Taxation without representation

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Hard to cry for DC residents, who get $5.50 in federal funding for every dollar of federal tax they pay, higher than any state. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/19.html I’d like to get that kind of taxation without representation…
[/QUOTE]

First of all, one would, I think, prefer to have some say in HOW the money is being spent, right? Would YOU like to have that taken away, at the exchange of a few more dollars per person coming to your state?

Second of all, that’s a grossly misleading statistic. All it does is compare how much federal money is spent in the District with how much money is taken from the District in taxes. Now, I can’t imagine why the District of Columbia, the nation’s capital, might have a weensy, teensy bit more federal money spent in it than is normal for a state per capita. Look at the residents of the District (have you ever been there, driven around in it somewhere away from the Mall, say, along the Anacostia River?) and tell me that they are fattening up at the federal trough. That they are great beneficiaries and that their lives are soooooo much better for the federal spending in the District. :rolleyes:

And, on the page you cite, perhaps we might focus on a couple of statistics somewhat more compelling, given that the people paying the taxes there aren’t able to vote on a representative to the governmental body that sets those taxes:

  1. They have the fifth highest ratio of taxes per capita to average income;

  2. In only two states do residents have to work later in the year to earn enough income to pay off their yearly tax burden.

  3. Hi, Opal! :slight_smile:

22

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
First of all, one would, I think, prefer to have some say in HOW the money is being spent, right? Would YOU like to have that taken away, at the exchange of a few more dollars per person coming to your state?

Second of all, that’s a grossly misleading statistic. All it does is compare how much federal money is spent in the District with how much money is taken from the District in taxes. Now, I can’t imagine why the District of Columbia, the nation’s capital, might have a weensy, teensy bit more federal money spent in it than is normal for a state per capita. Look at the residents of the District (have you ever been there, driven around in it somewhere away from the Mall, say, along the Anacostia River?) and tell me that they are fattening up at the federal trough. That they are great beneficiaries and that their lives are soooooo much better for the federal spending in the District. :rolleyes:

And, on the page you cite, perhaps we might focus on a couple of statistics somewhat more compelling, given that the people paying the taxes there aren’t able to vote on a representative to the governmental body that sets those taxes:

  1. They have the fifth highest ratio of taxes per capita to average income;

  2. In only two states do residents have to work later in the year to earn enough income to pay off their yearly tax burden.

  3. Hi, Opal! :slight_smile:
    [/QUOTE]

Ah yes…you make an excellent point of how aggressively they have taxed themselves where they do have representation. They tax anything and everything that moves–more specifically they tax everything they can. Those taxes that put them so high in per capita taxes are of course taxes made at their choice with representation. God help us if they get their hands on the federal coffers as well…

I think the OP is referring to taxation without representation, and there the residents of DC are making out like bandits. Of course, DC is where the tax bandits come from, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Can you educate me on “Hi, Opal!” ?

ETA: I don’t want representation taken away for “a few more dollars” but for a 5.5:1 ratio I’ll vote to kiss it g’bye tomorrow.
Oh yeah: the plight of DC away from downtown is horrible. Discussing why would hijack the OP, n’est ce pas? Good lesson that money and taxation won’t fix social ills, though.

23

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Ah yes…you make an excellent point of how aggressively they have taxed themselves where they do have representation. They tax anything and everything that moves–more specifically they tax everything they can. Those taxes that put them so high in per capita taxes are of course taxes made at their choice with representation. God help us if they get their hands on the federal coffers as well…

I think the OP is referring to taxation without representation, and there the residents of DC are making out like bandits. Of course, DC is where the tax bandits come from, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Can you educate me on “Hi, Opal!” ?

ETA: I don’t want representation taken away for “a few more dollars” but for a 5.5:1 ratio I’ll vote to kiss it g’bye tomorrow.
Oh yeah: the plight of DC away from downtown is horrible. Discussing why would hijack the OP, n’est ce pas? Good lesson that money and taxation won’t fix social ills, though.
[/QUOTE]

  1. You completely missed my points, obviously. The 5.5:1 ratio isn’t benefitting the good citizens of DC at all. It has to do with the fact they have most of the nation’s buildings of governance there. Staffed mostly by people who drive in from Virginia and Maryland. The people of DC, who have NO representation where it counts (the body that governs how they are taxed), are nevertheless made to pay federal taxes, which is exactly what the OP was talking about, and what your misguided reference (which you still appear to fail to understand why it was misguided) has nothing to do with.

  2. OpalCat, a distinguished longtime poster here (and before here in our AOL days), posited at one point that a numerical list should not be used for anything less than three items. Posters thereafter, when listing two items, would do so numerically, making “3. Hi, Opal!” the putative third item that made the list valid.

  3. Hi, Opal! :slight_smile: (case in point)

24

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
For citizens living overseas, you can always give up your citizenship or trundle back home if it’s just not worth it, can you not?
[/QUOTE]

For US citizens born overseas, “home” is not the US in all cases, but we all pay taxes there and it’s no fun to be stateless.

25

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]

  1. You completely missed my points, obviously. The 5.5:1 ratio isn’t benefitting the good citizens of DC at all. It has to do with the fact they have most of the nation’s buildings of governance there. Staffed mostly by people who drive in from Virginia and Maryland. The people of DC, who have NO representation where it counts (the body that governs how they are taxed), are nevertheless made to pay federal taxes, which is exactly what the OP was talking about, and what your misguided reference (which you still appear to fail to understand why it was misguided) has nothing to do with.

  2. OpalCat, a distinguished longtime poster here (and before here in our AOL days), posited at one point that a numerical list should not be used for anything less than three items. Posters thereafter, when listing two items, would do so numerically, making “3. Hi, Opal!” the putative third item that made the list valid.

  3. Hi, Opal! :slight_smile: (case in point)
    [/QUOTE]

I have not made any “misguided” points; if you would like to point out a factual error rather than simply throw out an editorial opinion, please do so. I did not say, nor mean to imply, that every federal dollar in that calculation goes to the “ordinary” residents of DC. I maintain that the notion that DC residents are somehow getting the short end of the taxation stick from a dollars-paid-out to dollars-received is wrong.

The residents of DC get substantial federal support for their own local budget, in part to make up for the non-taxability of federal buildings.

It is true they are taxed at a federal level without representation but they receive substantially more in funds than they pay in taxes. It is not true that federal money does not benefit those residents “at all” (except to whatever extent the Council decides to mismanage it, on which point I offer no opinion here).

These two points you made:

1) They have the fifth highest ratio of taxes per capita to average income;
2) In only two states do residents have to work later in the year to earn enough income to pay off their yearly tax burden.

refer to taxes made with representation. I suggest any implication otherwise is misguided and it’s unclear to me why you consider them “compelling” points regarding taxation without representation. I won’t pretend to be an expert on DC governance but the DC Council establishes the local taxes and budget, and is comprised of Ward representatives and at-large representatives who are elected local officials. While the Congress can technically override this local government, I am not aware that it has done so to any substantial degree since the Barry fiasco.

I am personally opposed to taxation without representation and feel we need to find a way to get District residents represented. Over the years three of my family have lived there. They are not, in the interim, getting shortchanged.

ETA thanks for the Opal education. Much appreciated.

26

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
I think the OP is referring to taxation without representation, and there the residents of DC are making out like bandits.. . . . I am personally opposed to taxation without representation and feel we need to find a way to get District residents represented. Over the years three of my family have lived there. They are not, in the interim, getting shortchanged.
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that you’re with us DC residents on the representation thing, but I’m at a loss on how I benefit from the Federal spending you’re talking about. As you said, a large chunk of this money is property taxes that DC would have received if Uncle Sam didn’t own most of downtown. A lot of the other spending is things like building and maintaining Federal buildings. A lot of the money goes to paying people like me, the folks who work for Uncle Sam.

From where I sit, this tax money isn’t giving lots of gravy to the people of DC, it’s basically evening out the economy here from the effect of the Federal government being the main landlord and employer here, rather than private business. You previously said that you’d give up the vote if you got $5 returned for every tax dollar you gave. Well, would you be willing to give up more than half of the businesses that are currently in your state, too? Just have them all shut down and moved out of town?

In your earlier posts you are clearly wrong: you said, basically, that DC residents get a free ride because of all the tax money spent here. Then you changed your mind, saying that we’re not getting the short end of the tax stick. I tend to agree. The high expenditure of taxes here reflects that the main industry of the region is government, and that we probably end up about even to where we’d be if there were some other major industry based here. In essence, the tax dollars are a replacement for the private investment that’d probably be here if we weren’t the capital, not in addition to it.

And the answer to the OP: setting aside federal law, your friend is an idiot if he’s been paying US taxes. Has he? You’ve kind of glossed over that part by saying that he’s SUBJECT to the taxes, but you haven’t actually said he IS paying the taxes. Rhetorically speaking, it’s hard to argue you’re being taxed without representation if you’re not actually paying the taxes. More importantly, if he has no intention of ever living in the US, why doesn’t he get naturalized wherever he’s living?

Or, alternately, make a visit to the US and establish a residency for purposes of voting? I happen to know that some states are particularly accommodating for Americans living abroad: if you’re in the foreign service, I believe you can simply declare yourself a resident of a couple of states (IIRC, California, Oregon, a few others) for purposes of residency and taxation. I’d have a hard time believing that someone couldn’t get a state issued ID and register to vote during a rather brief visit to states with similar policies.

27

[QUOTE=Ravenman]

And the answer to the OP: setting aside federal law, your friend is an idiot if he’s been paying US taxes. Has he? You’ve kind of glossed over that part by saying that he’s SUBJECT to the taxes, but you haven’t actually said he IS paying the taxes. Rhetorically speaking, it’s hard to argue you’re being taxed without representation if you’re not actually paying the taxes. More importantly, if he has no intention of ever living in the US, why doesn’t he get naturalized wherever he’s living?
[/QUOTE]

The country where he lives does not allow or recognize naturalization. I don’t know if he is paying tax or not, but it was mentioned that if not, what happens if he visits the US and the IRS eventually finds out?

28

[QUOTE=Dostoyevsky]
IMHO, the question should be, “Should anyone anywhere be forced to pay any tax?”
[/QUOTE]
That is quite a different question, and there is no need to derail this one. Why not post it in Great Debates?

29

On a smaller scale, I face the problem described in the OP. I live in State X and run a business in State Y. I pay lots of taxes to State Y but don’t vote there and have no representation in the legislature of State Y.

A few years back, I wanted to propose a minor change in the law of State Y that uniquely affected my business. I was hindered by the fact that I don’t have any representative I can call.

I think that the U.S. Senate and Congress should each have a non-voting “at large” member who has the right to propose legislation and participate in debates. That person can give a voice to Americans living abroad, as well as foreigners who do business (and pay taxes) here and are affected by our laws and regulations.

I believe that DC already has a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

30

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I appreciate that you’re with us DC residents on the representation thing, but I’m at a loss on how I benefit from the Federal spending you’re talking about. As you said, a large chunk of this money is property taxes that DC would have received if Uncle Sam didn’t own most of downtown. A lot of the other spending is things like building and maintaining Federal buildings. A lot of the money goes to paying people like me, the folks who work for Uncle Sam.

From where I sit, this tax money isn’t giving lots of gravy to the people of DC, it’s basically evening out the economy here from the effect of the Federal government being the main landlord and employer here, rather than private business. You previously said that you’d give up the vote if you got $5 returned for every tax dollar you gave. Well, would you be willing to give up more than half of the businesses that are currently in your state, too? Just have them all shut down and moved out of town?

In your earlier posts you are clearly wrong: you said, basically, that DC residents get a free ride because of all the tax money spent here.
[/Quote]

Where? If possible, please quote me rather than paraphrase me. I do not recall saying DC residents “get a free ride because of all the tax money spent (there).” The fact that more federal dollars come back to the District than the residents pay may or may not benefit them depending how the money is spent. To the point at hand of taxation without representation, it’s unlikely that representation would increase that ratio since it is already so lopsided. This does not weaken an argument for representation in principle, but it weakens the argument implied by DSYoungEsq that DC is an example of an unfair consequence of taxation without representation.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Then you changed your mind, saying that we’re not getting the short end of the tax stick. I tend to agree. The high expenditure of taxes here reflects that the main industry of the region is government, and that we probably end up about even to where we’d be if there were some other major industry based here. In essence, the tax dollars are a replacement for the private investment that’d probably be here if we weren’t the capital, not in addition to it.

[/QUOTE]

How did I change my mind? Is “not getting the short end of the stick” somehow different from whatever I said that you paraphrased as “get a free ride”? In any case…

What I said was that it is “Hard to cry for DC residents, who get $5.50 in federal funding for every dollar of federal tax they pay, higher than any state. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/19.html I’d like to get that kind of taxation without representation…”

I also said (to DSYoungEsq) “Ah yes…you make an excellent point of how aggressively they have taxed themselves where they do have representation. They tax anything and everything that moves–more specifically they tax everything they can. Those taxes that put them so high in per capita taxes are of course taxes made at their choice with representation. God help us if they get their hands on the federal coffers as well…”

In summary, the point I am making is that although DC residents pay federal taxes without representation, that lack of representation has not resulted in DC residents being shortchanged. They are not paying more taxes than are being redistributed back to them, and in fact the ratio is skewed in the opposite direction. While it is true that there is some downside to so much federal land there, it is equally true that the federal government’s presence in the District represents an industry upon which their economy is very dependent and from which they greatly benefit. To the extent that they are overtaxed in general, they have chosen to overtax themselves.

31

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
How did I change my mind? Is “not getting the short end of the stick” somehow different from whatever I said that you paraphrased as “get a free ride”?
[/quote]
To be clear, you said “I think the OP is referring to taxation without representation, and there the residents of DC are making out like bandits.” I paraphrased “making out like bandits” to be “getting a free ride.” I just wanted to make clear I wasn’t intending to put words in your mouth, but if you want to disagree with how I summarized your point, I’d say we’re splitting hairs.

But really, maybe the DC thing belongs in another thread.

I can’t imagine that the Customs and Border Patrol check tax records when someone comes into the country. Unless the guy gets audited and fails to comply, resulting in some kind of official action against him, I can’t possibly imagine how he’d be in any trouble.

But here we get into a more philosophical proposition: I think if someone lives in this country, is effected by its laws every day (or at least a good part of their lives), and is part of the body politic, the default should be that the person should have a vote and a say in how the country is run. But someone who has never lived in the US, probably never intends to, has made zero effort to be a member of the body politic – the more I think about it, I’m having a harder time thinking of convincing reasons that there is a failure in democracy here. So this guy wants to vote for a congressman to represent a place he’s never been and never intends to go? That doesn’t sit quite right with me.

BTW, both the Republican and Democratic parties have mechanisms by which overseas voters basically caucus and send delegates to the presidential nominating conventions. Not the same as the vote, but deserves to be mentioned.