[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Taxation without representation (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/9/2016 3:10:23 PM EDT
|
Could one say this is true now a days in our country?
We have cripling debt that continues to grow. Taxes are wasted annually with no consequence Elected officials do nothing to solve this sort of problem other than to continue to tax while trying to tax more at every opportunity they get. Discuss |
|
Quoted:
No. The elected officials just don't represent you. this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. look at the dumbass gop, they fucking HATE conservative ideas, and actively attempt to destroy anyone who attempts to change things. ( see tea party hate from gop ) its totally broken, and the gov is on auto pilot, with agencies making as many laws as actual politicans.... were ALL pretty much fucked.....I honestly fear what the country will look like in 10 more years. 
|
|
Quoted:
this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The elected officials just don't represent you. this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. Exactly what I was getting to |
|
Quoted:
this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The elected officials just don't represent you. this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. Pretty much this....and you have to realize...Liberal states have a huge say in the Federal government...more so than your conservative states...just by sheer number of delegates they have. Sure..we have the "majority"... But that doesn't really mean shit. |
|
if your. a lazy poor shit bag on welfare, drug dealer, or gay, trans, black, its not your fault, believe lifes unfair, a illegal, liberal, democrat, climate change believer, muslim, rich or a big corporation.( so you can AFFORD politicians in your pocket) .. you will get a fuck load of representation, they cant do enough for you.
if your white, straight, conservative, small business, gun lover, Christian, believe in personal responsibility, hard worker, who does not believe in climate change..... they don't give a fuck about you... except for maybe a vote, and your tax money... pay your taxes and vote.( for a repub or a democrat) ... and fuck you. 
|
|
You get to vote for them, so they have license to do as they please, but the responsibility devolves to you.
Contrast vs monarchies, where an independent executive results in strong, organized counterbalances from citizenry cognizant of their rights and an exec clearly responsible for the outcome of their actions. Tbf, representation is only half of the voice/exit ecology. Not many people will ask for a vote in running a hotel they stay in, and a hotel run by visitors' voting consensus would probably be a poor stay. |
|
We have representation they just don't give a shit and we keep electing the same type of people.
Though, one could argue that the rate of taxes are not proportionate to the level of representation people are given. I am speaking of the problem of the lower income paying very little or nothing in taxes and still getting the same representation of upper middle class and wealthier individuals. This facilitates and promotes a welfare state, and that is why we are screwed.
|
|
Quoted:
Other than my taxes say other wise
I get your point however. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the opposite is true. Now there are people being represented without being taxed. this is a excellent way of putting it.  Other than my taxes say other wise
I get your point however. A better way of putting it might be that those who are not taxed are over represented compared to people who are. |
|
Quoted:
A better way of putting it might be that those who are not taxed are over represented compared to people who are. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the opposite is true. Now there are people being represented without being taxed. this is a excellent way of putting it. Other than my taxes say other wise
I get your point however. A better way of putting it might be that those who are not taxed are over represented compared to people who are. No I totally understood what you meant. I just hated it .
Because its true |
|
Quoted:
Oh, the oppression! Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell yes. If you don't believe it, you have never owned property outside where you live. You get zero say in what happens, yet you get a tax bill for the stuff others vote for. Oh, the oppression! Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. |
|
Quoted:
Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell yes. If you don't believe it, you have never owned property outside where you live. You get zero say in what happens, yet you get a tax bill for the stuff others vote for. Oh, the oppression! Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. "You know what we need? We need a bunch of absentee FIBs voting in our local matters!" Said no Wisconsinite, ever. |
|
Quoted:
Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell yes. If you don't believe it, you have never owned property outside where you live. You get zero say in what happens, yet you get a tax bill for the stuff others vote for. Oh, the oppression! Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. If a municipality wants to let non-resident land/property owners vote in their local elections or tax referendums, they are free to do so. The idea, though, that they should be pressured into doing so by outsiders seems to go against the basic principles of self governance. |
|
Quoted:
Whether or not they claim I am represented, the reps I vote for lie on the ticket then represent themselves and their own portfolios. I'm looking at you GOP. 
Meh it works that way for anyone in politics. Sure they may start off wanting to make a difference, atleast thats what I want to believe. But once they get thrown in the mix with special interest groups I feel like the peoples representation goes right out the window for a select fews agenda. |
|
Quoted:
Meh it works that way for anyone in politics. Sure they may start off wanting to make a difference, atleast thats what I want to believe. But once they get thrown in the mix with special interest groups I feel like the peoples representation goes right out the window for a select fews agenda. Quoted:
Quoted:
Whether or not they claim I am represented, the reps I vote for lie on the ticket then represent themselves and their own portfolios. I'm looking at you GOP.
Meh it works that way for anyone in politics. Sure they may start off wanting to make a difference, atleast thats what I want to believe. But once they get thrown in the mix with special interest groups I feel like the peoples representation goes right out the window for a select fews agenda. If they don't ''go along to get along'', they end up being like Ron Paul, who never got any legislation he authored passed. The moneyed interests will find someone who will go along and they will be your opposition on the next primary ballot. This is what's wrong with corporations and special interest groups donating to candidates. |
|
Quoted:
If they don't ''go along to get along'', they end up being like Ron Paul, who never got any legislation he authored passed. The moneyed interests will find someone who will go along and they will be your opposition on the next primary ballot. This is what's wrong with corporations and special interest groups donating to candidates. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whether or not they claim I am represented, the reps I vote for lie on the ticket then represent themselves and their own portfolios. I'm looking at you GOP.
Meh it works that way for anyone in politics. Sure they may start off wanting to make a difference, atleast thats what I want to believe. But once they get thrown in the mix with special interest groups I feel like the peoples representation goes right out the window for a select fews agenda. If they don't ''go along to get along'', they end up being like Ron Paul, who never got any legislation he authored passed. The moneyed interests will find someone who will go along and they will be your opposition on the next primary ballot. This is what's wrong with corporations and special interest groups donating to candidates. Exactly my point. Which is why I believe we are taxed without representation. Sure on paper its there, but in reality they dont represent the very people they are elected to represent. |
|
Quoted:
Could one say this is true now a days in our country? We have cripling debt that continues to grow. Taxes are wasted annually with no consequence Elected officials do nothing to solve this sort of problem other than to continue to tax while trying to tax more at every opportunity they get. Discuss One could probably find some people that are taxed without representation in our colonies, and in DC as well, but in the several States that is not the case. Just because our representation tends to suck does not mean we lack representation. All representation means in this context is that some significant portion of the people in your area, region, district, town, county, or whatever geographical, communal, or political subdivision get to vote for a representative in a legislative body whose consent is necessary for revenue legislation to be passed if the legislature in question wishes to be able to impose taxes, and ideally that the area or amount of people he represents is not excessively large, although that's not mandatory. Whether or not representation of a high or low quality is placed into office and maintained there or removed is up to the active electorate, however comprised. Good or bad, you still have representation. The British constitutional concept of no taxation without representation, which carried over to America (but is not, strictly speaking, part of our own constitution like it was part of the British one and those of the colonial governments) is fairly limited in meaning, usually not meaning most of what people here seem to take it to mean. So to answer the question, no, we do not have taxation without representation outside of certain parts of the country. We do have institutionally poor representation, though, due to the cap on representatives being as low as it is (and it's not even constitutionally imposed), and due to how districts are drawn, especially in some States. Too many geographic areas are marginalized, and the ratio of people to representatives, or even of the electorate to representatives, is too high, for there to be quality representation. We still have it, it just sucks, and the nature of the majority of the electorate does no favours. |
|
Quoted:
One could probably find some people that are taxed without representation in our colonies, and in DC as well, but in the several States that is not the case. Just because our representation tends to suck does not mean we lack representation. All representation means in this context is that some significant portion of the people in your area, region, district, town, county, or whatever geographical, communal, or political subdivision get to vote for a representative in a legislative body whose consent is necessary for revenue legislation to be passed if the legislature in question wishes to be able to impose taxes, and ideally that the area or amount of people he represents is not excessively large, although that's not mandatory. Whether or not representation of a high or low quality is placed into office and maintained there or removed is up to the active electorate, however comprised. Good or bad, you still have representation. The British constitutional concept of no taxation without representation, which carried over to America (but is not, strictly speaking, part of our own constitution like it was part of the British one and those of the colonial governments) is fairly limited in meaning, usually not meaning most of what people here seem to take it to mean. So to answer the question, no, we do not have taxation without representation outside of certain parts of the country. We do have institutionally poor representation, though, due to the cap on representatives being as low as it is (and it's not even constitutionally imposed), and due to how districts are drawn, especially in some States. Too many geographic areas are marginalized, and the ratio of people to representatives, or even of the electorate to representatives, is too high, for there to be quality representation. We still have it, it just sucks, and the nature of the majority of the electorate does no favours. Quoted:
Quoted:
Could one say this is true now a days in our country? We have cripling debt that continues to grow. Taxes are wasted annually with no consequence Elected officials do nothing to solve this sort of problem other than to continue to tax while trying to tax more at every opportunity they get. Discuss One could probably find some people that are taxed without representation in our colonies, and in DC as well, but in the several States that is not the case. Just because our representation tends to suck does not mean we lack representation. All representation means in this context is that some significant portion of the people in your area, region, district, town, county, or whatever geographical, communal, or political subdivision get to vote for a representative in a legislative body whose consent is necessary for revenue legislation to be passed if the legislature in question wishes to be able to impose taxes, and ideally that the area or amount of people he represents is not excessively large, although that's not mandatory. Whether or not representation of a high or low quality is placed into office and maintained there or removed is up to the active electorate, however comprised. Good or bad, you still have representation. The British constitutional concept of no taxation without representation, which carried over to America (but is not, strictly speaking, part of our own constitution like it was part of the British one and those of the colonial governments) is fairly limited in meaning, usually not meaning most of what people here seem to take it to mean. So to answer the question, no, we do not have taxation without representation outside of certain parts of the country. We do have institutionally poor representation, though, due to the cap on representatives being as low as it is (and it's not even constitutionally imposed), and due to how districts are drawn, especially in some States. Too many geographic areas are marginalized, and the ratio of people to representatives, or even of the electorate to representatives, is too high, for there to be quality representation. We still have it, it just sucks, and the nature of the majority of the electorate does no favours. I appreciate your well said input on the matter. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly my point. Which is why I believe we are taxed without representation. Sure on paper its there, but in reality they dont represent the very people they are elected to represent. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whether or not they claim I am represented, the reps I vote for lie on the ticket then represent themselves and their own portfolios. I'm looking at you GOP.
Meh it works that way for anyone in politics. Sure they may start off wanting to make a difference, atleast thats what I want to believe. But once they get thrown in the mix with special interest groups I feel like the peoples representation goes right out the window for a select fews agenda. If they don't ''go along to get along'', they end up being like Ron Paul, who never got any legislation he authored passed. The moneyed interests will find someone who will go along and they will be your opposition on the next primary ballot. This is what's wrong with corporations and special interest groups donating to candidates. Exactly my point. Which is why I believe we are taxed without representation. Sure on paper its there, but in reality they dont represent the very people they are elected to represent. How can I put this nicely? I think a lot more people should personally visit with their representatives. Not only the ones who represent them in Washington, but also the ones who represent them in their state capitols and at the local level. This is made extremely difficult because of several conditions. First, most of us have to work to pay for this wonderful representation. Next, most of them have helped morph these once part time positions into full time jobs which in the case of our representatives in Washington, they usually just end up moving to Washington, and only come back to the state, or part of the state which they are supposed to represent to campaign, or collect donations, which really aren't donations, but are payments for services rendered. There are probably a lot of what I would call displeased voters. When election time rolls around, you end up having to vote for one scumbag, or another. You can usually tell by listening to their advertisements which are usually dumbed down to around a 4th grade level, since they think most people who will end up voting for them are about that smart, and I would agree. It would be nice to be able to see and ask these candidates questions, not ones especially selected for them by a campaign manager, but ones that come from the actual voters. Ones they have to answer ''off the cuff''. It would also be nice to be able to hold these assholes feet to the fire when it comes to campaign promises. It should be fairly easy to recall these types. |
|
Quoted:
No. The elected officials just don't represent you. In some cases it's actually Yes. Live in one state, work in another? Some take income taxes but don't let you vote. Have 2 homes in the same state? Try to vote in both local elections. Want to live somewhere with "impact fees"? You pay before you can vote...and I'll be you don't want to stop that for future residents. |
|
Ever work in one state and live in another?
If that isn't taxation without representation I don't know what is. And--here one that will keep you up at night.....how do you rectify it? You don't have a representative to complain to. Which btw is why it continues. |
|
Quoted:
No, the opposite is true. Now there are people being represented without being taxed. Exactly! Ending representation without taxation would cure most of our problems. The problems we face today, due to this, would seem to be far worse than the original Colonial irritation. |
|
Quoted:
"You know what we need? We need a bunch of absentee FIBs voting in our local matters!" Said no Wisconsinite, ever. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell yes. If you don't believe it, you have never owned property outside where you live. You get zero say in what happens, yet you get a tax bill for the stuff others vote for. Oh, the oppression! Our ancestors started shooting for a whole lot less. True story though. "You know what we need? We need a bunch of absentee FIBs voting in our local matters!" Said no Wisconsinite, ever. So I should have no say in matters like who the mayor or councilmen are and no say in municipal tax bond elections or schools bond elections for building new stadiums that I have to pay for if my business is across an arbitrary line from where my home is? You know what my only recourse is? Donate money to the candidates who say they will vote for the stuff I want. That is a better process to you? |
|
I'm amazed at the lack of participation in political system. Voter turnout is on the level of 10-30% of eligible voters. If we did a straw poll and asked people who represented them at the local, state and federal level, I'd be surprised if more that 10% know without looking it up.
And then there is the issue of actually reaching out to your representatives. Yes, there are some that ignore your emails, letters, and calls, but I'm surprised at how many of my representatives have actually returned calls to address my concerns. There are town halls and newsletters available, yet very few take the time to attend, or even sign up for legislative newsletters. I imagine that I'll be flamed heavily for talking about lazy citizens. Many prefer to bitch and moan instead of putting out a little effort to be a part of the process. Do things always go your way? Of course not, but you have zero voice if you don't participate. |
|
Quoted:
this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. look at the dumbass gop, they fucking HATE conservative ideas, and actively attempt to destroy anyone who attempts to change things. ( see tea party hate from gop ) its totally broken, and the gov is on auto pilot, with agencies making as many laws as actual politicans.... were ALL pretty much fucked.....I honestly fear what the country will look like in 10 more years. Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The elected officials just don't represent you. this.... special interests, and big business gets plenty of representation. they MAKE the laws and policy now... average joe is a cash cow, that no one gives a shit about. I don't see any way possible to turn it around thru the ballot box. look at the dumbass gop, they fucking HATE conservative ideas, and actively attempt to destroy anyone who attempts to change things. ( see tea party hate from gop ) its totally broken, and the gov is on auto pilot, with agencies making as many laws as actual politicans.... were ALL pretty much fucked.....I honestly fear what the country will look like in 10 more years. Benikto defined the merger of state and corporate power as fascism. It lives here today. Get used to facism with a feudalistic lifestyle. As Herren Hitlery sayst, embrace the suck. |
| I would be more inclined to say that the fact that we have laws that apply only to "little people" while those with substantial means or government ties who commit the same offenses get no sanction is the definition of Tyranny. We are no longer "a nation of laws". Ask Louis Lerner, Eric Holder et al.....who the "law" applies to..... |
|
"No taxation without representation!" was a slogan of the pre-Revolutionary colonists, who wanted to elect representatives to the British parliament. At that stage, therefore, they were loyalists rather than separatists. The drive for full independence came later. The idea of being represented in the British parliament is the opposite of independence.
Anyway, back then, the prevailing political theory in Britain was "virtual representation." Members of parliament were elected from particular districts, yes, but they were supposed to advocate for the interests of the country as a whole rather than the parochial interests of their district. The argument, then, was that an MP from, say, London, would have the interests of the Colonies in mind, equally with those of London. Objectively, the tax burden on the colonists was not unreasonable given the enormous cost of the recently-concluded French and Indian War. This was a pretext rather than a cause of the Revolution. |
