jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (46 posts)

Taxation without Representation

  1. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    ... is bad.

    What about Representation without Taxation? People getting a say in things without paying into the system?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hiya Jaxson.

      Here is how I see it:
      The Democrats are complaining the rich are stealing from the middle class.
      The Republicans are complaining the poor are stealing from the middle class.
      Now I’m complaining. From whom do we slobs in the middle class get to steal from?
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's an easy one, Quill!
        Answer: Ourselves!
        lol

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Haha. Aren't the rich stealing from the poor too?

        1. Robert Erich profile image89
          Robert Erichposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope. The poor live on welfare.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So let's look at it this way, representation for taxation is not actually the foundation of representation, representation exists because otherwise government force is exerted on an individual without him having any say in the way he is governed which makes it tyranny. Now if you want to make only tax payers be able to vote then you create a class of people who no longer are represented but are still ruled over so by the same logic obviously they should no longer be bound by a system that they have no representation in otherwise it's tyranny so by all means make non tax payers not be able to vote if you are content for them to no longer be bound by any of the rules of our governance, be they laws or regulations, since they have no representation they cannot be ethically ruled.

      The fallacy is to believe representation is the reward for paying taxes, it is not, representation is what divides fair governance from oppression by force.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But if they aren't paying taxes, are they under taxation?

        Yes, everybody pays some form of taxes... I just thought it was an interesting phrase. Personally, I worry about pure democratic voting... the more advanced the world becomes, the more distant the average person becomes from how things work, and the less able they are to understand what is going to be best for them...

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No they are not necessarily under taxation at all, but if they have no representation then why should they abide by the laws that bind them? Surely no law is fair if a man has no way to change it and no input in it.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Are you saying that poor people who don't pay income tax should not be represented by Congress?

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nope, just asking a question.

      I saw someone mention Representation without Taxation elsewhere, and I don't think I've seen that before.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image89
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        G’Day Jaxson.

        The origin of “No taxation without representation:”
        The phrase was common in Ireland before it made its way into a sermon delivered by Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in Boston in 1750. It crystallized the sentiments of British colonists struggling under the yoke of taxes and tariffs imposed on the original Thirteen Colonies by a monarchy that denied them a seat in Parliament. James Otis expanded it to a political slogan “taxation without representation is tyranny” to muster support for the American Revolution.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxatio … esentation

  3. secularist10 profile image89
    secularist10posted 4 years ago

    Welcome to democracy.

    That's kind of the whole point of democracy--everybody gets a vote.

    If only some people have a vote but others don't--that's called either oligarchy or a situation of first- and second-class citizens.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder, there are so many nets in place for the poor, with little or no outside incentive for them to get out of that situation. I'm so very opposed to welfare that is given out without requirements, and I've never really considered things that might be taken away... We do it in all sorts of places, disincentives...

      1. secularist10 profile image89
        secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What you describe would inevitably, and very quickly, lead to a permanent underclass. There is already an effective/ de facto underclass in the US (people who, for all intents and purposes, are structurally stuck at the bottom of society generation after generation).

        But this kind of thing--taking away their rights, votes, etc, would undoubtedly make it permanent and real. This is what the permanent underclasses of old were made of, after all--slaves, serfs, landed peasants, etc. It's not like we haven't seen what you are describing before. We've seen it, and it has been the rule by far in human societies for thousands of years.

        Interesting factoid: class mobility today in the US is lower than in much of western Europe. Why? I think one major reason is because of the severe class bifurcation and rise in income inequality that has occurred in the US over the last 40 years or so.

        We can certainly talk about reforming welfare and government safety nets. In other first world countries, their systems work much more efficiently, for instance, despite being much more generous.

        And they have not produced a permanent class of drug-addled deadbeats waiting for their monthly check from the government.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mobility in the US is low because the separation between quintiles is so large. Comparing relative mobility as a percentage of one country to the percentage of another doesn't make any sense.

          We actually have very good mobility, as shown by the Census study of taxpayers over two decades.

          We definitlely need to stop the war on drugs. It's probably alone responsible for more violence and more income inequality and income immobility than any other single factor.

          1. secularist10 profile image89
            secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Mobility in the US is low because the separation between quintiles is so large."

            Using other words, that was precisely my point.

            "Comparing relative mobility as a percentage of one country to the percentage of another doesn't make any sense."

            Country comparisons don't make any sense. Umm... Why is that?

            The US used to have the highest interclass mobility; now it does not.

            I do agree with the war on drugs thing. Ironically, if you believed in country comparisons, that would bolster your argument on drugs because other first world countries are far easier on drugs than the US.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My point is that income mobility in the US is actually quite high. The 'low' factor people use is just a very poor way of comparing.

              Comparing different situations doesn't make sense unless you can control for the base and other factors.

              I believe in country comparisons, but I also believe that all analysis needs to control for variables.

              1. secularist10 profile image89
                secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I understand the point about different conditions and factors. But ultimately all comparisons are flawed for that reason. A perfect comparison is impossible. But there is real information here. We're only comparing first world industrialized democracies, for example.

                Also, this NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha … wanted=all) says:

                "While Europe differs from the United States in culture and demographics, a more telling comparison may be with Canada, a neighbor with significant ethnic diversity... just 16 percent of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth of incomes stayed there as adults, compared with 22 percent of Americans. Similarly, 26 percent of American men raised at the top tenth stayed there, but just 18 percent of Canadians."

                Also, insofar as intergenerational mobility reflects more fundamental socioeconomic conditions, it is a measuring stick for those things.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  In the US, to go from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, you have to increase your income by 750%. In Canada, you only have to increase your income by 450%.

                  That's why 22% isn't worse than 16%. If you want to look at it, stop comparing quintiles or deciles, and look at actual income change, by dollar.

                  The problem is, not every country has that kind of information available.

                  1. secularist10 profile image89
                    secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But if there is more economic opportunity in the US, then increasing one's income by 750% should not be particularly unreasonable.

                    And as I said, this is a measuring stick. When measuring the temperature in the jungle and the temperature on a glacier, you don't say "well, there's more snow in this environment, and that environment is closer to the equator, so using the same thermometer in both places is dumb."

                    It's a common tool to measure the outcome that arises from both places' various conditions.

              2. secularist10 profile image89
                secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Also, take a look at this chart which measures interclass mobility in the US over time. Not even any country comparisons--the US is failing relative to itself. This is from about the 1940s to the early 2000s.

                http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6952139_f248.jpg

                (I have a larger version of this image in one of my hubs on why the rich should be taxed more/ progressive taxation.)

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That chart is the same thing, as the gap between groups increases, the movement between them decreases.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jaxson likes to argue that the middle class is doing just fine, that the American dream is still intact.

                    If all that is true, Jaxson, why do we need to change course and elect Mitt?  Just wondering.

                  2. secularist10 profile image89
                    secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jaxson:

                    As I said above, if there is more opportunity and dynamism in the US, then it should be theoretically as easy to move among the classes in the US as it is in other countries where there is less opportunity, but the classes are closer together. It's either one or the other.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No incentive... It's almost like you have never been poor... the united states poverty threshold is the line set by the Census Bureau and about 15.5% of the population falls below that line. That line represents a  : " federal government estimate of the point below which a household of a given size has income insufficient to meet minimal food and other basic needs."

        Now do you think that not having enough money to afford "minimal food and basic needs" is not an incentive to get out of poverty... Have you ever gone without food and/or shelter?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I said outside incentive. I've been poor. I was on food stamps for a time period while my wife was sick and I was out of work.

          I don't like hand-outs, everything should be designed to teach a man to fish, rather than just giving him a fish.

  4. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Secularist, you might not have understood that, I should explain better.

    Let's assume that opportunity is 10% better in the US than in Canada. You live in the US, with a twin in Canada. You are exactly the same, same education, same job, everything except for location is the same.

    You both currently make $10,000/year. In 5 years, your twin in Canada will be making $55,000. Because you have 10% greater opportunity, you will be making $59,500.

    Your twin will have jumped from the bottom 20% to the top 20%(we're speaking relatively, it takes an increase of 450%). You, on the other hand, would have jumped from the bottom 20% to the middle 20%.

    Then, someone comes along and looks at your 'income mobility', and decides that the US is severely handicapped. Just look! You only went up two quintiles, where your twin went up 4!

    Do you see the problem? Something that is better can look worse, if you don't understand what you are looking at.

  5. PaulAfrohna profile image61
    PaulAfrohnaposted 4 years ago

    This argument again?

 
working