# Representation without Taxation
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 21, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276 "2011-04-21T20:06:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/21 "2011-04-21T23:52:34Z")
> [@emacknight](#):
>
> And to stir the pot a bit more: I live in the US, I’m taxed heavily, but I’m not allowed to vote!
>
> I haven’t lived in Canada for 5 years, I don’t pay any taxes there, but I just sent in my vote for the federal election.
>
> In the end, does it matter? Corporations control it all right?
Come to think of it, corporations can likewise be taxed heavily, and likewise aren’t allowed to vote…
---
### Author:  [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/22 "2011-04-22T00:02:23Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#):
>
> I’ve had an agricultural job, and I vote as a natural born citizen. Stereotypes aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.😉
>
> Edit: this [list](http://www.myplan.com/careers/top-ten/lowest-paying.php) has a bunch of other jobs people do that pay about what ag-work does, at least until item 60 or so. Some don’t’ seem so necessary but some are vital.
Okay, we’ll let the vital people vote, but everyone else can bugger off.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/23 "2011-04-22T00:03:45Z")
> [@emacknight](#):
>
> Okay, we’ll let the vital people vote, but everyone else can bugger off.
Consider straw men vital do ya?
---
### Author:  [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/24 "2011-04-22T00:05:53Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#):
>
> Consider straw men vital do ya?
Without them who would we argue with? This message board would be empty.
---
### Author:  [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/25 "2011-04-22T01:22:53Z")
Sooo you’re saying all colonists were paying income tax?
---
### Author:  [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/26 "2011-04-22T06:50:27Z")
> [@Pleonast](#):
>
> Well, that all depends on the flat rate and the standard deduction, doesn’t it? I don’t think it’ll be the poor complaining if the rate is 50% and the standard deduction is $100,000.
But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
Case in point: it is impossible by definition to establish a flat taxation system with a standard deduction that is fair to those people earning near the cutoff value. If you have a taxation system with a standard deduction, then it must be a progressive system, otherwise it would be unfair (and I’m not talking about myriad loopholes and such).
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/27 "2011-04-22T06:58:12Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#):
>
> If a segment of the population pays no taxes (I don’t want a debate on what percentage - ANY percentage is applicable for the purposes of this discussion), do they deserve representation?
Yes: they’re still _liable_ to taxation.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/28 "2011-04-22T10:38:30Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#):
>
> What about if they directly benefit from the disbursement of tax funds? Is that not a case of the fox watching the hen-house? To what extent does the last question apply to any entity that benefits from tax funds and has voting power?
> Note that I’m not advocating a particular position, just posing the questions for debate.
Step back.
1. I benefit from the existence of police. Should I not be able to vote for the hiring of police? Should police policy be set by those who can rely on private security firms for their security, on the theory that they are disinterested? Your logic would imply that.
And yet. Those who have their own private security firms may expect to “benefit” from the absence of police in the general populace, in the sense that their relative status and standard of living would “rise.” They would owe less tax, & be able to put more money into their own security, & the common folk would arguably behave more like a desperate servant caste. Maybe. I’m not convinced it would work that way; but there are those in this country who would take that chance, & abolish police forces in heartbeat. Their self-interest trumps their wisdom.
1. Poor people benefit from good public schools & subsidized access to university. Blacks benefit from having equal access to quality education. Should poor people not be able to vote for public schools? Should blacks not be able to vote on integration issues? Again, if you’re thinking in terms of, “who benefits from progressive policies,” apparently so.
But controlling access to quality education protects the status of the wealthier class. They would _particularly_ benefit from not having to share their schools with “proles.” (This is part of the reason for the “private schools are better” line of thinking.) If we’re concerned about self-interest, they shouldn’t be voting on it either.
\_
With regard to both these issues, the wealthy or elite class may actually be making things worse for the general populace for selfish reasons. And this may be bad for society in general. No police means more crime, & no respect for law in the minds of the poor, which means they’ll steal from the rich without remorse. Fewer well-educated people means less scientific development & less economic understanding; the material culture will suffer. And reserving education to the rich can lead the elite to assume they are intrinsically intellectually superior, which leads to bad science in the anthropological disciplines. Bleh.
So here’s your fallacy: You assume that there’s a set of people who “benefit” in arrangement A, but that there is not a set of people who comparably “benefit” in arrangement B; that arrangement B is morally unobjectionable because it is conservative and does not transfer wealth nor expand opportunity to a greater pool of persons. But both arrangements have beneficiaries. The arrangements that try to help the whole nation actually show less favoritism and advantage than the “conservative” arrangments.
As for the masses voting for themselves the public coffers, any electorate with autonomy of action does that. Is it really better to have an aristocracy enrich itself at the country’s expense than to have a populist régime enrich the people thus? I’m not so sure. Not necessarily.
Certainly democratic theory is based on the idea of letting all interests (within the populace) vote and try to balance each other’s greed.
It doesn’t work well because some interests (like future generations) aren’t really represented. But aristocracies based on land ownership don’t intrinsically do any better.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/29 "2011-04-22T10:42:25Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#):
>
> But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
>
> Case in point: it is impossible by definition to establish a flat taxation system with a standard deduction that is fair to those people earning near the cutoff value. If you have a taxation system with a standard deduction, then it must be a progressive system, otherwise it would be unfair (and I’m not talking about myriad loopholes and such).
Yeah, that 50 cents will break him. Wait, am I misunderstanding the use of the term “deduction”?
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/30 "2011-04-22T11:03:14Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#):
>
> if everyone had to kick in, there might be some hesitation to continue to advocate for more and more government services
Or, if everyone had to kick in, they’d demand even more services because they’re “paying for them”.
The reality is, the poor don’t have enough skin left over to matter. Take more than a pittance and you bankrupt them left and right. Take just enough that they can still stay afloat, that money won’t be a big enough piece of their financial problems for them to care about reducing it.
They’re already doing crappy with no tax bill. Give them a new (modestly sized) tax bill. Adding 10% to that bill by massively expanding government services is probably going to help them a lot more than saving 10% on that same bill by slashing programs. Frankly, they’re probably not going to care either way because they’re more worried about how they’re going to pay for those new tires or dental work they need.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/31 "2011-04-22T14:04:36Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#):
>
> But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
>
> Case in point: it is impossible by definition to establish a flat taxation system with a standard deduction that is fair to those people earning near the cutoff value. If you have a taxation system with a standard deduction, then it must be a progressive system, otherwise it would be unfair (and I’m not talking about myriad loopholes and such).
That was one of the reasons Milton Friedman proposed a “negative income tax” as a replacement for various income-support programs – if your net taxable income after subtracting the standard deduction is negative, the government sends **you** money. Instead of sudden jumps between “eligible” and “ineligible” for benefits, earning money has the same effect as it does for any other taxpayer (you lose x% of each additional dollar, and thus have an incentive to earn what you can as long as x% is not unreasonably high).
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/32 "2011-04-22T14:14:41Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#):
>
> If it holds true that taxation without representation is axiomatically a bad thing, wouldn’t the opposite possibly be as reprehensible? If a segment of the population pays no taxes (I don’t want a debate on what percentage - ANY percentage is applicable for the purposes of this discussion), do they deserve representation?
I don’t see an issue here.
If the population as a whole has representation, then it has the right to enact legislation that favors some individuals in that population. The reason it’s legal for some people to not pay taxes is because the majority enacted those laws.
There might be an issue if the majority was voting to enact laws against a minority but that’s not the case here (and you specifically wanted to avoid any discussion of percentages).
I also think there’s the principle that government is not just about taxation. There are many other duties and responsibilities that are part of society. So people should be allowed representation because they have those burdens even if they don’t pay taxes.
---
### Author:  [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/33 "2011-04-22T15:08:17Z")
> [@DirkGntly](#):
>
> That was a bit of the point of my last question: if we consider taxes beyond income tax, such as road levies, sales taxes, etc., many people benefit from those with the results of better roads and the like. Does paying those taxes automatically “buy” them the right to representation? I would think at the local level it does…but what about at the federal level, if they pay no federal income taxes?
Yes, you are right, because only Federal income tax is important. Before we had a Federal income tax we didn’t let anyone vote in Federal elections at all. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it made counting votes go quickly.
I am happy to see so many threads lately about the dire problem facing our country: the poor don’t pay enough in taxes. It’s getting worse because the lazy bastards keep earning a smaller percentage of income.
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/34 "2011-04-22T15:23:08Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#):
>
> But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
Because that less-than-$1 tax liability is such a burden?
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/35 "2011-04-22T15:57:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> It’s an inevitable part of being in a democracy-- one of those things that isn’t particularly good, but that the solution would be worse.
>
> Better, in my mind, is to have a uniform tax rate so that any increase affects everyone. You’d still have to have a standard deduction so you’re not taxing people into poverty, but at least that minimizes the effect.
But the real reason people aren’t paying much in income taxes isn’t that their income tax rate is so low, it’s because we have so many income tax deductions and credits. What counts as taxable income? You can deduct your home mortgage interest, your medical expenses, business losses, and on and on. You get tax credits for dependents, for disaster relief, all sorts of other things. Add in the standard deduction, and that’s why so many people end up owing zero income tax. For lower/middle income people who own a house and have a pack of kids, all those credits add up quickly.
The reason we have all this crap is that it is much easier politically to pass a bill granting tax relief for such and such than it is to pass a bill handing out checks for such and such.
It’s silly to focus on income taxes as the tax that entitles people to citizenship, because of course we didn’t have an income tax for most of the history of this country. People didn’t pay taxes by mailing a check to the Federal Government, they paid taxes when they paid higher prices on imported goods where the importer had paid a tariff. And plenty of people who don’t pay income tax pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, social security taxes, business taxes, medicare taxes, and on and on.
When conservatives today say that people aren’t paying taxes, they’re saying that all the other Federal payroll taxes on income that aren’t called “income tax” aren’t really taxes. That’s fucking nonsense.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/36 "2011-04-22T15:57:44Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#):
>
> But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
A poor person with a $99,999 salary would deduct $100,000 and pay nothing. A rich person with a $100,001 salary would deduct $100,000 from it and pay fifty cents of tax on the one dollar that’s left.
If he gets upset about that fifty cents of taxes, he’s just being a dick.
---
### Author:  [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/37 "2011-04-22T16:00:27Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#):
>
> But the “rich” person earning $100001 salary would feel pretty effed in this system compared to let’s say the “poor” person earning a $99999 salary.
Yet again somebody fails to understand the concept of marginal income tax rates…
The poor persons effective tax rate is 0%. The rich persons effective tax rate is 0.0005%. Yeah, that’s pretty effed.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/38 "2011-04-22T16:14:21Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> Because that less-than-$1 tax liability is such a burden?
Some people just cannot understand the concept of “tax brackets”, or deductions.
---
### Author:  [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/39 "2011-04-22T16:44:10Z")
Personally, I don’t understand why we have an income tax at all. We should have a federal sales tax where food, clothing, shelter, and medicine are excluded. The purpose of a personal deduction is so that your basic “stay alive” money isn’t taxed. The same goes for medical and mortgage deductions. That concept would be carried over to the sales tax.
I see no difference between a man that makes $50,000 two years in a row and a guy that makes $100,000 in one year and then gets laid off the next year, but the latter guy will have paid higher taxes. I see no difference between someone who makes $20,000 a year and spends it all and someone that makes $80,000 and only spends $20,000. A poor person and a rich person that lives like they’re poor are equivalent in my book.
Tax the money as it comes out, not as it goes in, I say.
> [@Lemur866](#):
>
> Some people just cannot understand the concept of “tax brackets”, or deductions.
You’ll have to forgive them. It’s math and math is hard. :rolleyes: x 1,000.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276/40 "2011-04-22T16:53:08Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#):
>
> Personally, I don’t understand why we have an income tax at all. We should have a federal sales tax where food, clothing, shelter, and medicine are excluded.
Generally most countries use [value-added taxes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax) rather than pure [sales taxes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax) on the gross value of the purchase.
Good luck on convincing the right-wingers that we need a VAT. It’s something of a conservative shibboleth that Value Added taxes are Socialism, and a sign of the Tribulation.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/representation-without-taxation/579276.md?page=3)