The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should People Who Pay No Taxes be Represented?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 6803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




One of the principles our country was founded upon was that the people who are taxed should be represented.
Conversely I believe people who do not pay taxes should not be represented.
Richard Complainary, Publisher


The U.S. currently is a democratic society. As a democratic society we need to have equal representation for any citizen, or else what makes us any different than a totalitarian government? So I stand in negation of the resolution: should people who pay no taxes be represented? The answer is a simple word: yes.

I offer one point of clarification because none is given. I will take representation as the right to vote. So, if you take away someone's representation, you take away their right to vote.

Contention 1: By not letting everybody be represented a democratic society will be destroyed. What makes a democratic society, like that of the U.S., democratic is the very foundation it is built upon: representation. If you restrict these non taxpayers from voting or being represented the very foundation of our society will crumble into a totalitarianism, in which only selected group of individuals have a say in society.

Contention 2: Removing an individual from society will be detrimental to a society's well being. By taking away an individual's representation, their right to vote, you are basically removing this individual from society. Once this action is made you can see that individual turn away from a society that shun him or her. What does this mean? It means: the individuals may regret the society and turn against with crimes against society and such. An example would be felons. Felons are those who have committed a felony. A felony is any type of crime(s) that is punishable of 1 or more years in prison. These felons are currently disenfranchised, meaning they have no representation. One can see according to a study done by the Bureau of Justic Statistics. They have found that in 1994 67% of felons released have returned to prison within a time frame of about 3 years. The question that now arises is why? The answer is because they have no place in an unwelcoming society that they are no longer a part of. So by disenfranchising these non tax payers, the increase in crimes will more than surely increase.

Non taxpayers are to be able to be represented. By looking towards the aff, the very foundation of the United States will be destroyed and crime rates will increase, but by looking towards the neg non of these disasters will come about.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe our democratic society is already threatened through gerrymandering, corrupt politicians, lobbyists all of whom over shadow the voters. Couple that with voters that have nothing at stake, that is they are not affected by tax increases you have very little left to support a democracy.
Most if not all felonies are already being committed by the same group you are defending. The guy earning wages high enough to pay taxes is not running around holding up old ladies or 7-11's.
The only way to restore our democracy is to limit voting rights to those who have a financial stake in the outcome of their vote.


rbksfreak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I declare a victory as rbksfreak forfeited round 3.
Richard Complainary, Publisher


rbksfreak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
All income is taxable - even welfare benefits. It is just that they are paid at such a low level that they currently fall beneath the income tax threshold. Some people, however, register themselves as non-domiciles for tax purposes and pay no income tax as a result. However, as a national of the country and a passport holder, they retain the right to vote. So, if this plan were introduced, the only people that wouldn't be able to vote, that now (in theory at least) can would be tramps.

It's an interesting argument but might be better defined and constructed to make it work?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Or, as i prefer...

there should be no taxes, and no votes :)
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
Only those who get stolen from should get to choose who steals from them.
Posted by complainary 8 years ago
Neither, in fact I don't know why you think of those groups. People who earn enough to justify minimizing there taxes are smart. And after all the so called leaders that have gotten caught or admitted to tax evasion I can't blame the ordinary guy for wanting to minimize their taxes. And as far as the folks out of work they are out of work and looking for new jobs and I am certainly not referring to them.
I am talking about people who do not work and are second and third generation welfare or even people who do work but are never at the income level they need to be to pay taxes.
People who do not pay taxes will always vote for every tax issue and every spending bill good or bad because it does not affect them.
I believe the percentage of people in that category is now at about 48% and soon to go over 50%. That means the folks who pay no taxes will control the spending of the folks that pay taxes. That does not seem right to me.
Posted by ac1125 8 years ago
It is unclear as to what you are arguing here. First, your debate topic should be an assertion, not a question. So instead of saying, "Should People Who Pay No Taxes be Represented?," put "People Who Pay no taxes should be Represented." And then assert your stance on the issue by selecting pro or con. Second, clarify what type of tax you are referring to, which I would assume is the income tax. I'd consider re-posting the topic.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
I agree - all those people who "minimize their tax exposure" by "investing" their savings in offshore bank accounts should be denied the vote - is this what you mean? Or are you having a dig at those unfortunate people who have lost their jobs as the result of the incompetence of greedy bankers?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70