Beliefs (3): No representation without taxation
I agree with the commonly-held belief that you shouldn't be taxed unless you are represented on the body that is taxing you. The Boston Tea Party was a worthy cause. However I also believe in the slightly less popular obverse argument. Why should you get a vote if you don't pay tax?
Yes I know this unfairly disenfranchises women, who often are bringing up children rather than paying tax. Maybe there could be some exceptions to my rule but I'm talking about a general principle here.
One Comment
→
think about these:
1. for a leadership structure that is NOT supported by tax revenues (such as petro-dollar economies). What relationship can the political class ever have with the electorate? In many ways “no taxation without represenatation” can also work as “no representation without taxation” : the electorate should demand to be taxed so as to align the interests of electorate and elected. The Scandinavian countries that have purposefully placed their oil revenues into separate trusts are very good examples of a concerted effort to not pollute the relationship with the the electorate.
2. A democracy is incredibly unfair to those who don’t have a vote, but will be affected by today’s political decisions (such as children) and far too biased to those who do have a vote but will not be faced with the results of those same decisions (such as the aged). In other words the democratic process undermines rational Ricardian permanent income hypothoses.
My proposal to (2) would be to give children the vote – or at least give parents additional votes to represent each chile they have (yes yes I know this raises lots of practical issues – just bear with me…). Think of the difference in political behaviour, and the type and quality of policy decisions if this was the case. It would correctly shift voting alignments in favour of our own natural economic alignments.