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

My opponent's case unfortunately rests on the premise that 100% of what a person earns in his or her job is his or hers alone." Wrong. I only argue that taxes should be minimized. If I believed 100% of one's earnings is his alone, I would be advocating the elimination of all taxes and virtual anarchy. "That [paying the government only what is required for it to do its job] is like paying a person in any job JUST what he needs to get by, nothing more. Has the government not earned the right to some extra cash?" Have you tried reading that out loud to yourself? That is the statement that made me think you were kidding. All governments ought to work toward a surplus to save in case of emergencies, but not realize a "profit" as you say-- and certainly not to blow on projects which are not absolutely necessary. Do you honestly want to hand over your hard-earned money to people who make no attempt to be careful about how they spend it? Here you advocate paying the government more than it NEEDS, so it may be wasted on programs we don't need. Do you pay your landlord more than is needed to rent your house? Do you pay the grocery store more than is needed to buy your groceries? Maybe you believe that, since "the rich" pay the majority of taxes, you are not being harmed by wasteful and unnecessary government spending. "For instance, by investing in the poor with welfare [welfare that you only can get if you have a job], we are doing a few things. First, we are giving the poor more incentive to get jobs - people getting jobs raises GDP" A welfare program that requires you to have a job? News to me, but okay. Here you imply that humans do not have a natural incentive to earn a living, and that the government must create one. Unfortunately this is true. But it is only true because government, itself, removed what was the most powerful incentive possible. I am speaking of need to survive, which has proved an effective incentive for thousands of years. Now that government has removed the natural incentive to make a living, it fumbles for ways to a replace it with man-made incentives. Once again, government proves to by no match for Mother Nature. Even supplemental government handouts (given to those who work) only encourage the recipient to stay put rather than seek work that will more adequately provide for his survival. The cornerstone of my argument is that confiscating all or a portion of one's money is no different than confiscating all or a portion of his freedom. Since you have not successfully refuted (or even addressed) that, I will assume you concede it as fact. From here I don't think it will require much work to convince the readers that a government which confiscates a minimal amount of freedom from its subjects is preferable to a government that confiscates more freedom than is necessary. After all, the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights set out specifically to strictly limit government and vehemently protect life and liberty for all U.S. citizens. "So if the government wants to take some of my money, which I could not have made without the government's constant protection, and spend it on reducing the poverty level, what's the problem?" Here you argue that the government is welcome to "some" of our life and liberty. Is HALF our of our freedom your idea of "SOME?" You also suggest that the requirement for the government taking more of our freedom than is needed is only that it be used to pay for noble causes. If this argument were followed to its logical ends, it would advocate that the government to take as much of our freedom and money as it sees fit in order to provide an endless array of services it currently does not provide, and with the only requirement being that said services are deemed noble. Can you see how that would entitle the government to as much as 100% of our freedom-- since there are an infinite number of noble (yet unnecessary) causes? "Minimizing taxes means the government only gets enough to pay employees and pay for necessary programs and defense spending." And the problem is? Isn't that what everyone should do during tough times-- cut back spending to only what is necessary? I would certainly claim that these days (with the country on the verge of bankruptcy and $9 Trillion in debt) qualify as tough times. Had we not allowed the government to confiscate so much of our freedom, borrow even more of it, and then squandered it on unnecessary wars and social programs, I doubt we would be in this mess. Borrowing. And that is "what's the problem" with the government spending money it doesn't have on programs it doesn't need. "For proof that government policies do have an effect on poverty rates: http://www.census.gov...; Oh really? If you give money to poor people you will have less poverty among individuals, but unfortunately we borrowed that money and transferred that poverty to the nation as a whole. If the U.S. were a person, she would be 100% insolvent and standing on a corner with a sign, begging for crumbs. So much for spending our way out of poverty.