. It is when sin enters the picture, that suffering becomes apparent. Even the Buddha recognized the fact that suffering is undesirable (while perhaps the wrong term to use, I trust the reader will understand the intention of the term), and a better goal is to attain the alleviation of suffering. While it is suffering that provides some measure of activity and excitement, suffering is both subjective (to an extent), and undesirable to every living creature. Whether suffering is living on the streets, or living in a penthouse because of a lie, it's still undesirable; and that is what makes it suffering. I~ My opponent makes a good philosophical point: "without suffering, they have nothing to compare life as a whole to." However, returning to the philosophy of the Buddha, and perhaps of Lao Tzu, it is this competition that causes unease and unrest. Suffering causes us to feel impending doom. While useful, it is useful as far as the compulsion to alleviate suffering. One may wonder if it's suffering that is necessary, or effort. II~ Firstly, while homeless people would have no tax, such a predicament would only last until they were no longer homeless. It would be temporary, and achieve the higher goal of personal and social improvement. Secondly, I must again disagree with my opponent; It's a generalization to claim that the lethargy of individuals is indicative of the entire group. Some people just can't catch a break, mainly because of circumstances making such efforts necessary. III~ My opponent claims that the government needs taxation to operate, and this is somewhat true. However, taxation was originally enforced in WWII to fund the war effort. 1. My opponent claims that, if tax exemption spreads beyond the poor, it would alleviate the suffering of a larger group. That's only true of unmonitored systems . 2. I must disagree that people are lazy: the very attempt to survive is a testament to natural human diligence. IV~ I don't argue in favour of a Canadian system of healthcare; rather, I argue that people who can, would provide as they can, of their own free will. This would still be a totally privatized system. V~Likewise, I am not arguing for government support. I'm arguing for dismantling government support, by using the legal tools available, to allow and encourage personal charity. VI~The reason the government has power, in our nation, is because people are convinced to will it. If tyranny is exposed, the people will rebel. If the government wants control, they placate the people. VII~By alleviating suffering, a new purpose develops: to ensure the prevention of suffering. Further, what's to stop someone from saying that causing suffering (evil,) is good? VIII~One can only guess as to why people become "poor": the average person lives a couple paychecks away from homelessness. IX~The main reasons for government "bankruptcy" are centered around two facts: that politicians, who have private incomes greater than their government salaries, take tax money for their own useless profits; and that too much money is used in pork-spending. -------------------------------------- While homeless people don't pay taxes, the reason is because they have no such opportunity yet. ------------------------------------- My opponent and I obviously have different perspectives, taken from different experiences. I don't know my opponent's experiences, or how he endured suffering; however, I do know the suffering of losing all one's money, losing a job, losing a place to live, and struggling to survive in a world that only pretends to care by pouring money into greedy, elitist systems that subsist solely on the lie that they use their donations for the sakes of others. My proposal may be drastic - I'm usually the first person to admit that I'm insane, - but, "Drastic times call for drastic measures"... and really, does my opponent's perspective really sound like Kant's concept of utilitarianism? -------------------------------------------------- ***Impact calc*** ============ 1. My proposed system would end frivolous government spending, with the private manipulation of legal loopholes. With government waste and oppression rendered impotent, the private individual would have a chance to prosper. While it would alleviate suffering, my opponent's arugment centers on the idea that undue suffering is somehow "good", while the alleviation thereof is somehow "evil". 2. My opponent may be considering greater good; but he still proposes sacrificing some for others; when we don't know it's necessary, or who deserves to flourish, while others flounder. My proposal: "Government isn't the solution... government is the problem". To answer: 1. Eliminating government waste and politicans' pay the GDP would remain largely unaffected, 2. Once afforded the earliest opportunity, these poor and homeless people pay taxes on their earnings, like everyone else, 3. My point would necessitate the bill be proposed, & 4. Both Ezra's story, and Rehoboam's story oppose overtaxation; and Lev. 25:10 supports deductibility for the poor. 5. Charity engenders compassion, and alleviates excuses for crime. 5.5. Consider America, pre-WWII: There was no income tax... 6. I know what it's like to be homeless.