Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

I shall begin by responding to your first point in Round 2: "Ridiculously high? Why exactly? Considering that people could actually economize, skimping on the purchase of those services they don't need (impossible when everyone is required to purchase every service), there would be less for the government to do-- it would surely be cheaper than taxes, and if your argument is comparing the price to anything but taxes it is irrelevant." Touche. Quite a valid point. It was careless of me not to think that through. However, like I said, I believe I strayed from the point in the paragraph to which you were responding. Clarification of definitions: (1) demand (as a verb) - to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary; to ask for with proper authority (both of these can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com...) (2) impose (again, as a verb) - to lay on or set as something to be borne, endured, obeyed, fulfilled, paid, etc.; to put or set by or as if by authority (again, both of these can be found at http://dictionary.reference.com...) Seems to me, by these definitions, I can legitimately stand by my assertion that user fees are, in fact, a form of taxation, provided I clarify the following: user fees are nonetheless "demanded" from or "imposed" upon the individual; the only difference is that they're conditional. Let's take an example. Suppose your house catches on fire, and the government requires user fees before (or after) they permit the fire department to take action. You can choose to do nothing (in which case your house burns down completely), or you can decide to take advantage of the government's offer. If you choose to do the latter, the government is still "demanding" taxes from you, OR "imposing" them, at least within the context of your decision. To strengthen my argument, I wish to take note of the fact that if you consider the above example to not be a form of taxation, and you maintain that taxation cannot definitively be conditional, then logically you'd have to consider the income tax in this country (as it stands now) not to be a tax. After all, the government threatening you with a gun or jail time is still conditional. You can choose to either refuse (in which case, you get imprisonment, or, under more oppressive regimes, you get shot), or you can can choose to pay (in which case you receive the services the government provides, and you DON'T get imprisoned or shot). Though this example may seem somewhat extreme, it is nonetheless sufficient. It is perfectly analogous to the fire department example; the only difference is the severity. Furthermore, in order to remain consistent, someone in your position would have to consider sales tax on private industries NOT to be a form of taxation. After all, the tax is "imposed" on the citizen who purchases a product, but it's only within the context of his or her decision. I would also like you to be aware that common usage of a word does not necessarily mean that word is being used correctly, nor does it determine the definition of the word. Here are some examples (they may seem off the wall, but they're the first ones that came to mind): (1) Caucasian - people assume it simply means "white," or "white person." However, Caucasian is actually a broader term, referring the Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Indians (India Indians, not Native Americans), among others. (2) literally - people misuse this word constantly, using it as if it means "actually" (e.g. I'm literally going to love this). When really, it means: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical (http://dictionary.reference.com...) (e.g. I am literally working around the clock (i.e. this would mean that someone is actually working around a physical clock, which is most likely laying on the ground somewhere) ). And last but not least, the definition of "money." Money, as I've stated, is a circulating MEDIUM of exchange. This means that something has to be placed between the exchange of two products. In other words, it does not and cannot include direct trading of two products. With that said, check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org... It states that Mesopotamia was the first to use "money." And Mesopotamia, of course, did have a government.