Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Contact Us
About Us
DEBATING404 Find The Treasure!
Home Economics
EconomicsLifestyleMotion Analysis
This House Would Impose Beauty Tax
By MegaSableye - March 31, 201721563
Notice the two fundamental aspects that would undermine this dispute into a motion:
the imposition of tax, and the contradictive nature of beauty. But, note that the
parameters of imposition of tax carry more burden and is more integral towards the
wording of the motion, rather than the issue of beauty. Why is that so? Because so
what if beauty is unequal, or equal, or so what if it is imbalanced, or balanced or
so what if that is part of life, or just sheet that happened. Only that is not
enough, and still needs a proper link as to why you would impose, or not impose,
tax, on something.
Team Affirmative
This.. needs the explanation over the nature of taxation. Please bear with me a
little bit here. Well, generally, taxation serves two purposes: as a budgeting
function, and as a regulating function. Taxes serve the budgeting function in the
form of monetary balance – fiscal, actually. Sorry. Governments print money, don’t
they? Always. New money is issued from the central bank every hour as I am writing
this of this moment. But a surge of new money will mean inflation, when money
becomes abundant but resources remain scarce. And that’s why, as governments print
money, they also have to “destroy” money. The money collected from citizens in the
form of taxes, is to serve as the “tribute” money to “destroy”. Second comes the
regulating function. The regulating function arises when governments have actually
sufficed in terms of maintaining their monetary balance, and when they seek to
control the behavior and lifestyle of their people. Cigarettes, alcohol, ticket
admissions to nightclubs, and sport cars are rendered far more expensive than their
production costs. The jacked-up price amounting to as much as 400-1000%,
constitutes 75% of the taxes paid to the government. The “real” cost of those
things – cigarettes, alcohol, etc etc actually constitutes only 25% of the money
you paid, actually. Only a quarter goes to the vendor/supplier/producer. The rest
three quarters goes to your president. The reason is because governments want to
discourage the consumption of these goods, whilst at the same time do not want to
erase them completely because hey-as-long-as-we-can-still-milk-money-from-you-then-
why-would-we-stop-you-people-from-screwing-yourselves-? Better generate some money
from your hideous transactions whilst still allowing you to execute your right to
self-harm, rather than gaining nothing at all.
So, based on the lines of those, you would naturally have to assert that beauty
does have something in common with cigarettes and alcohol, right? No! Because the
budgeting function of the government dictates that they tax even simple everyday
activities which, I don’t know, I couldn’t conceive or perceive any harm from those
activities whatsoever. Value added tax to everyday items, like diapers, milk, etc –
not harmful. Income tax – what kind of job do they think I’m working as? A hitman?
Okay, hang in there. I’m getting to the point. Soon enough. Just please bear with
me a little while longer here.
Why can’t governments just tax ONLY detrimental activities, then? Like, only the
purchase of cigarettes and alcohol and such? The reason is, one, because these
detrimental activities pale in comparison, in their number, to the number of the
other monetary activities related to the usage of money in a whole country. Such
that it is not feasible to budget (remember that a country still needs to budget,
hence the budgeting function) based only from the hopes that some ragtag miscreants
will still perform these purchase even after the tax, hoping that we can achieve
economic stability from their.. erm… moods, and delinquency. Second, it is because
the parameter of “detrimental” activities is subjective – soo subjective, that it
is close to impossible to set up a parameter around which activities are
detrimental and which are not (you know, in order to set up and conduct your
taxation system).
Okay, that settles the ground! And this is it! This is the point now:
So, amidst those confusion, how do governments set up criteria on what to tax and
what not to tax, then? They can’t base tax objects on their nature: if KFC is
excluded from being a tax object, I can still argue that KFC promotes obesity, and
thus it is a detrimental activity, and then they will have to include it back into
becoming a tax object. If milk is excluded from being a tax object, then I can
still argue that calves suffer from those transactions and the management and
handling of cows are unethical, and thus it is a detrimental activity, and then
they will have to include it back into becoming a tax object.
Governments then eventually decide to “fork this sheet, we’ll just tax
E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G we know about, then”. The fact that each and every single
aspect is taxed, already gives you a legitimate claim over the ethicalities of
beauty being taxable.
The clause is pretty much simple, actually – for every economic benefit you gain,
it means that there is some sort of economic advantage available to you (there will
be more money going to you) – so, in order to prevent, and counterbalance that, the
government needs a percentage of money from you to “go back” to the government. For
safeguarding.
Oh please, of course the money coming to you must have at some point come from the
central bank. Either they pay their employees and then these employees buy
something from you, or they pay you for service, whatever it is.
Erm.. what’s next, is assert how beauty is a form of economic advantage. Well, for
this one, it should be pretty fairly obvious: well, more chance of whoring oneself,
propensity to garner attention is higher, which is a substantial part in psychology
and interpersonal interaction – usually in marketing sectors and public relation,
yeah, well, you know the rest. Anyway, moving on.
Oh well, that one piece of sentence of preventing jealousy could be a whole nada
assertion and have its own aspect of elaboration by itself. Erm. Yeap. Okay, now
moving on.
This is your standard issue and your average expected clash. Don’t disappoint.
Please.
Okay now this is the aspect of discussion that discusses the nature of beauty, the
secondary philosophical layer of the debate. No longer talking about the tax
anymore.
We do really really hope that you affirmative teams have already established a
strong precedence over the nature of tax imposition, the whens and wheres and whats
to tax and not. The other way this assertion can be paraphrased is into “because
beauty creates inequality” but then prepare for a “so what if it is unequal”
incoming, because, yeah well, there is no link. The link relies in the economic
power improvement. That leads to the reason behind taxation. On the other hand,
negative teams can always argue that “if you hate and are jealous of those
supermodels so much, then why don’t the government just deform them?” – or, worse,
kill.
Erm.. what’s next, is assert how beauty is a form of economic advantage. Well, for
this one, it should be pretty fairly obvious: well, more chance of whoring oneself,
propensity to garner attention is higher, which is a substantial part in psychology
and interpersonal interaction – usually in marketing sectors and public relation,
yeah, well, you know the rest. Anyway, moving on.
Well, continuing.
The fact that we will base the reason behind taxation SOLELY on something being a
form of economic advantage, means that we have to prove that EVERYTHING ELSE will
have to be taxed AS WELL, the moment when it has even the SLIGHTEST potential to
improve economic advantage.
Triple emphasis of bold, underline, and font color change because this is the
tipping point. The Team Affirmative Argument 1 is the foundation, it’s fundamental,
but this one is the one that will make you win.
How to prove? Use extreme examples. Here’s one. Lottery winnings are taxed. Well,
that’s a no-brainer, right? But, assume a company who YOLO-ly invests on lottery
tickets instead of bonds or stocks or obligations. Or, well, okay, you know, only
stocks. Because only stocks fluctuate. But, anyway, the point is, they have to
report their financial statements, don’t they? There is a part of accounting that
makes it feasible to report POTENTIAL gain (increase in stocks purchased price).
So, lottery tickets, the moment when you get four out of seven numbers correct,
there will be a hello tax under your model, the same way if there is a revaluation
of assets having an increase in price, thus increasing the total assets on your
financial statement, hello tax.
Anyway, you know that Coca-Cola only has its name as its “power”, right? They don’t
have that “secret recipe” whatsoever (Pepsi tastes EXACTLY the same, sorry not
sorry, IDC what you think). Well, that “brand recognition”, an intangible thing, as
incomprehensible as it is, got taxed, due to it being powerful and serving as a
basis for “economic advantage” per se. Well, beauty is more tangible than
trademark.
Team Negative
If your team affirmative sets up a very good precedence regarding economics and
taxation (and, worse, could link beauty to them), go straight to Argument 2. If
there is no clear linkS, I capitalized the “S”, because I was emphasizing it,
because, you know, there are a lot of painful burdens of proof for Team Affirmative
in this motion, located in those links, go for Argument 1, and attack any link you
could successfully identify missing.
Here is a list of attacks you could deliver, the moment when you smell that there
is even the slightest clue of jumping logic present in your Team Affirmative.
This one. Run this one if you find a Team Affirmative so good in explaining their
Team Affirmative Argument 3. At this point when it’s so convincing it’s almost
undeniable that beauty indeed improves a person’s economic condition, just auto-
concede it, and attack the upper layer instead.
The basics behind taxation is communism. So make this into a debate between
communism and capitalism. Team Affirmative (hopefully, expected) said it itself,
right? “In order to prevent social gap”. Then assert that capitalism still holds
power in a country that taxes its citizens. Not everything is taxed. Glorify the
importance of capitalism (exploration of talents, efficient and effective
allocation of resources). Hell, even monopoly is not that bad. It actually requires
a party of caliber and intelligence to monopolize something. An idiot won’t be able
to do that. Identify the harms of communism, or, in this specific motion, it will
become a demotivation of these beauties, erm, and hunks, to explore and utilize
their.. erm… looks.
This is an extension from Team Negative Argument 1, point (d), and this carries the
tone of conceding the points of Team Affirmative about the nature of beauty. Same
function as your Team Negative Argument 2, but different domain of the debate.
Apparently how Team Affirmative explains the link between beauty and economic
improvement is too forced and exaggerated. Not everybody instantly generates more
income from being sexier. Going to the most explicit way an occupation hinges on
attractiveness, let’s use models and waiters, there are other factors that
constitute performance too. Waiters who are more attractive generate more tips,
yes, but the ones who are friendlier generate more, too. Models who are attractive
earn more income via more modelling contracts and event attendances, but models who
are fit and healthier generate more, too. The moment when there are more than one
factor influencing the potential of income generation and the government chooses to
base taxation on only one, that is the moment when the government is a
discriminative government. Oh, and by the way, the tips are taxed already, and the
models’ salaries are also cut by their employers from the withholding tax clause.
So, yeah, well, there will be a double taxation. Not a good idea.
“IF I GROW AN APPLE TREE THEN THE TREE BEARS FRUIT, I WILL GET TAXED IF I SELL THE
FRUIT. BUT WHY DON’T I GET TAXED WHEN I EAT THE FRUIT?”
Previous article
This House Believes That Doctors Should Be Obligated to Report Suspected Cases of
Domestic Abuse
Next article
This House Believes That Debt Relief Should Be Granted to Developing Countries on
The Basis of Past Colonial Exploitation
MegaSableye
RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
This House Believes That Feminist Movement Should Encourage Women Not to Use Makeup
This House Would Take Obese Children From Their Parents [Positive]
2 COMMENTS
Beni Raisman
April 12, 2017 at 11:01 am
holy shit, it’s finally in hahaha
Reply
Debating404
April 12, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Yes it is.
Have a good read!
Reply
LEAVE A REPLY
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This House Believes That Feminist Movement Should Encourage Women Not to...
Eleftheria Institute - September 27, 2018 0
This House Believes That Western Liberal Democracies Should Impelement A
Competency-based...
Margaretha Hutabarat - July 2, 2018 0
This House Would Take Obese Children From Their Parents [Positive]
Margaretha Hutabarat - May 3, 2018 0
Why Do People Commit Crime? (Part 1)
Vincent Julianto - October 29, 2017 0
This House Believes That Universities Should Not Claim Patents over the...
MegaSableye - April 18, 2017 0
This House Believes That Voters Should Pass A Political General Knowledge...
Medan Debaters Forum - April 12, 2017 0
This House Believes That the Indonesian Government Should Heavily Invest in...
MegaSableye - March 31, 2017 0
©