Sorry for the short absence. My 'puter blew up and I lost all my info. I’m going to get around to replying to my EC thread in a while, maybe tomorrow, but the first thread I noticed when I found GD again was the DC voting issue. I opened it up and was completely unsurprised to find people arguing the principle of “No Taxation Without Representation”. Rather than replying there I thought I would open a new thread for handy reference when people invoke this hoary old saying.
Here in America we tax unrepresented people all the time. Kids pay taxes, so do aliens, legal and otherwise, so do those former criminals that are denied the privilege of voting. Here in western PA we financed 2 sports stadiums in part by large taxes on things like hotel rooms and rental cars which presumably would be paid mostly by nonresidents. The out of towners don’t get a vote, naturally. So there are plenty of examples of folks paying without being represented in the institutions which enacted the tax. Should we be concerned by this? No, because taxation and representation are unrelated concepts.
While the phrase we are discussing has historical relevance it no longer accurately encapsulates the accepted political beliefs of our nation. Thankfully, the idea that a vote is a benefit of owning property is a thing of the past. Now we hold that, in general, everyone deserves an equal say in how they shall be governed. So, unless you are prepared to argue that modern democratic theory is mistaken, you can make a consistent arguement that DC residents shouldn’t pay federal income tax because they don’t vote on Congress or that Puerto Ricans should be denied the vote because they don’t pay it.
As for your distinction, I’m afraid I don’t see your point. As I stated, you can not make that claim, even with your qualification, without disputing modern democratic theory. Do you believe that everyone, in general, deserves an equal say in how they are governed or not? If so then taxation is beside the point.
Actually, I would say that no government action (not just taxation) taken without the consent of the governed is justified. We could argue about what “consent” means, but I think that the system in place in the US would qualify under any reasonable definition. I also don’t see why it is unreasonable to disalow minors or convicted felons from voting. It would be wrong to disenfranchise felons ex post facto, but those are the rules of the game. All you need to do to maintain your voting rights is not commit a felony.
Nobody is arguing “no representation without taxation”, 2sense. That argument went out the window more than 100 years ago. We’re arguing the reverse.
Of course one can identify individuals who pay taxes and don’t vote, but there are extenuating circumstances in these cases. Aliens chose to live in this country knowing they would pay taxes but not have the full rights of citizenship. Minors are only minors until they’re 18. Felons brought their problems on themselves. None of these situations are comparable to an entire polity such as the District of Columbia being without representation in Congress.
I don’t see why because to me it seems a straight forward proposition. I am saying that representation and taxation are unrelated concepts. Period. One doesn’t depend on the other. Unless someone is prepared to argue against that then there is no debate here.
IMHO, taxation w/o representation is troubling but not necessarily wrong. The danger is that some unrepresented group will be treated unfairly.
In the case of DC residents, as far as I know they pay the same taxes as anyone else. So there’s not really much of a problem it seems to me. (I’m not expressing an opinion about whether the lack of representation per se wrong.)
On the other hand, if New York imposed an extra tax on 'Jersey residents who work in NYC, that would seem like inappropriate taxation w/o representation to me.
Your assertion seems to be that since a few groups are taxed but not represented, it’s okay to tax other groups without representing them either.
I disagree: The few instances where taxation without representation takes place should be corrected, not used as an excuse for disenfranchisement in other instances.
And also that the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. In general, a person who is denied a say in the government should not be subject to its rules, including taxes.
This one REALLY chaps my hide. I HATE when cities do that. I got nailed by the same thing in Phoenix when they were building their new stadium. There may be no definite legal principle to stop this but I think such a tax should be flat out illegal. Taxes should apply equally to all people in a given vicinity but in this case residents are building a stadium for themselves with my money. A stadium which will do me no good whatsoever and in which I will likely never use. Sales tax fine, property tax fine (which I pay via my renting a room in a hotel that I USE), car tax likewise I pay in my rental fee supporting the roads I use. You want a stadium I won’t use…pay for it yourselves.
As to DC I don’t undertand the point. They may not be represented in Congress but they certainly do gain the benefits of the federal government they support. They are protected by the military, can call on the FBI if need arises, get federal money if a hurricane hits them, etc…
Bottom line is I don’t think taxes have so much to do with representation as you being an active participant in the society and derive the benefits of that society. Even supporting welfare and such things while not directly benefiting you (necessarily) allows for a more pleasurable society for all. Don’t try that argument with the stadium on me though…I won’t buy it. It is clearly a luxury for local residents and not a boon to all.
That is exactly the argument the British used in reply to the colonists: You derive the benefit of British institutions–especially the army which protects you against the French and the Indians–so you must pay British taxes whether or not you’re represented in Parliament.
The colonists didn’t buy it, and I don’t either.
I understand that when you travel, you’re subjected to laws and taxes in which you have no voice. If I travel to California, I have to abide by their speed limit and pay their sales taxes. But in my home jurisdiction–the jurisdiction in which I am a citizen–I expect to have a voice in framing the laws and determining tax policy (unless I’m a minor or a felon). The fact that the correlation between taxation (or any other law) and representation isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Well actually the colonists did buy it. While they may have used a catchy phrase to rally the masses after it was all said and done and we had our independence the colonists put nothing into law regarding taxation without representation and it hasn’t happened in 200+ years.
In the case of the British they were subjecting the colonists to ‘special’ taxes just for them. If DC residents get hit with a special federal tax that applies only to them then I think they have a right to bitch. AFAIK however they are subject to the same federal tax laws I am and derive the same benefits.
Well actually the colonists did buy it. ‘No taxation without representation’ was just a catchy phrase to rally people to the cause. After it was all said and done and we had our independence the colonists put nothing into law regarding ‘no taxation without representation’. One would think that given how on they were about this that it would have occurred to someone to add it to the Constitution or at least a new federal law. 200+ years later no law has ever existed. One might surmise form this that they did think about it and decided it was actually a bad idea to write a law prohibiting it.
In the case of the British they were subjecting the colonists to ‘special’ taxes just for them. If DC residents get hit with a special federal tax that applies only to them then I think they have a right to bitch. AFAIK however they are subject to the same federal tax laws I am and derive the same benefits.
Doh! How did that double post happen? Sorry about it but I would have sworn I didn’t submit (although I guess it is apparent I did). The second one reads better so go with that if you haven’t already inflicted both on yourself.
“That to secure these rights [to life, liberty, and happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
The whole point of a representative democracy is that the people give it its legitimacy and power through civil participation. That participation takes many forms, voting among them. Paying taxes is not simply a burden upon people, but also a way in which people particpate in the functioning of their government.
I see taxation and representation not as issues contingent upon each other, but as two fundamental ways in which the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.
As far as Whack-a-Mole’s point, a just government delivers some basic services to all people within its borders, regardless of the identity of certain individuals. A poor illegal immigrant should enjoy the same ability to use 911 as the richest citizen.
Other services are selectively delivered through the discretion of the government. Check out how well the highways are paved in West Virginia, for example. But surprise surprise, DC is not given a seat at the table for making such decisions. Our roads suck and our schools are terrible. Not that it explains everything, it’s no surprise that the largess that finds its way elsewhere in the US is not generally directed here. The subsidies that the Federal government give to DC are more of a way to keep this city from falling apart, as opposed to sharing in the national wealth of this country.
And I just find it outrageous and silly that an American citizen may enjoy the full measure of participation in his government, so long as he does not live in a little area between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. But that’s more appropriate for the other thread.
And 2sense, would you please describe this “modern democratic theory” with which all but the most completely unreasonable must subscribe?
I invite you to drive in Chicago. Our roads suck too…big time and nearly everywhere. Not a smooth stretch to be found within 50 miles unless you catch a newly paved road (but that only lasts a few months and then it sucks again).
As for schools Washington, D.C. has 80.1% of its population with a high school diploma compared to Chicago’s rank of 72.3% (American Community Survey).
Now consider that Chicago is a democrat stronghold. It is somewhat diminshed from the heyday of the senior Mayor Daley who could nearly pick democratic candidates for president by himself but the city still figures big in the political scheme and can’t be ignored. Also consider that Illinois counts among the 7 (8?) states you need to win to get the absolute minimum number of states and become president.
So, where’s all our undeserved money? Surely Illinois has the clout to get a bigger piece of the pie.
The reality is that you’re seeing boogeymen where there are none. Washingtonians are no more or less oppressed than the rest of us.
I will say I was surprised to find that Washington, D.C. has a bigger population than Wyoming. Who knew?
You’ll be happy to know that “problema” is actually masculine. It’s one of those words derived from Greek (like el programa, el mapa, el planeta, and several other words ending in -ma, -pa, or -ta) that looks feminine, but is properly accompanied by masculine articles and adjectives. In other words, don’t worry; you can still blame the man.
Washingtonians may claim that without a vote they can’t get goodies from the feds. I would maintain that Washingtonians can affect the political FAR more than I can even with my vote. With little trouble they can head over to the capitol building and parade around with signs, knock on sentor’s doors, heckle congress from the gallery, etc… Ok…some of that might get you arrested but the point is they can have access if they wish to.
Me? Well, I’ve got my vote but beyond that I am left to e-mail (or snail mail) to try and talk to my representatives (which of course people in Washington can do as well). If something is big enough that I feel I need to be in Washington to try and affect the political process it will cost me several days off of work and hundreds of dollars in travel expenses. Sure I can do it but with nowhere near that a person living in Washington, D.C. could if they were so inlined.
As such I’d say the population of Washington can consider its voice stronger than anywhere else in the US. Whether they choose to exercise that or not is their own problem.
Finally, as to the money, Washington being the seat of government enjoys a substantial amount of business from tourists, protestors, foreign dignitaries and so on. The business of Washington is government and a majority of the half-million people who live there make a living because of the federal government. If you plucked the seat of government out of Washington the city would probably collapse economically and surely shrink drastically in population.
Now…if you could just get the diplomats to pay their parking tickets you could probably balance your budget and maybe the federal budget to boot!
Um… just a comment… If you’re “legally allowed to vote,” then aren’t you already represented? I’m not sure I understand this statement.
Also, if “no taxation without representation” only works for citizens “legally allowed to vote,” then the government can tax the hell out of under-18 workers, some ex-cons and non-citizens, no?
Well, lots of replies but still no one getting to the heart of the matter. Sure government ought to be instituted with the consent of the governed but that says nothing about taxes. Taxation is just one facet of governing. Ensuring a proper environment for raising children is another yet you don’t hear people running around yelling “No Government Cheese Without Representation!” The point here is that there is no special relationship between taxation and representation.
Modern democratic theory has many facets itself but I have already covered the relevant part: people deserve representation. Whether they pay taxes or no. This has changed from the time this nation was founded. Back then both people and property were to be represented. Here is how the book I am currently reading sumarizes the method of congressional representation decided upon by the constitutional convention:
Thanks for the info, Publius. Jimmy Buffett and I are relieved.
