Taxation is the confiscation of individual life and liberty and should therefore be minimized.

My opponent insists on comparing the Unites States to a poverty-stricken individual. As I said last round, the US is probably the furthest we can get from that. Let's take a look at the merits of my opponent's analogy. First, let's consider the two senses in which he could have meant this. Either he meant the US as an entity, or he meant the collective of people who live in the US. It's obvious that the people of the US are not poverty-stricken. We have one of the highest GDP per capita values of the world. GDP per capita is average income. But let's remember, a portion of that income is taken as taxes. And we have a really high tax rate, which would make the actual income per person much lower... right? Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org... Of the 39 countries listed, 64% of them have over 33% average tax. 1/4 of them have over 40% tax, and a few even have 50% tax. Our great nation is listed third from the bottom, with the low average tax of 27.3%. The only countries listed below us are Mexico, South Korea, and Chile. Perhaps my esteemed opponent should move to one of these three listed countries that will not 'rob him of his freedom' quite as much as the US does. Oh wait, money is freedom, and there's comparatively very little of it in either of those three countries. Darn. $My opponent has also complained that our debt is so big due to the fact that our spending is so high. I'm not sure why he makes this point, since I am not advocating extremely high spending. I am simply advocating keeping SOME non-essential spending that is worth the money. Much of our spending [war on terror, etc] could probably be cut very easily. Indeed, just as high spending can be blamed for the large debt, so can low taxes. We have very low taxes right now, as noted above. Higher taxes and a more streamlined budget would mean surpluses, like we had in the 90's. We'd be able to pay off some of our debt. We would not be able to pay off very much of our debt if we minimized taxes, since taxes are where we'd get the EXTRA money to pay off the debt. Comparing the government with an entity that takes 100% of our income makes for a very poor analogy. It is not a categorical fact that a country that gives us slightly more benefits is always better even with wildly higher taxes. However, as I have argued throughout this whole debate, there are certain things that it is WORTH spending money on. That is to say, the return is higher than what we payed for it. My opponent asks when a government should not be able to take more money from its people in taxes. The answer to that is simple. When the money taken does less good for the people than it is worth. This would mean that a country would never be able to take 100% tax, since this would always be harmful to people. However, taking 27.3% tax instead of 15% tax in order to use it for things that are worth the investment is very acceptable, considering that even with a 'high' 27.3% tax rate Americans enjoy extremely good lives. And the wealthy, especially those in the highest tax bracket with taxes nearing 50%, are certainly still living quite well. Let's look at one more measure of our freedom in monetary terms. My opponent has equated money to freedom and to time. Therefore, we should see how much money we get per time, after taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_hour_worked On average, people in the US make $35.87 per hour. The only country with higher income per hour is Norway, with $37.93. However, Norway has a relatively high tax rate: 44.3%. [See the link from earlier] After taxes, its people make an average of $21.13. (100%-44.3%)*$37.93 We make $26.08 per hour after taxes, the highest in the world. Even with the amount of our money the government 'steals from us', we still get more of it here than anywhere else in the world. My opponent says GDP has nothing to do with wealth. It has almost everything to do with wealth, though I do agree that debt should play a part. GDP is directly attached to our nation's income, and for a long term entity (one that's not going to die in a few years, such as an old man), income is a very important indicator of wealth. My opponent attaches values of $500,000 income and $50,000,000 debt to the US, but this is completely dishonest. Our debt is a mere 60% of GDP. With an average tax rate of 35%, which seems to be the world median, that's payed off in 2 years of dedicated taxes. It's insignificant in the long run. However, I agree that a man with 50 million in debt and only 500k income is in serious trouble. Also, 'spending your way to wealth' is a natural thing. Ever heard of the saying 'it takes money to make money?' Think of all the people who have made fortunes by investing fortunes. That is what the US is doing - it is making investments. Investments in its people's education [the public school system], investments in our health, investments in research. Also, consider that when the government SPENDS its tax money, that money ends up in someone elses pocket. The money doesn't just disappear. The US has to pay people to do Government jobs, it has to hire defense contractors, it has to buy materials. Borrowing is not taxation, by definition. Taxation is the taking of a certain percentage of our income. Borrowing is the act of one country/institution/person lending another country/person/institution money. Borrowing is not always even a bad idea. In fact, if we look at the countries that haven't borrowed very much, we see it got them nowhere. Just as a company gets people to invest in it, we as a country get other entities to invest in us, and it is a mutually beneficial situation. In any case, one thing is clear. Borrowing, by definition, is NOT taxation. Of the four examples I gave, my opponent only has two questions, no other objections. "Can we afford them?" Obviously, considering we are extremely wealthy. Americans make more per hour after taxes than people of any other nation. "To what cost to our personal liberty?" To a cost lower than almost any other country - we pay a meager 27.3% in taxes while most of the world is paying upwards of a third of their wages, which are smaller to begin with, in taxes. Very few countries have lower taxes than we do, and they are not exactly countries full of liberty, especially if we want to say that money equals freedom. To a cost that is acceptable. To a cost that puts no one in an uncomfortable economic situation. To a cost that ensures that our country's wealth continues to grow, giving us a better future. Remember, I showed that each of the 4 examples would raise productivity. I hope I have not left any questions unanswered. Remember - my opponents position requires that we eliminate government spending on Research that is not absolutely necessary, causing us to fall behind technologically. It requires that we privatize schools, which leads to worse overall education, and therefore worse overall productivity. It leads to an inability to pay off our current debt, which leads to a higher debt. It leads to an unproductive poor, a poor likely to commit crime, a poor likely to raise unproductive children, which lowers our productivity and damages us as a nation. I believe I have shown there is quite a bit of unnecessary spending is worth the money [which is also liberty]. And since my opponent agrees that we should not borrow the money, we must have higher than minimum taxes. Our tax rate is already fairly low, we need not be fanatically conservative and lower it further. My opponent's position is that we should only tax as much as we spend, and we should only spend as much as is absolutely necessary. His position is that non-essential spending is NEVER worth an increase in taxes, and he fails to back this up besides just stating it. I have at least given more meaningful criteria for spending being worth it.