What about Africa/debate

{{#tree:

• Pretty much everyone in the US is in the top 33% globally. Also, pretty much everyone who has a computer is in the top 5% globally.
  • What conclusion is this arguing against?
• Anti-taxers only apply this argument selectively.
  • Objector only raises this claim where Pro-Taxer is not rich.
    • Umm, but Pro-Taxer is rich when compared to those in Africa.
      • This does not contradict the claim to which it responds.
      • Anti-taxer is generally rich by comparison to pro-taxer.
  • This implies an unequal burden, i.e. the Pro-Taxer must empty their wallet before any rich people would need to contribute, rather than each contributing according to their ability.
    • Nope, this is a complete mis-characterization of the argument. The argument is really about who decides how much is taken and from whom. Pro-Taxer wants to be the one to decide when it's someone else's money, but they also want to be the one to decide when others may want to take Pro-Taxer's money. As such, they deem, whether implicitly or explicitly, they know better than others how to decide such matters.
      • This is a statement without evidence.
    • Again, those who own a computer are most likely in the top 5% globally. They should therefore contribute to their ability. Oh, but again, Pro-Taxer is the one who wants to decide what each person's ability is and how much each person can spare.
      • No, we want to have a discussion about it. We have a starting position, but you are free to argue against it.
  • The principle of next-rung assistance tends to maximize income inequality.
    • The states' bias towards inflation increases income inequality.
      • An inflationary policy has only minimal effect on inequality.
      • Pro-taxers are not necessarily in favor of inflation.
      • Even if true, this does not contradict the assertion; it merely offers another mechanism which may be playing a part as well.

}}