The Americans who led our war of independence complained that they were not electing members to the House of Commons, which had tried to tax them. “No taxation without representation” became a popular slogan, and is still often quoted. But do Americans really believe this generalization?
Were women subject to tax before American women got the right to vote? I believe they were not exempt.
Black people, who were no longer slaves after the Civil War, still had to pay property taxes, even though in many states they were prevented from voting by legislation and/or by sheer terror directed at those who dared to vote. And when the income tax was passed, decades before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they had to pay it too.
Today, children must pay income tax if their income is large enough to be taxable. And if they have a job, children too young to vote will have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their wages.
Likewise, people in prison remain subject to income taxes even though they are not eligible to vote in most states. And in many states, even ex-cons are not allowed to vote, but must pay all taxes due.
Noncitizens residing in the United States legally or illegally must pay taxes but are not allowed to vote. “Dreamers,” who were brought to the U.S. as young children without federal permission, must pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes but are not eligible for Social Security and Medicare. And of course they can’t vote.
Americans who travel to other parts of the country often face state and local taxes – on hotel rooms, car rentals, etc. – that are deliberately targeted at them, perhaps precisely because they cannot vote in those areas.
Given these facts, it’s hard to believe that Americans actually believe in “no taxation without representation.”
But it is equally difficult to see what could be done to bring the current facts into line with the popular slogan.
One possible solution would be to allow everyone who pays taxes to vote, whether children, non-citizens, prisoners or former prisoners. While something could be said for allowing all adults to vote without regard to citizenship or imprisonment, it would probably be unwise to extend this right to children.
It might be possible to allow eligible parents to cast additional votes on behalf of their minor children, which would, in a sense, provide representation for the children. But it would complicate the conduct of the elections and be a difficult political sell.
There are reasons of principle why the right to vote should not be deprived as a punishment for a crime, but unfortunately the Constitution implicitly allows this and so a politically difficult constitutional amendment may be necessary. Even in states where initiatives have given former prisoners the right to vote, the measure can be sabotaged by state legislatures, as happened recently in Florida.
Another approach to eliminating the conflict between our actions and the old slogan could be to amend the tax laws to exempt people who are not eligible to vote from paying taxes.
But this would create enormous opportunities for people to avoid taxes by transferring income or property to their minor children. It would turn the aliens, legal or ‘illegal’, into privileged people. It would be a reward for crime, which would contradict the idea that criminals should be punished, not rewarded.
Overall, the inconsistency between the slogan “no tax without representation” and our actual behavior is likely to stay with us indefinitely. So we have to conclude that although the slogan sounds good, we don’t really believe in it.
“Actions rather than words.”
— Paul F. deLespinasse is professor emeritus of political science and computer science at Adrian College. He can be reached at pdeles@proaxis.com.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Telegram: Paul deLespinasse: ‘No tax without representation’?
