Amazon.com Widgets

No taxation without representation... What about the opposite--no representation without taxation? Should states with a high quantity of citizens not paying taxes have their population discounted when it comes to representatives?

Asked by: N711
No taxation without representation... What about the opposite--no representation without taxation? Should states with a high quantity of citizens not paying taxes have their population discounted when it comes to representatives?
  • This problem was identified in the 18th century.

    Alexis DeTocqueville noted this as a problem with the US government. When non taxpayers have a say in how taxes are spent via the voting booth, they are spending other peoples money all while living on other peoples money. If 47% who do not pay taxes have the right to vote, will they not vote to give themselves more and more? Or would they not vote for candidates that promise more and more? Suppose 51% of the population is not paying taxes, but can vote for more spending on themselves? Is this not the tipping point? Are we not too close to it now since 47% IS VERY CLOSE TO 51%?

  • If you can't be tax without being represented,

    You shouldn't be represented without being taxed. The opposite should also apply. That is not to say you cannot vote, or enjoy every other right. But when it comes to the house of representatives which is in charge of managing our tax budget. How can a group of individuals who only take taxes but do not pay taxes have representatives be added to the lower house and have a say in how other state's taxes are spent?

    Posted by: N711
  • This is flawed.

    Here is the issue with this resolution. If a district objects to being taxed they are still subject to the will of every other district that is taxed. If they are not receiving the services that come with taxation then this is morally wrong. This would be another blatant example of direct democracy's failure to protect the rights of man. I would imagine that by objecting to taxes they also object to the services that are handed out due to taxing. And taxing should be something you can object to. Does anyone else recognize that taxation is theft with the threat of imprisonment or death looming over you?

  • This Is Too Much Like the Poll Tax

    In 1964, the US ratified Constitutional Amendment 24, which made a poll tax unconstitutional. If you do not allow people who cannot afford to pay taxes (because they have to live on welfare) to vote, that is, as far as I can see, very similar to a poll tax (except that it is not charged at the booth), because it basically means you have to pay to vote - and that is unconstitutional. Poor people are citizens just as anyone else, and you cannot take their right to vote away just based on that - or, as Lyndon B. Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor vote."


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.