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.
Property owners who do not live in the county the property is in.
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.
Do convicted felons count?
Sure, so long as they get taxed. There’s no taxation without representation.
Anyone under 18 who works a job. Probably the largest unrepresented group in the USA.
People under 18.
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.
Yet a critical point of representation, wouldn’t you say?
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.
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.
They are represented by their parents.
In voting, just as in most other legal issues.
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.)
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.
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?
I’m sure they get some benefit too. We are like twin brothers on this and I agree wholeheartedly. But do they get representation?
I don’t know.
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.
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.