Is representation without taxation just as bad?

The last simple question I posted turned out to be not quite so simple, and this one may end up the same,but in my mind at least it really is just that simple.

What do you mean silly?

Well we are all told that taxation without representation is bad....very bad ver very bad. The idea being nobody should be taxed by a government that does not represent them. Fair enough said because it would mean disinfranchised individuals are funding their own disinfranchisement.

Ok.

What about the inverse?

Representation without taxation?

If I allow my government to represent those who pay nothing in taxes or are a net tax burden am I allowing myself the tax payer to become disinfranchized.

What is to stop those who pay nothing in taxes or who are a net burden on taxes from using their representation in government to increase my taxes and thus their own source of revenue?

Is representation without taxation just as damaging to a society as taxation without representation?

I feel it is just as bad if not worse, and that is why our nation was founded to let only land owners(those who payed tax) have the right to vote.

Once you let somone who is not taxed or who recieves their income from the taxation of others to vote, you are giving them the ability to vote themselves more income at the detriment of the productive members of society.

It seems clear to me that such a society could quickly devolve into one in which being a productive member would actually work to ones own detriment.

What say you ats?

Is representation without taxation just as bad for a society as taxation without representation?

a reply to: Stevenmonet

What kind of taxes are you talking about? Income tax? Sales tax? Gas and utility taxes? Property tax?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Great question let's just use federal income tax as our example.

Should somone who pays nothing in federal income tax or who is a net burden on federal income tax be able to vote in federal elections.

More specifically should any non payer of any form of tax be able to vote in a manner that would effect that form or level of taxation for a tax that they themselves do not pay or be allowed to be a recipient of those same said tax funds.

To put this clearly: Why would somone who never paid into a joint fund have any say in how or where those funds are distributed?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Think about it this way.

Let's say myself yourself and our wives started a joint fund for a couples vacation.

Would it be right to allow any of those funds to go to say Jerry or his wife who never contributed to the fund.

Would it be ok to let Jerry and his wife have a vote in where we take our vacation or how we distribute those shared funds when Jerry and his wife never put one cent into the fund?

What would stop Jerry and his wife from voting themselves a share of the funds to which they never contribited?

Nothing right?

That is why Jerry and his wife should have no vote in the matter, if they never contributed.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Think about it this way.

Let's say myself yourself and our wives started a joint fund for a couples vacation.

Would it be right to allow any of those funds to go to say Jerry or his wife who never contributed to the fund.

Would it be ok to let Jerry and his wife have a vote in where we take our vacation or how we distribute those shared funds when Jerry and his wife never put one cent into the fund?

What would stop Jerry and his wife from voting themselves a share of the funds to which they never contribited?

Nothing right?

That is why Jerry and his wife should have no vote in the matter, if they never contributed.

When I look at it this way the concept seems quite straight forward and simple, and yet we as a nation have allowed Jerry and his wife a vote in our vacations every year for hundreds of years without ever actually getting our heads together and asking ourselves why every year we let Jerry and his wife have a say in our vacation plans, and even tag along on our vacation when year after year they never put in one cent to our shared fund.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

More specifically should any non payer of any form of tax be able to vote in a manner that would effect that form or level of taxation for a tax that they themselves do not pay or be allowed to be a recipient of those same said tax funds.

Your premise is erroneous. Congress votes on budgetary items, not the voter. Voters don't get to decide the salaries of government officials, how much money goes to infrastructure or economic stimulus, for example.

To put this clearly: Why would somone who never paid into a joint fund have any say in how or where those funds are distributed?

It used to be that one had to own property, among other requirements, to be an American citizen and vote. Now, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Your proposal violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment.

So, to put it succinctly, "No. Voter rights should not be tied to how much a person pays in taxes.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

The constitution outlines who is eligible to vote.
That's enough for me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No I have it quite right because non tax payers get to vote for representatives that decide government spending.

We are allowing those who dont pay into the fund to have a say in which representatives are elected.

That is representation without taxation

Thatvisbgiving Jerry and his wife a vote on how we spend our vacation fund to which they did not contribute.

Attempts to obfuscate the fact that they recieve representation for nothing while I pay for that same representation is wrong.

If you dont see it that way then why dont your neighbors have a vote on your household grocery budget you and your wife get a vote and both your neighbors get a vote too.

Same problem.

Direct democracy or representative democracy does not matter what matter is letting those who did not pay in have any say in what how or how much gets destributed where our when.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Ya and there was a big change put in their too it went from no land aka no taxation no vote.

Then everyone got the right to vote whether they owned land or not.

See I love it.

I point out the quite simple fact of how it was and what changed and the problems it has caused.

I can illustrate my point quite simply.

Yet to justify the rightness of our current predicament my detractors must offer ever more elaborate and covolusive justifications for why Jerry and his wife have any say in our couples vacation, or why my neighbors should get a vote on my household grocery budget.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

No I have it quite right because non tax payers get to vote for representatives that decide government spending.

You're only talking about federal income tax, though. A lot of people, including the very rich pay little to nothing in income tax. However, everyone who pays rent, also aides their landlord in their property tax payment. They pay tax at the pump and sales tax, plus a registration tax for their cars. They pay sales tax for their goods and services.

The federal budget isn't a vacation fund that families pay into. Perhaps Social Security could be considered something like that, but only people who have paid into Social Security reap its benefits.

Everyone, including non-citizens, benefit from the USA's military budget, whether or not they paid income tax. Same with our infrastructure, police, fire and EMTs.

Again, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and voting is the right of all citizens of age, except for felons.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
Should somone who pays nothing in federal income tax or who is a net burden on federal income tax be able to vote in federal elections.

The Constitution says 'yes'.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

To be fair, if you're somehow existing and paying absolutely no taxes, it means you don't have a job, don't have a home, don't ever purchase anything from a store and are probably living some kind of hermit like existence. I imagine folks like that probably don't actually get out to vote much as it is to be honest.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is simple. If you live in a representative democracy you are paying for that representation through taxation.

If not they would have no right for taxation.

Americas founders called that principal taxation with representation.

Taxation without representation is bad.

What part do you disagree with above?????

Ok if I can assume you agree with all of the above then the inverse is just as true.

Representation without taxation is wrong.

The reason is clear.

By asking some in a society to pay for their representation in the form of taxation while others get the same representation without any taxation leads to the same problem.

That problem is ultimately the disinfranchisement of those funding the government through taxation.

People cant get their heads arround this because they dont want to.

It is simple yet the more you try to justify it the more complicated you must make it.

Either taxation without representation is bad or it isnt.

And if I'm being taxed to be represented by my government and you recieve tax funds for the same government representation you have disinfranchized me the taxpayer from my representation.

I think it funny that people feel a need to justify such obvious social ills instead of recognizing them for what they are.

It is cognitive dissonance at its finest realy: a whole nation of socialy disinfranchized tax payers paying for someone else's vacations, and arguing that it needs to be that way.

Oh well.

Let's just say I believe there was good reason it started the way it did and I dont see any liberty as coming from the changes we allowed.

Some things change for the better some for the worse.

The social welfare system exists and grows because we allowed those who pay nothing or are net burdens on taxes to vote on representatives in government equally with those who are paying taxes aka net providers of government revenue have an equal vote with net consumers of government revenue.

This is not how it was founded, yet it is how we allow it to be.

The more I have researched the federal reserve system the more I am forced to confront other amendments that predate the 16th and their impact.

I am not surprised by the reactions so far they were quite expected realy.

Some will see the obvious fallacies some will get lost in the minutia.

It is not the people I worry about, it is their principals.

The principals I wish to point out that are askew here should be quite clear, and yet to allow yourself to be complacent with things as they stand you must allow yourself to be unclear on those simple principals.

Men do not rule the world neither does flesh and blood. The principals men allow themselves to be ruled by rule over their flesh and their world.

The more I seek to understand these basic principals the more I see just how askew they are and just how comfortable men have become with that.

The whole world has been going crazy and it is because of the principals we have allowed to rule not the men.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Representation without taxation is wrong.

The reason is clear.

By asking some in a society to pay for their representation in the form of taxation while others get the same representation without any taxation leads to the same problem.

That problem is ultimately the disinfranchisement of those funding the government through taxation.

The government and its society could not persist without low wage workers pumping the economy along. There is more to economic health than income tax dollars. The more there's movement of cheap labor the more money moves around the economy and the more all that money gets taxed over and over.

I don't think that you've considered that most low wage workers get most, if not all, their income tax dollars refunded back via earned income credit and child care credit, etc., and that in your model, those front line, critical workers that are keeping the economy pumping along, wouldn't have voice, or should somehow have less of a voice, in who represents them on a federal level.

Oh well. The Constitution is clear on this question.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Rights apply to the people, not the taxpayers.

If you want to change the definition of a person to a tax-paying entity then we may as well just give the government carte blanche to exterminate the disadvanted, the disabled, and neglected/orphaned children.

I can see the rise of charity funded no-kill foster homes for kids, sounds like a real utopia.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

The constitution says we the people.
It does not say we the white male land owners.

A rich mans vote should not carry more weight than a poor woman’s.

Representation without taxation is wrong. How about representation without taxation because the majority of people do not earn enough to pay taxes. IE. the history of the United States of America. The majority of the first settlers (that's the relatives of the founding fathers) left England because they were to poor to pay taxes but they were disenfranchised because only landowner were allowed to vote. Plus there was no way to better themselves.
After a period of time in "America" the settlers started to become prosperous so , English colony, English taxation, but still no representation. Notice when I say become prosperous that was the minority, the vast majority was still too poor to pay taxes. Need I go on with this history lesson???
Jump forward "the Founding Fathers" when the Declaration was signed they knew at that time the vast majority STILL could not pay taxes. So did they want to disenfranchise the majority of fledgling Americans? NO, and that's why your wrong.
Or could it be that you only want to take the power of voting off poor people, reverting back to the England that your descendants fled from.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Representation without taxation is wrong.

The reason is clear.

By asking some in a society to pay for their representation in the form of taxation while others get the same representation without any taxation leads to the same problem.

That problem is ultimately the disinfranchisement of those funding the government through taxation.

The government and its society could not persist without low wage workers pumping the economy along. There is more to economic health than income tax dollars. The more there's movement of cheap labor the more money moves around the economy and the more all that money gets taxed over and over.

I don't think that you've considered that most low wage workers get most, if not all, their income tax dollars refunded back via earned income credit and child care credit, etc., and that in your model, those front line, critical workers that are keeping the economy pumping along, wouldn't have voice, or should somehow have less of a voice, in who represents them on a federal level.

Oh well. The Constitution is clear on this question.

I agree the constitution is and was quite clear.

My point is the principal difference in the 180 degree change in voting rights and taxation and the impact that has had on the health of our society over the past 200+ years.

One cant look at a society as devided as ours now stands and not consider how it got this way.

The principals that allow a just and free society to exist in harmony can not be in ballance with an obviously devided and unbalanced society.

Therefore I am seeking a better understanding of those principals which we have allowed to rule ourselves and therefore our society.

How have they changed or become out of balance in such a manner as is now obvious?

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, “What difference does it make?” In 2020 apparently it didn’t matter who you voted for as long as the Bad guys control the machines. So your representatives may not even be the legit candidate.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Our absolute inalienable rights are granted by our Creator, and guaranteed by government. OurNatural Right to make a living for ourselves, our Natural Right to the bounty of the earth freely given by our Creator, is not subject to the whim of government. It is to be protected by government.

There should be NO personal income tax on earned income period. Whether you make a pittance or a fortune. Our absolute inalienable right to make a living and make a life for ourselves does not include paying government first or ever, because that makes it privilege and not a right. The fruits of our labor -- our sweat and blood -- belongs to us and us alone.

Our nation survived just fine without a personal income tax on earned income until fairly recently.