The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Taxation Without Representation

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

Would you support a law prohibiting taxation without representation in your state and/or country?

Yes
4
100%
No
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Taxation Without Representation

Post by Scott » March 22nd, 2010, 4:48 pm

"No taxation without representation" was a slogan originally used in the 18th century during the time of the American revolution. Many of the colonists believed the lack of direct representation in the British Parliament made taxation and other laws affecting the colonies unfair, tyrannical and/or illegal (particularly since the colonists considered themselves Englishmen).

It's a powerful, agreeable motto that at least us Americans learn about even in elementary school.

Do you agree with it? Do you oppose taxation without representation? Would you support passing a constitutional requirement in your state or country that would exempt anyone who is not allowed to vote from paying all taxes or at least from paying certain types of taxes? Or do you support taxing people who do not have elected representation or a direct vote?

Unfortunately, there are many examples of the principle of no taxation without representation being violated, even from the country whose founding colonies were the source of the slogan.
  • Citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes. In the financial year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita (source). This taxpaying district does not have any votes in the U.S. Congress.

    Felons are also required to pay all taxes but are not allowed to vote in many U.S. states.

    Puerto Rico residents are also subject to most U.S. taxes (sources). However, U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico have no votes in Congress and do not have a vote for President.

    Minors generally are subject to all taxes but are not allowed to vote.

    Permanent residents in the U.S. must pay taxes on their worldwide income and cannot vote, and generally immigrants to the U.S. intending to become citizens must be permanent residents for usually 5 years before being allowed to become citizens.
Do you support those policies and policies like them in other countries that are examples of taxation without representation or do you support the principle of no taxation without representation? I support the principle of no taxation without representation. So I would like to see the situations in the examples above and those like them fixed by either allowing those disenfranchised taxpayers to vote or by exempting them from taxation. What do you think?

Poll added on edit. Please post a reply to this thread explaining your vote in the poll.
Last edited by Scott on March 23rd, 2010, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ape
Posts: 3323
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Re: Taxation Without Representation

Post by ape » March 22nd, 2010, 8:28 pm

Hi Scott,

I think Taxation with or without representation works as long as both taxes and representation/representatives pay the supranational Excise Duties and Taxes of Love and Respect.

Like this:

Romans 13:
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also:
for they [in Government] are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues:
tribute to whom tribute is due;
custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
.....
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Thanx.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » March 22nd, 2010, 8:38 pm

Ape, I don't see the relevance of your quotes. I do not see what scripture or commandments from a particular religion has to do with this discussion.

Are you saying you support taxation without representation in cases where the government officials choosing to tax people who don't have a vote are supposedly loving people? Yes or no? If so, I think that's absurd. What other government actions that are commonly seen as tyrannical would you support if the person doing them has been loving. Dictatorships, drastic limitations on free speech, mass-executions?

Also, I don't understand your metaphors--"supranational Excise Duties and Taxes of Love and Respect"--so please when responding to me use literal, clear speech, not metaphors or prose poetry.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

ape
Posts: 3323
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post by ape » March 23rd, 2010, 10:17 am

Scott wrote: Ape, I don't see the relevance of your quotes. I do not see what scripture or commandments from a particular religion has to do with this discussion.
Hi Scott,

Thanx.
I do see the relevance of both our words!:)
So I will be able to help you see the relevance of mine. :idea:
I do not find that implied request for clarification taxing in any way!:)

Here goes:
Taxes and taxation by the State were originally related to tithing by the Church or religion, a sort of 1/10 or 10% tax which originated in ancient times in Babylon and referred to in lots of holy books of various religions and cultures and states:

"A tithe (from Old English teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a (usually) voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a religious organization."

"Hebrew is a Semitic language, related to Akkadian, the lingua franca of that time. An Akkadian noun that Abraham was most likely familiar with given his Babylonian background was esretu, meaning "one-tenth". By the time of Abraham, this phrase was used to refer to the "one-tenth tax," or "tithe". Listed below are some specific instances of the Mesopotamian tithe, taken from The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 4 "E":"

"Tithing in the Middle Ages:
After the Reformation the tithe was increasingly taken over from the church by the state. In countries such as Germany and Switzerland, this remained the case until the 19th century, when the tithe was abolished. In England, church tithes remained until the 19th century and in some cases to this day voluntary tithes are paid by the devout. In some cases the abolishment of the tithe was accompanied by a one-time tax upon the farmers. This led many farmers into debt.

England
The right to receive tithes was granted to the English churches by King Ethelwulf in 855. The Saladin tithe was a royal tax, but assessed using ecclesiastical boundaries, in 1188. Tithes were given legal force by the Statute of Westminster of 1285. Adam Smith criticized the system in The Wealth of Nations (1776), arguing that a fixed rent would encourage peasants to farm more efficiently. The Dissolution of the Monasteries led to the transfer of many tithe rights from the Church to secular landowners, and then in the 1530s to the Crown. The system ended with the Tithe Commutation Act 1836, which replaced tithes with a rent charge decided by a Tithe Commission. The records of land ownership, or Tithe Files, made by the Commission are now a valuable resource for historians.

At first this commutation reduced problems to the ultimate payers by folding tithes in with rents (however it could cause transitional money supply problems by raising the transaction demand for money). Later the decline of large landowners led tenants to become freeholders and again have to pay directly; this also led to renewed objections of principle by non-Anglicans.

The rent charges paid to landowners were converted by the Tithe Commutation Act to annuities paid to the state through the Tithe Redemption Commission. The payments were transferred in 1960 to the Board of Inland Revenue, and finally terminated by the Finance Act 1977.

United States
The United States has never collected a church tax or mandatory tithe on its citizens. Such a tax is likely prohibited by the First Amendment (specifically the Establishment Clause) to the US Constitution. The United States and its governmental subdivisions also exempt most churches from payment of income tax (under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and similar state statutes, which also allows donors to claim the donations as an income tax itemized deduction). Also, churches may be permitted exemption from other state and local taxes such as sales and property taxes, either in whole or in part. However, churches are required to withhold Federal and state income tax from their employees along with the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay the employer's share of the latter two taxes, unless the employee is an ordained, licensed, or commissioned minister."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

"With the establishment of the new nation, the citizens of the various colonies now had proper democratic representation, yet many Americans still opposed and resisted taxes they deemed unfair or improper. In 1794, a group of farmers in southwestern Pennsylvania physically opposed the tax on whiskey, forcing President Washington to send Federal troops to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, establishing the important precedent that the Federal government was determined to enforce its revenue laws. The Whiskey Rebellion also confirmed, however, that the resistance to unfair or high taxes that led to the Declaration of Independence did not evaporate with the forming of a new, representative government."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-s ... stax.shtml

"Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests & nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
Tom Jefferson, To George Wythe Paris, August 13, 1786.

The scriptural reference of Romans 13 could be taken as reference in literature, and was to emphazise the paying of Love and Respect to whatever good or bad Government, whether we pay taxes or not just as we pay The Principle of Love and Respect to each other on this Forum and to this Forum whether we pay monetary contributions or not!:)
:idea:

Like these references do more specifically, even tho they omit any references to tribute and custom and etc which are other words for taxes:

"The first of all laws is to respect all laws." Jean Jacques Rousseau. 1758.

"Our aim is to recognise what Lincoln pointed out:
The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously NOT equal: but also insist that there should be an EQUALITY OF SELF-RESPECT and of MUTUAL RESPECT..."
Theodore Roosevelt, 7th annual message to Congress, 12.3.1907

Those refs mean that the first illegality or unlawfulness is disrespect or hate any laws--except one law, of course.
:idea:
Scott wrote: Are you saying you support taxation without representation in cases where the government officials choosing to tax people who don't have a vote are supposedly loving people?
Yes or no?
Yes!
Simply because persons of the Integrity of Love and Respect, who pay that eternal tax to all, would not only automactically represent the interests of the people who have NO vote but pay taxes but also represent the interests of those who have the RIGHT to vote and pay taxes but do NOT vote! :idea:
qed.
Scott wrote: If so, I think that's absurd.
Hmmmm
I think I also see surdity in what you think of as absurd! :)
:idea:
I think you will see it too, Scott, as you think on it more fully from both sides.
:idea:
Scott wrote: What other government actions that are commonly seen as tyrannical would you support if the person doing them has been loving. Dictatorships, drastic limitations on free speech, mass-executions?
At all times, to whatever hateful government practicing tyranny, dictatorship, limiting free-speech, singular or mass executions and etc OR to the opposite loving kind of government, those taxed have the rights and options to pay taxes with all their Love and Respect or with all Hate and Disrespect and bear the consequences, OR with all their Love and Respect or with all their Hate & Disrespect to NOT pay any taxes and bear the consequences.
:idea:
Scott wrote: Also, I don't understand your metaphors--"supranational Excise Duties and Taxes of Love and Respect"--so please when responding to me use literal, clear speech, not metaphors or prose poetry.
Sorry, Scott. :(
I want to be understood.
So thanks for speaking up and asking! :)
Excise Duties are inland taxes paid in money/cash/check.
Customs Duties are import taxes paid in money/cash/check.
Supranational just means within and across and beyond national borders and normal taxes of all kinds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

Love and Respect would be the permanent Excise and Custom or IOU or Tax paid along with any paid or unpaid monetary tax.

Hope that helps.
By the way, I find your prose so internally poetic!:)

Thanx.

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » March 23rd, 2010, 12:36 pm

Scott,

I think that the issue with the original Colonists rested heavily on the fact that received no benefit from the taxes they were forced to pay.

So, in my opinion, I would say that if people are to take advantage of the assets created from tax-payer dollars, they should be forced to pay some form of tax. Maybe just a flat income tax [like we should all be paying anyways :wink:]?
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » March 23rd, 2010, 11:26 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:Scott,

I think that the issue with the original Colonists rested heavily on the fact that received no benefit from the taxes they were forced to pay.
Maybe, but that's not what they said. They didn't say no taxation without getting benefit from the taxes. They said no taxation without representation.

I agree with what they said. Do most people?

Were the English taxpayers in the colonies benefiting that much less from the spending than the English people in England? If so, was it at least in part because they didn't have representation?
whitetrshsoldier wrote:I would say that if people are to take advantage of the assets created from tax-payer dollars, they should be forced to pay some form of tax.
Taxing the people who take advantage of the assets created from tax-payer dollars does not necessarily violate the principle of no taxation without representation. It only violates that principle if the taxed people do not get to vote.

If the people allegedly benefiting from the spending of tax money do not have the right to vote, then I disagree with the sentiment of your assertion that they "should" have to pay taxes.

I think representation is particularly important because it easy for those spending or benefiting from tax money to say that the money is being spent to the benefit of unrepresented taxpayers. Being able to vote and to collectively elect representatives gives the taxpayers some influence over how the money is being spent so that it is actually benefiting the taxpayers somewhat.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Vulcanised
Banned
Posts: 250
Joined: February 6th, 2010, 12:18 pm

Post by Vulcanised » March 24th, 2010, 12:03 am

Scott I don`t know about the 18th century slogan you mention, but its here in the UK. Regress is here. Taxes upon more taxes are passed without people being given the right to decide where their taxes go. We are supposed to have a budget once a year, in truth its not true. Taxes rise every month not yearly. VAT is unmonitored. This goes for residents only [the electorate.] Those who don`t reside here have a better deal on taxation.

Ape wrote
Yes!
Simply because persons of the Integrity of Love and Respect, who pay that eternal tax to all, would not only automactically represent the interests of the people who have NO vote but pay taxes but also represent the interests of those who have the RIGHT to vote and pay taxes but do NOT vote!
qed.
Only that tax is not going to all, so it doesn`t represent the interests of the people at all, unless the people have a say and not shady governments. Have you seen the state of Africa due to its shady government let alone other countries?

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » March 24th, 2010, 12:41 am

Vulcanised wrote:Scott I don`t know about the 18th century slogan you mention, but its here in the UK. Regress is here. Taxes upon more taxes are passed without people being given the right to decide where their taxes go. We are supposed to have a budget once a year, in truth its not true. Taxes rise every month not yearly. VAT is unmonitored. This goes for residents only [the electorate.] Those who don`t reside here have a better deal on taxation.
That sounds like a very sad state of affairs.

Do all the taxpayers have a right to vote or are there people significantly taxed by your government that do not have a right to vote like the examples I gave for the U.S. government in the OP?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Citizenw
Posts: 2
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 11:55 am

Post by Citizenw » April 2nd, 2010, 3:07 pm

Taxation without representation is only one case of the more general, fundamental First Principle that "just power derives from the consent of the governed."

This Consent being an inalienable (innate, inherent intrinsic) right, it cannot be offset by the mere absence of taxation.

George Mason said it well, in his Virginia Bill of Rights, June, 1776 (Item 6 and 7 especially):

"6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.

7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised."

Justice Hugo Black also said it well in Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964:

"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right."

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » April 2nd, 2010, 10:14 pm

Scott wrote:
whitetrshsoldier wrote:I would say that if people are to take advantage of the assets created from tax-payer dollars, they should be forced to pay some form of tax.
Taxing the people who take advantage of the assets created from tax-payer dollars does not necessarily violate the principle of no taxation without representation. It only violates that principle if the taxed people do not get to vote.

If the people allegedly benefiting from the spending of tax money do not have the right to vote, then I disagree with the sentiment of your assertion that they "should" have to pay taxes.

I think representation is particularly important because it easy for those spending or benefiting from tax money to say that the money is being spent to the benefit of unrepresented taxpayers. Being able to vote and to collectively elect representatives gives the taxpayers some influence over how the money is being spent so that it is actually benefiting the taxpayers somewhat.
I agree, Scott, and I think you completely blew me out according to how I stated me point.

I think what I meant to say was that people should either NOT benefit from tax dollars or that they SHOULD, and that if they SHOULD, then they should be given the right to vote.

Does that satisfy the requirement?
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » April 3rd, 2010, 2:04 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:I think what I meant to say was that people should either NOT benefit from tax dollars or that they SHOULD, and that if they SHOULD, then they should be given the right to vote.

Does that satisfy the requirement?
Yes, I think that is fair, and I think it would adhere to the principle of no taxation without representation.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post Reply