Taxation Without Representation? No Problemo

Great Debates
21

True, but it is a very significant facet. For the vast majority of people, taxation will be by far the government action with the biggest negative impact upon their life. Also, taxation is categorically imposed, so – as a practical matter – it is impossible for many people to avoid.

The only thing I can think of offhand that is somewhat comparable is conscription. And if we were in a situation where categories of people were subject to conscription but not enfranchised, that would be troubling to me.

So, while I would not say that “taxation without representation” is necessarily wrong, I would say that government imposition of significant burdens on categories of people who don’t have any say in such policies has the potential for unfairness.

Especially troubling are special burdens, i.e. burdens that fall uniquely on the disenfranchised.

22

2sense-

Your repeated references to “modern democratic theory” require a cite at this point, IMO. You have referenced only what appears to be a history of constitutional development. Whose “theory” is this, that you refer to? Yours?

It makes sense that the DC thread makes reference to “No Taxation without Representation”, because that is the accepted title of legislation proposed by Eleanor Holmes Norton (Dem-DC) in 2001, which puts forth the point that DC residents pay some of the highest per capita income tax in the country. Ms. Norton, an elected official, apparently has the ability to introduce legislation, but it is unclear to me whether or not she has a binding vote.

Washington DC also has a shadow representation in Congress.

“Modern Democratic Theory” aside, the issue seems to be more along the lines of how the status of the Federal District (as George Washington preferred to call it) should be seen. The whole point of its existence is that the government should not be beholden to any one state in particular for its home. However, such a status would seem to negate the rights of representation reserved for states, to the potential detriment of its reseidents (who were all but non-existent at the time of the creation of DC). The issue seems to me to be one of administration and status, that is, whether or not DC should become a state in all but name, rather than whether one of the founding concepts of the nation has become “hoary”.

Although the DC delegation is deficient in legislative powers, they are still beholden to the people of DC for whatever benefits their office bestows upon them, and act, at the very least, as a monitor of government actions with a mandate to report back to the voters. The colonial delgates to the 18th century British Parliament were not elected by the colonies, had no such mandate, and were free to impose taxes without even inquiring as to the opinions of the citizens.

Your references to specific situations where the non-represented are taxed can all be remedied through legitimate channels, if the people wish.

The federal government imposes income tax, and if people old enough to work and be taxed but too young to vote are unhappy, they can petition their state government to lower the voting age to 14 or whatever, or pass a law preventing those younger than voting age from working.

As for working resident aliens, their requirement to pay taxes is no different than any other country. If they want representation, they can go home or become a citizen.

Former criminals can move to a state that imposes no such limitation, or they could have considered the consequences of their actions before they broke the law (what a concept).

As for your stadiums and such financed by local taxes, remember that you don’t have to fill out any paperwork or pay those taxes directly. That is a tax the state or municipality places the burden of paying on BUSINESSES, which are free to pass the burden on to the consumer, wherever they may be from. Assuming the business owners are local, they certainly have representation.

Apart from citing any serious academic study, your pronouncements that “No taxation without representation” is some quaint, antiquated notion is just hot air. Back it up, throne-groveller.

23

“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.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if they can’t vote, obviously they don’t have the same benefits.

24

The basic theory of all taxation:

Don’t tax me,
Don’t tax thee,
Tax that bloke behind the tree!

25

This is getting ridiculous. Will there be any on-topic replies?

When I referenced modern democratic theory I was, and still am, talking about the idea that people deserve representation without regard to taxation. Hell no I’m not about to cite that assertion because it is the very proposition I have set out to defend here! If you disagree then start disagreeing. If not then attempting to dispute a position you have mistakenly assumed that I have assumed is a waste of your time and mine. ( Not that I mind. If I didn’t enjoy this sort of thing I wouldn’t have started this thread. )

As for Delegate Norton, she may vote in committee but not on the House floor as I believe was stated in the current DC thread. She is a member of the committees on Government Reform as well as Transportation and Infrastructure and on a couple of subcommittees for each of those including the one covering DC. Further discussion of the District would be more appropriate in that other thread. I am not arguing anything about the status of DC here.

What is a “throne-groveller”, anyways?

26

2sense-

If we were permitted to edit posts, I would demand that you replace all your references to “modern democratic theory” with “my sorry-ass opinion”.

You declare that “no taxation without representation” does not represent the current “accepted political beliefs of our nation”. And who has assessed this acceptance? Provide a cite.

Are you claiming that your paltry examples form the basis of some widespread, accepted “theory”? The validity of every one of them has been soundly disputed as either making sense given the (often temporary) status of the individuals involved, or the result of your misperception of the administration of the tax in question. You have offered nothing in the way of refutation to any of these responses.

Translation: In this country, we believe without question that the government doesn’t have a right to exercise any power, including taxation, without giving your representative a chance to vote on it. The founding fathers believe it; Delegate Norton and the 27% of the 107th Congress who saw fit to co-sponsor her bill believe it; I and the others who’ve punched your bullshit OP full of holes believe it.

You don’t believe it? Back up your opinion with something other than references to some imaginary “theory”.

27

You are being obtuse and, I suspect, deliberately insulting.
To repeat: what is a “throne-groveller”?

To restate my argument yet again: Representation doesn’t depend on taxation because, in general, everyone deserves representation whether they pay taxes or not. Your quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn’t contradict my assertion; it supports it. The governed ( everybody ) should consent to being governed ( via representation ).

That is the principle you are asking me to cite: everyone deserves to be represented. A principle, I remind you, that is so uncontrovertial that no one in this thread, not even you, has disputed it. I’m not in the habit of mindlessly offering citations for every basic assumption. If you actually do disagree that people, in general, deserve to to be represented in their government then just say so and I will do my best to show you that the divine right of kings, or the wisdom of property or noble blood, or the direct Word of God or whatever undemocratic theory you cling to is not the generally accepted theory of government here in the United States of America. If instead, as I find more likely, your righteous indignation has been caused by your lack of understanding then you can get down off your high horse and beg my pardon.