PDA

View Full Version : Taxation without representation




Mesogen
09-19-2007, 09:47 PM
Who said we don't live in a Democracy?

We can democratically declare that a certain population within our borders cannot participate in the democracy.

No, DC, you may not have representation. Now pay your taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801158.html?hpid=moreheadlines


Republican lawmakers yesterday blocked the Senate from taking up the D.C. vote bill, a potentially fatal setback for the District's most promising effort in years to get a full member of Congress.

The vote was on a motion to simply consider the bill. Fifty-seven senators voted in favor, three short of the 60 needed to proceed. Without enough support to vault the Senate's procedural hurdles, the bill is expected to stall this year and possibly next year.

Ah! But would Ron Paul support it? Probably not. He'd probably support the position of Mitch McConnell.


"I opposed this bill because it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional," McConnell said in a statement. "If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, they have a remedy: amend the Constitution."Yeah. Ok Mitch. I'm sure your love for the constitution prevented you from voting for the Patriot Act. Let's see, you're name isn't Russ Feingold, so I'd say that you DID vote for the Patriot Act. How bout delegating the authority to declare war to the president. You were against that, right? No? Hmm, so maybe Mitch's strict constructionism is simply convenient for now.


In addition to voicing legal concerns, opponents were wary of the bill's potential political repercussions. Some Republicans feared that the measure could eventually lead to the addition of two full D.C. senators, who probably would be Democrats.You mean they wouldn't be Libertarians, Greens, or Independents? Guess not.

Dustancostine
09-19-2007, 09:50 PM
I am against D.C. getting Senators, but I would be fine with them getting Congressmen based on population, same for the territories. Maybe they could lump all of the territories together and let them have congressmen based on population and two senators.

Of course you would have to amend the Constitution.

Kregener
09-19-2007, 09:53 PM
News flash.

We do live in a democracy.

We are SUPPOSED to live in a Republic...

"Taxation without representation"? Every day since 1865.

ChrisM
09-19-2007, 10:00 PM
Simply put... DC isn't a State. It's property of the Federal government and it has no autonomy or sovereignty as States have. If we give DC representation, we would therefore (justly) have to give every territory and commonwealth representation.

In addition, the reason our capital is not within a State is to keep it politically neutral in Federal politics. That was Washington's logic, anyway.

cjhowe
09-19-2007, 10:06 PM
Simply put... DC isn't a State. It's property of the Federal government and it has no autonomy or sovereignty as States have. If we give DC representation, we would therefore (justly) have to give every territory and commonwealth representation.

In addition, the reason our capital is not within a State is to keep it politically neutral in Federal politics. That was Washington's logic, anyway.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Hook
09-19-2007, 10:27 PM
The only solution is to get rid of the income tax.

Hook
09-19-2007, 10:28 PM
You may also have noticed that kids 16-17.99999 years old get taxed but can't vote either. I think they should remove taxation on minors as well.

fsk
09-19-2007, 11:00 PM
All forms of taxation are immoral, even if a majority vote for them.

Hook
09-19-2007, 11:15 PM
All forms of taxation are immoral, even if a majority vote for them.

True, but there are varying degrees of immorality.

fsk
09-20-2007, 11:12 AM
What does "degrees of immorality" mean? If someone steals 1% of your labor or 50% of your labor or 95%, aren't those all immoral?

Are you saying that stealing less is better than stealing more?

Why not say that all stealing is immoral, no matter how big or how small?

Dustancostine
09-20-2007, 11:24 AM
Morality is not relative!!!!!

nexalacer
09-20-2007, 12:02 PM
True, but there are varying degrees of immorality.

Wrong.