No Taxation Without Representation

[Isamu]

So does anyone get taxed in the USA without having actual voting rights, whether it be local, state or federal voting? I'm not sure, but I guess that foreign students get taxed but don't have representation. Is that one example of classes of people upon whom taxation is imposed but who do not get the requisite representation? Am I correct? Are there any others? Thanks.

[Snnipe 70E]

Property owners who do not live in the county the property is in.

[Giles]

It's not just foreign students: permanent residents and people on temporary employment visas living and working in the U.S. don't get to vote because they aren't citizens.

[Freudian Slit]

Do convicted felons count?

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

Do convicted felons count?

Sure, so long as they get taxed. There's no taxation without representation.

[crazyjoe]

Anyone under 18 who works a job. Probably the largest unrepresented group in the USA.

[Captain Amazing]

People under 18.

[Omar Little]

Residents of the District of Columbia

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Wilbo523

Residents of the District of Columbia

They get to vote for the city council and for the President, even if they don't get a vote in Congress.

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by Giles

even if they don't get a vote in Congress.

Yet a critical point of representation, wouldn't you say?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Isamu

There's no taxation without representation.

Not sure but to be clear there is nothing in law (and nothing in the Constitution) that stipulates no taxation without representation. It was nothing more than a slogan during the American Revolution.

[Little Nemo]

People who commute to New York City to work. They pay city income tax because that's where they earn the income but they don't get to vote in NYC because they don't reside there.

[beowulff]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe

Anyone under 18 who works a job. Probably the largest unrepresented group in the USA.

They are represented by their parents.
In voting, just as in most other legal issues.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Wilbo523

Yet a critical point of representation, wouldn't you say?

True. However, I can't vote for:
* The President
* The U.S. Congress
* The Governor
* The State Legislature
* The county
* The school district
* The city

All of which I pay taxes to.

(And I can't vote in Australia, even though my taxes go to every level of government there, since I've lived too long outside the country.)

[Omar Little]

But you are likely not a citizen of the US. You made the choice to move to Ohio from Australia. The US citizens that live in DC are just that citizens, many were probably even born there, yet they have no representation in Congress. I would say that is a greater injustice than you a foreign expat that pays taxes in the US.

[racer72]

When did representation mean the right to vote? I have always understood that it means you have someone that represents your interests at the local, state and federal level. As a teen I wrote a letter to the governor of my state about an issue, the response I received made me feel that he was acting on my behalf even though I could not legally vote for him. Also, most if not all politicians will state that they represent all people of their district, county, state, etc.

I am also sure those that do pay taxes but have no direct representation get some benefit of those taxes. Should just those that live in a specific taxing district pay the entire bill for everyone that benefits from those taxes?

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by racer72

I am also sure those that do pay taxes but have no direct representation get some benefit of those taxes.

I'm sure they get some benefit too. We are like twin brothers on this and I agree wholeheartedly. But do they get representation?

Originally Posted by racer72

Should just those that live in a specific taxing district pay the entire bill for everyone that benefits from those taxes?

I don't know.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Giles

They get to vote for the city council and for the President, even if they don't get a vote in Congress.

And grade school kids get to "vote" using the same sort of equipment as the adults are actually voting using, as a part of civics training. If the Congress they cannot vote for can overturn the actions of, or even abolish, the city council which they can vote for, they're in precisely the same situation as citizens of the Thirteen Colonies, who could elect their local Assemblies, but not vote for members of the Parliament which could blithely ignore the Assemblies.

However, notice that what is being discyussed is representation on the national legislature. Which appears to be Constitutionally delimited to the states. By the 23rd Amendment, D.C. is entitled to choose electors for President.

But there are numerous examples of people taxed without representation. Children under 18, legally resident aliens, convicted felons in the states that lift the franchise from them, etc. are not exempted from sales tax, fro exises if they purchae goods laden with an excise, from income tax if they have enough taxable income, from property taxes if they own property etc.

[Little Nemo]

The idea some people are talking about is virtual representation. It's the idea that legislative representatives speak for everybody even those who didn't or couldn't vote for them.

But I should point out that virtual representation was a concept offered by the British Parliament to the Americans in the 1770's. As you can see, the Americans rejected the idea.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The idea some people are talking about is virtual representation. It's the idea that legislative representatives speak for everybody even those who didn't or couldn't vote for them.

But I should point out that virtual representation was a concept offered by the British Parliament to the Americans in the 1770's. As you can see, the Americans rejected the idea.

Yes and no. Representative democracy is utterly impossible if representatives didn't purport to represent those who didn't vote or voted against them. We certainly support that as an ideal. We also make real-world exceptions for those who cannot vote for various reasons, such as those listed above. The courts have historically been very careful to ensure that true representation is required. ("One man, one vote" as an example, although that's also an example of how long it sometimes takes to get to the ideal.)

There is no possible perfect system. I see a difference between imperfections in a good system and the system itself being fundamentally unfair. YMMV.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The idea some people are talking about is virtual representation. It's the idea that legislative representatives speak for everybody even those who didn't or couldn't vote for them.

But I should point out that virtual representation was a concept offered by the British Parliament to the Americans in the 1770's. As you can see, the Americans rejected the idea.

Yes, and D.C. residents are only represented by a non-voting delegate in the house (who can't "speak" in a legislative sense). If we are interpreting "no taxation without representation" as the Revolutionaries did (not the most literal sense), it's just that: No representation.

And although not technically a member of the U.S., Puerto Ricans pay U.S. taxes without voting representation in Congress as well.

This of course is a great emotional argument for granting D.C. residents a voting representative: They may as well be living in Puerto Rico as far as Congress is concerned.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by racer72

When did representation mean the right to vote? I have always understood that it means you have someone that represents your interests at the local, state and federal level.

Then I have never had representation!

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Originally Posted by Giles

It's not just foreign students: permanent residents and people on temporary employment visas living and working in the U.S. don't get to vote because they aren't citizens.

Are there cities (or even states) in the US that enfranchise non-citizen residents? Would it be constitutional?

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Jerk

Are there cities (or even states) in the US that enfranchise non-citizen residents? Would it be constitutional?

As far as I know, not on the federal level. I'm pretty sure the feds dictate who can and can't vote for federal elections; I don't recall ever hearing about non-citizens being allowed to vote

And as far as I know, no one has made those changes at the state/local level either. Here's a short article about San Fransisco trying to allow non-citizens to vote in school board elections: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=63778

[yabob]

The "convicted felons" thing should probably be remedied, but nobody's likely to go to bat for it. It makes sense that actual prisoners and parolees have their voting rights suspended, but once such periods are up it makes no sense, if reformed criminals are ostensibly supposed to be returned to society. Nevertheless, we have a lot of states where some 45 year old man can't vote because he held up a liquor store when he was 19, even though he's been a law abiding citizen ever since.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by yabob

The "convicted felons" thing should probably be remedied, but nobody's likely to go to bat for it. It makes sense that actual prisoners and parolees have their voting rights suspended, but once such periods are up it makes no sense, if reformed criminals are ostensibly supposed to be returned to society. Nevertheless, we have a lot of states where some 45 year old man can't vote because he held up a liquor store when he was 19, even though he's been a law abiding citizen ever since.

It could be argued that the voting restriction is a further incentive against committing a felony -not quite a scarlet "A", but something that will stay with them the rest of their lives.

Of course, I'm not going to argue that! I'm sure that 19 year old didn't really care too much about his voting rights 26 years later.

[crazyjoe]

Originally Posted by beowulff

They are represented by their parents.
In voting, just as in most other legal issues.

That's bullshit. I think there are plenty of areas where their interests conflict. If you don't want them to vote, I think that's fine, but I don't think you should get to collect taxes from them.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Sinisterniik

And although not technically a member of the U.S., Puerto Ricans pay U.S. taxes without voting representation in Congress as well.

What do you mean exactly by "not technically a member of the U.S."?

First of all, I don't know what "member" means here.

Puerto Rico is a part of the United States in the same way that the District of Columbia is. Also Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by acsenray

What do you mean exactly by "not technically a member of the U.S."?

First of all, I don't know what "member" means here.

Puerto Rico is a part of the United States in the same way that the District of Columbia is. Also Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

You're right, and I meant it the way I said it. Puerto Rico is not a state. It is not technically a member of the United States. I didn't mean to offend, but it's a self-governing, un-incorporated territory of the United States.

I know that it's a MUCH more complicated issue than that. I was just commenting on their state-hood; it's just semantics.

[Acsenray]

The problem here is the word "member." It has no meaning in this context, whether "technical" or not. Puerto Rico is not a state, but it is part of the United States.

[Snickers]

Do we know how the convicted felon thing works? See, my dad's a convicted felon (income tax evasion), but he's voted in nearly every big election since he moved to Wisconsin. He's also purchased firearms, which is another restriction against felons (I believe). How has he been able to do these things? Shouldn't he have been prevented from them? Is his vote thrown out later (which seems impossible, as it's anonymous - they take his name to register and identify him, but they don't know which vote is his after he casts it)?

Is there a statute of limitations, after which his rights are restored (I don't think so, but maybe. He was convicted in the early 1980s.)? Is it a communication issue between the two states (his conviction was in one state; he moved to another after completing all restitution required by the courts)? Is it a difference of laws between the two states? Is it a federal versus state felon thing (admittedly, I'm a little unclear about my crimes and misdemeanors)?

I've always wondered about this, and have been stymied.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by yabob

It makes sense that actual prisoners and parolees have their voting rights suspended, but once such periods are up it makes no sense

Not everyone would agree that it makes sense to disenfranchise prisoners or parolees. I believe there have been GD threads on this issue in the past.

I don't think Puerto Rico is without representation the same way that DC is, in the sense that they've had several votes on whether to become a state, and have decided not to. They could be admitted to the union and given representatives if they wanted, whereas DC is stuck.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by acsenray

The problem here is the word "member." It has no meaning in this context, whether "technical" or not. Puerto Rico is not a state, but it is part of the United States.

Fair enough. Again, it's all semantics. I understand most of the complex relationship between the two governments, and I fully understand your point.

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Jerk

Are there cities (or even states) in the US that enfranchise non-citizen residents? Would it be constitutional?

Non residents of Iowa can vote in the Presidential caucus (primary election) there.

[yabob]

Originally Posted by Snickers

Do we know how the convicted felon thing works? See, my dad's a convicted felon (income tax evasion), but he's voted in nearly every big election since he moved to Wisconsin. He's also purchased firearms, which is another restriction against felons (I believe). How has he been able to do these things? Shouldn't he have been prevented from them? Is his vote thrown out later (which seems impossible, as it's anonymous - they take his name to register and identify him, but they don't know which vote is his after he casts it)?

Is there a statute of limitations, after which his rights are restored (I don't think so, but maybe. He was convicted in the early 1980s.)? Is it a communication issue between the two states (his conviction was in one state; he moved to another after completing all restitution required by the courts)? Is it a difference of laws between the two states? Is it a federal versus state felon thing (admittedly, I'm a little unclear about my crimes and misdemeanors)?

I've always wondered about this, and have been stymied.

It's by state, and I should have looked it up. In 2000, there were 10 states that denied felons voting rights permanently, without special intervention by the Governor. There has been some movement on this, and today there are only two - Virginia and Kentucky. There has been debate going on in Virginia:

http://criminaljustice.change.org/bl...rights_sort_of

There are some states which restrict SOME felons. A map of the status by state, referenced in that article:

http://www.aclu.org/map-state-felony...chisement-laws

Only 2 states believe actual prisoners should be able to vote - VT and ME.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Snickers

Do we know how the convicted felon thing works? See, my dad's a convicted felon (income tax evasion), but he's voted in nearly every big election since he moved to Wisconsin. He's also purchased firearms, which is another restriction against felons (I believe). How has he been able to do these things? Shouldn't he have been prevented from them? Is his vote thrown out later (which seems impossible, as it's anonymous - they take his name to register and identify him, but they don't know which vote is his after he casts it)?

Is there a statute of limitations, after which his rights are restored (I don't think so, but maybe. He was convicted in the early 1980s.)? Is it a communication issue between the two states (his conviction was in one state; he moved to another after completing all restitution required by the courts)? Is it a difference of laws between the two states? Is it a federal versus state felon thing (admittedly, I'm a little unclear about my crimes and misdemeanors)?

I've always wondered about this, and have been stymied.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Unless he was fully pardoned for his felony it is both a serious federal & state crime for him to possess or even attempt to possess firearms. There is no statute of limitations on this. Restoration of civil rights does not include firearm possession. Completing probation and restitution requirements does not affect this. Unless he was pardoned he cannot (legally) own guns. Period! This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.

Wisconsin allows felons to vote after their probation/parole period is completed. This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.

[Markxxx]

The citizens of DC are choosing to live in DC. They are not being denied anything, as they are free to leave whenever they want.

That's like saying I will take a job for minimum wage, and then crying over the fact you don't get paid a proper scale. If you want to live in DC, you don't live in a state, you live in a territory. We had territories for over a hundred years. They paid taxes to the feds in some form. No one forced them to live in the Arizona Territory or whatever.

DC is PART of the United States but it is NOT ONE of the United States. There is a big difference.

If you're going to complain about it being unfair that people live in DC and are taxed, why not complain about people who live in California with 37 million people and have two senators, the same number of senators as Wyoming that has 544,000 people. That is unfair too.

You could go on and one, why single that one thing out, especially since no one forces you to live in DC and not a state.

[Desert Nomad]

People who were born to US-citizen parents outside the USA and have never lived in the USA... no state of residence so no voting, but you need to pay US taxes even if you have never set foot in the USA.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

Non residents of Iowa can vote in the Presidential caucus (primary election) there.

Isn't a caucus a private election for a representative of a private party? (Yes, primary elections are unusual in that state resources are normally used to determine candidates for what are private entities, i.e. political parties. But caucuses don't even rise to that standard since public resources are not being used.)

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

The citizens of DC are choosing to live in DC. They are not being denied anything, as they are free to leave whenever they want.

That's like saying I will take a job for minimum wage, and then crying over the fact you don't get paid a proper scale. If you want to live in DC, you don't live in a state, you live in a territory. We had territories for over a hundred years. They paid taxes to the feds in some form. No one forced them to live in the Arizona Territory or whatever.

This is definitely true to an extent, but it's similar to saying that we shouldn't have given federal aid relief to people in New Orleans after Katrina. They chose to live there, so they have to deal with the consequences. And I understand that this is a point that can and has been argued (and I am definitely NOT going to get into an argument about Katrina relief in this thread).

To get the OP, though, Americans living here before the Revolution were free to move as well. That didn't stop them from demanding "no taxation without representation". I can only assume that we're using their definition of "representation", which puts them in the EXACT same situation as D.C. residents in terms of voting representation in the highest governing bodies.

If you're going to complain about it being unfair that people live in DC and are taxed, why not complain about people who live in California with 37 million people and have two senators, the same number of senators as Wyoming that has 544,000 people. That is unfair too.

I agree that it seems unfair, but the both populations have voting representation in the House and Senate. This is not the case in D.C., so I don't understand what parallel you're trying to draw.

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Isn't a caucus a private election for a representative of a private party? (Yes, primary elections are unusual in that state resources are normally used to determine candidates for what are private entities, i.e. political parties. But caucuses don't even rise to that standard since public resources are not being used.)

You usually have to be a member of that party to vote in their caucuses or primaries (registered Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/etc.). Further, the winner of the caucus/primary doesn't represent the voters in the House or Senate; they only represent them in the race for those seats.

So your post is accurate, but doesn't address the OP, IMO.

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Sinisterniik

You usually have to be a member of that party to vote in their caucuses or primaries (registered Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/etc.). Further, the winner of the caucus/primary doesn't represent the voters in the House or Senate; they only represent them in the race for those seats.

So your post is accurate, but doesn't address the OP, IMO.

All of this and the previous posters statements about caucuses are probably. Nevertheless, I would say that that the Iowa Caucus has a huge effect on who
become President of the United States and therefore is for practical purposes very much like an election

[Paul in Qatar]

On the other hand, I can vote in the US, but am taxed at a negligible level.

[Musicat]

In my county, there is a newly-instituted room tax on lodging establishments of any size.

It was voted on by the voters of the area only. Since it's a "motel tax", and most of the local voters do not use motels, those who pay do not vote and vice-versa.

So it's an ideal tax -- voters vote themselves money from non-voters. The only restraint is the spectre that a high tax might discourage visitors. The art of taxation consists of setting the rate low enough to ensure the payers don't mind, but contribute a bundle anyway.

Or to put it another way, the art of taxation is to get the largest amount of feathers from the gander with the least amount of hissing.

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Sinisterniik

To get the OP, though, Americans living here before the Revolution were free to move as well. That didn't stop them from demanding "no taxation without representation". I can only assume that we're using their definition of "representation", which puts them in the EXACT same situation as D.C. residents in terms of voting representation in the highest governing bodies.

When you think about it, it all comes down to the definition of “representation”. Tory opponents of the American colonists demands would have responded by saying that the colonists were represented – they were represented by the member of the House of Commons who, although elected by the (adult, male, rich, Protestant) residents of a particular territorially-defined constituency, each represented the entire British nation, including the colonists.

The colonists didn’t buy this, of course, with results that we know. But in fact a very similar argument was, implicitly or explicitly, employed in the US with respect to women, slaves, etc who were taxed but could not vote, and indeed is still expressed in this very thread with respect to children (“represented” because their parents can vote, in beowulff’s suggestion).

And this comes back to fundamental republican philosophy. Is voting a private act? Do I cast my vote in the way that advances my own interests? Or do I have a civic duty to my small influence on the government in the same way that Barack Obama is morally obliged to use his rather greater influence, in the interests of the community as a whole?

The more we insist that people are entitled to do the former, the weaker the argument that there is any justification for denying votes to felons, resident aliens, or indeed anyone who is habitually subject to US law.

[ftg]

One common way many cities raise money without irking voters is to pile on a lot of taxes on visitors. Hotel rooms, car rentals (especially at or near airports), etc. Of course politicians being politicians, the fees can eventually get so large that conventions start taking their business elsewhere.

[Isamu]

Thanks for all the replies so far! - a lot of food for thought and answers I wouldn't have thought of by myself.

[pkbites]

Taxation without representation

What about stadium districts? I have to pay a tax so millionaires can play a childs game in a big, gaudy stadium, but the people on the stadium board are not elected and I have no recourse if I don't like how they are spending the money or running things at the stadium.

I seem to remember someone taking this point to court a few years ago and the court essentially saying "Too bad! Suck it!!"

[Sinisterniik]

Originally Posted by UDS

When you think about it, it all comes down to the definition of “representation”.

Agreed.