It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No taxation without representation - what about the opposite?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
This is a question that's on my mind today and I thought I'd ask you folks about it.

So, one of the principles the U.S. was founded on was "No Taxation without Representation". And I've always thought that to be a very important right.

But I'm really surprised that there hasn't been a "No Representation without Taxation" movement in this country. I think there's only been 3 months of my adult life where I didn't pay taxes. If I'm paying, I should have representation for every aspect of my life, right? For being a Vet, or for other things in my life, like being a worker.

But what about people who don't pay taxes?

Should they have representation?

Of course Dependents would be exempt, as well as Disabled Vets, and others.

But what about people who don't pay taxes? Do they deserve representation, if they don't pay taxes?




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

It would align well with the founding father's morality and worldview.

If you were not a white male and "in good standing", which meant wanted by the law or debtors. You were qualified to be a US citizen.

So you had human with full vested rights under God --and not exactly.
Other than fully vested citizens, all you had was slaves, plebes and women.

Oh, to go back to those ideal times when wise people understood how things should work. Let's go back to that. I would definitely benefit and that's what matters.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

I disagree with that notion entirely.

Poor people deserve political representation as much as the next guy.
The idea that somehow your citizenship and the rights inherent in such
are based on a pay to play method guarantees disenfranchisement.

It may have been ok to think like that in the past as InverseLookingGlass
pointed out. But that crap won't fly anymore and rightly so.

There was a lot of wisdom in what the founders of this great nation envisioned.
But that was certainly not one of them.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: CryHavoc

It would align well with the founding father's morality and worldview.

If you were not a white male and "in good standing", which meant wanted by the law or debtors. You were qualified to be a US citizen.

So you had human with full vested rights under God --and not exactly.
Other than fully vested citizens, all you had was slaves, plebes and women.

Oh, to go back to those ideal times when wise people understood how things should work. Let's go back to that. I would definitely benefit and that's what matters.


Friends, this is what happens when you spend your money on a liberal arts education in America. Don't let this happen to you.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

No, we should not have to pay to be "represented".

What you are really trying to say is, poor people shouldn't get to vote.


Nice try GOP.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I didn't see anything that was blatantly incorrect about the post. For the first 30-something years only about 10-15% of the population was allowed to vote. This generally came down to white, male, property-owners.

As to the OP, everyone pays taxes. You're specifically referring to income taxes, but there are sales and gas taxes and a slew of other taxes. Everyone in the country should be equally represented by their vote. No one group should have more or less voting power.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This is not exactly what you were asking I don't think but it seems to me that taxation coming before representation would never make sense, considering that it would mean one is being taxed by a government that has yet to include them. Basically why should someone be taxed if they have no representation? So for representation to come after taxation there would have to be a small point where people were being taxed without representation. This is not really a great argument, if I even explained what I mean in a way that is understandable, but I figured I would mention it.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc

I think there's only been 3 months of my adult life where I didn't pay taxes. If I'm paying, I should have representation for every aspect of my life, right? For being a Vet, or for other things in my life, like being a worker.

But what about people who don't pay taxes? Should they have representation??


Are you referring to those who don't earn enough to be taxed or a you referring to those that earn large sums of money but don't pay tax??



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: learnatic
Are you referring to those who don't earn enough to be taxed or a you referring to those that earn large sums of money but don't pay tax??


Actually, I was referring to both.

But the responses have answered my question.

And sometimes it's interesting to see the mudslinging. Even though it was just an honest question I had.
edit on 13-6-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join