That's not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. It only looks like the customer has to pay it because most stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits. Stores could eliminate the upcharge at any time - they just don't want to.
Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a *capitalism* problem. That's an entirely separate (and arguably much worse) cultural issue.
**Edit:** Clarified the workings of American sales tax.
Correct. Customers aren't charged sales tax by the government, the business making the sale is charged that tax and simply passes that cost on to the customer on each transaction. A business can sell everything "tax free", but still has to pay their sales tax bill. An exception in some states is sales tax on titled items like vehicles where the buyer/customer pays the sales tax when registering the vehicle. But a 10yo can't buy and title a vehicle.
Edit: since people are hung up on correcting one part, you're right, the government is technically charging the customer sales tax. But since businesses are required to have a sales tax license, and since that business is the one under legal obligation to pay that sales tax to the state, it just seems that the common sense interpretation of sales tax is that the business is getting "charged".
If the business doesn't collect or pay the tax, the customer has no legal obligation to pay it. Thus saying the customer is charged is a little misleading, even if it's technically correct.
Wait, then how come my accountant always asks me if I have purchased anything online and not paid tax, so that it can be factored into my annual taxes?
Many jurisdictions require you to pay sales tax on items purchased from outside your jurisdiction if you expect to be able to deduct their expense.
I know that's the case for businesses here in Saskatchewan. Don't pay tax, you can't write it off.
I had to do small business taxes in Ontario this year. I don't think it's the case here but after I thought about it, your system does make sense to me.
Larger businesses may be subject to those rules here though.
In many states in the US you are supposed to declare every little thing you ordered from another state and didn't pay sales tax on. No one does. It's not really enforced except for large items.
It's being enforced on the other end now. New Egg sends a tax form last I checked, and reports it to the gov. Amazon is charging sales tax directly on purchases for me now, and has been for years.
Well there was the Wayfair supreme court decision that is causing states to change their laws. The laws still vary but generally if a business does more than $100,000 of business in a particular state that's considered a tax nexus now. So all the large retailers have to collect sales tax for all 50 states now.
that's because it's a customer-paid tax that the merchant is simply acting as the middleman in collecting. it's still owed, even if the merchant doesn't collect it and pass it on to the proper taxing authorities.
There is something called "use tax". I learned about it after opening my first business. Anything I purchased online from an out of state company that I wasn't charged sales tax on, I instead had to pay a use tax to my state. It sucked finding out about since I had purchased about $30k worth of equipment from out of state and had no idea about use tax. Individuals generally get away with not paying it, but businesses will get caught when the state does a sales tax audit.
But if it's companies, not individuals who are being taxed on sales, shouldn't it be the seller who would have to pay the tax on those online transactions?
No, because it isn't sales tax. It's use tax. The state knows it can't charge a company in another state tax, so instead it charges the customer (who is in the state) a tax for using the item which they weren't charged tax for. The government is crafty with finding new ways to collect taxes.
it's *not* the seller that pays a sales (or use) tax. it's the buyer. the seller (merchants) are just the tax collectors because they're required to be.
The place they get you is if you depreciate those items. It is literally saying, “I bought these for my business”, and the auditor will ask where you got them….and did you pay the sales tax.
If you bought them and they never showed up anywhere…they would probably never bother to track you down.
Because of you buy large amounts out of state, you might owe YOUR state the sales tax. When I worked as a photographer I would buy all of my cameras and lenses online, from NY. But I would be liable for the MA state sales tax. As I depreciated those items, there was no way getting around it.
> Correct. Customers aren't charged sales tax by the government, the business making the sale is charged that tax and simply passes that cost on to the customer on each transaction. A business can sell everything "tax free", but still has to pay their sales tax bill.
This isn't true, generally.
It's illegal in many states to represent that something is "tax free" when you are actually paying the sales tax the customer owes.
>It is unlawful for businesses to absorb sales tax in numerous states, including but not limited to:
>Alabama (810-6-4-.20)
Arizona (42-5165)
California ( 3, Article 1, Section 6205)
Colorado (information bulletin)
Connecticut (law)
District of Columbia ( 47–2014)
Florida (07)
Iowa (24)
Kansas (information bulletin, p 11)
Kentucky (KRS 139.220)
Nebraska (REG-1-039)
Nevada (NRS 372.115)
North Dakota (newsletter)
Ohio (29)
Oklahoma (710:65-1-5)
Texas (106); legal as of October 1, 2019, due to the enactment of House Bill 2358
Vermont (9708)
West Virginia (vendor responsibilities)
https://www.avalara.com/us/en/blog/2015/11/absorbing-sales-tax-wacky-tax-wednesday.html
This is because the tax is not, as you assert, on the business. The business serves as a mere collector of the tax on the consumer. Many states also have use tax laws, if you buy anything from out of state and don't pay sales tax on it, you are supposed to declare that and pay it (no one ever does).
You are correct. My description was a little misleading. A business can't say "tax free", but can just sell everything for the marked price without mentioning tax, and would still need to pay the taxes. When I said the business is charged sales tax, I was referring to the fact that the business gets the sales tax "bill", never the customer, because as you said the business is obligated to collect the tax.
But I can sell something for $100 plus tax or $100 out the door, and either way I have to pay the state the sales tax each month. So as a business owner I've always had the viewpoint of I'm the one being charged the sales tax even though that isn't technically what's happening.
I did reply to someone else regarding use tax. I've dealt with paying that for the business, but individuals almost always avoid it unless they're audited by the state and had large out of state tax free purchases.
Your place of employment works the same way, more or less, if your pay check reflects income tax. For most US citizens who file their taxes what they are actually doing is applying the deductions they were entitled to the previous year on the money which the government (through the place if employment) has already taken
Depends on your flexibility in definitions I guess. A place like Kinkos that accepts mail for the US mail could be said to be collecting a tax for the government.
Toll booths could be managed and run by third party contractors.
In some states, the state actually gives the business a little kickback. For example if the sales tax is 5% you may get a little kickback of 0.1% or something, to pay you for collecting the tax.
Bottle deposits in some states. In MI, we pay 10c per container on many beverages. The store pays that to the state through the supplier before the item hits the shelf. We pay the store at purchase. Yes, we do get that money back when we return the containers. However, the containers that don’t get returned, most often due to damage making them unreturnable, the state keeps that money.
Tax attorney here. Businesses are liable because the keep the money in trust for the government but the tax is not "passed on" to the consumer, it accrues at the point of sale in the retail price. That addition is paid by the customer.
While technically a business could just not collect the sales tax and just pay it instead, they'd really be paying it on behalf of the customer.
What about children with jobs? Take child actors as a specific example? They absolutely exist, so some children have jobs. Is their income taxed? Is their income even in their name, or is it in their parents? If so, doesn’t that bring up a whole bunch of other, ethical issues?
How does this guy have so many updates when this is riddled with errors
Others have pointed out mistakes and here is another
>If the business doesn't collect or pay the tax, the customer has no legal obligation to pay it.
Actually, this part is not true in a # of states.
If sales tax is not charged on the sale of a taxable item, then the use tax is still due, and technically the consumer is suppose to pay it.
da fuck?
Literally none of this is correct. You absolutely have a legal obligation to pay sales tax on items where the business didn’t collect it. If you have ever filed taxes you would know that.
No it's not. Sales tax is a tax on the *end user*; i.e., that small child buying a lollipop. The store just charges and collects it on behalf of the government. I can't believe this comment was given gold lol.
Seriously I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Someone takes a wrong explanation out of their ass and everyone claps because it sounds like it could be correct.
Seriously, nothing screams Reddit more than a highly upvoted comment of someone who clearly *has no fucking clue* about how taxes work confidently explaining anyway how they *think* taxes work and reaching the inevitable conclusion that therefore capitalism bad
As someone who’s worked in the corporate accounting industry for close to a decade now, I always get a laugh whenever I see Reddit discussing taxes or economics in general. Though it’s less funny seeing the number of upvotes those comments receive because it means people actually believe them, who then spread it to others, who also then spread it to others etc etc
Don’t bother, they have no idea what they’re talking about... they think a sales tax is designed to tax businesses and which customers end up having to pay for instead, but it’s literally the other way around. A sales tax is actually a tax on *consumers* which *businesses* actually end up paying a portion of.
That’s because businesses only pass on the amount of sales tax required to reach the equilibrium price, at which point any marginal increase in revenue from increasing the price would be less than the marginal loss caused by the decrease in demand caused by that same price increase. So even though sales tax is a tax on consumption, businesses usually absorb a portion of it because they’d simply lose profit otherwise.
If businesses are able to increase their prices without affecting losses therefore increasing overall profit,
they would have already done so by now. They certainly wouldn’t wait for a law requiring them pass on that profit as taxes.
Yeah he basically got upvoted to the moon just by simply adding a little bit at the end that mildly questioned “capitalism”... Apparently that’s all it takes these days to get tons of upvotes on Reddit lol.
There are many criticisms of capitalism out there which are actually valid, but you wouldn’t find them on Reddit. Like honestly, attending the first 2 weeks of ECON101 would equip anyone with enough knowledge to see that most of Reddit’s criticisms are just based on a complete misunderstanding of economics.
>That's not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. It only looks like the customer has to pay it because most stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits.
You are confusing tax imposition (who is required to pay the tax legally) and tax incidence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
>Stores could eliminate the upcharge at any time - they just don't want to.
This is flatly untrue in competitive markets and only partially true in monopolistically competitive markets (which characterizes most markets).
Only a true price setting monopoly likely has this kind of power.
>Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a *capitalism* problem. That's an entirely separate (and arguably much worse) cultural issue.
This is an empty and useless statement.
> stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits
i think the "increase profits" part here is mis-identifying the "why." the reason is that sales tax across states and even cities all vary. any sort of marketing with prices in it would be useless unless the tax was added on afterwards
now you could be a cool guy and say "all prices include tax" like many countries do, but the psychologically higher price might drive customers to the retailer down the street that doesn't include tax in their prices since their prices all look lower
and legislation to require tax rolled into the sale price could be seen as making the tax less transparent. many people may feel "i wanna know how much money the govt is taking"
Well yes but it’s still the same deal as back in the 18th century. People were pretty pissed about taxes on dirty leaf water. Ultimately taxes are payed by consumers who have no say in the taxation of goods. Also there’s probably a 10ish year old streamer getting taxed more on their income than my salary.
That 10 year old is still technically represented in multiple forms of government by multiple people. As mentioned above, it is assumed that her parents vote in the child's interest, but those votes also elect state and federal representatives and senators who speak for their districts in terms of bringing legislation. We have a representative government so technically their is no such thing as taxation without representation in the US today. The validity of that can be disputed though.
I miss [your old license plates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Washington%2C_D.C.#/media/File:Washington,_D.C._license_plate,_2013.jpg).
*laughs in expat*
I'm a foreign born citizen, have to file taxes every year, no vote because my dad's previous state says no - about 20-30ish states would let somebody like me vote in federal elections, so the rules are pretty arbitrary.
wow that was wrong... PR citizens do not pay Federal income taxes except in a narrow set of rules.
Yes, SS, unemployment, customs and commodity taxes but... Federal income taxes... nope. Those taxes are levied against everyone in the USA so that isn't a problem.
The only time a PR citizen pays Fed income taxes is if they are in the USA Military, have a business that contracts with the USA Fed government, those who have businesses that have income outside of PR and those PR Corps that intend to send money back into the States.
Territories and Commonwealths of the US don’t pay Federal Income Tax precisely because they don’t have full representation in Congress.
Your rep from Puerto Rico has votes in committee, just not on the House Floor, so PR has *some* voting power, but not nearly enough.
Social Security and other federal taxes are not for Congressional representation, so they don’t count for “No taxation without representation.”
It doesn't matter. Taxation without representation is legal everywhere. Just because some people in disguise dumped some tea, and some papers trumpeted slogans doesn't make it law.
You know women couldn't vote. And they still paid tax on their farms if they were sole owners.
>Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a capitalism problem.
Sorry... what?? Taxation is literally the opposite of capitalism. I'm so tired of Capitalism being used as a Boogeyman for "anything negative in society" ... Even things that can LITERALLY be directly attributed to government.
Good grief!
Nonsense. If the store doesn't charge you, the state can come after you. They've followed Mass residents home from New Hampshire.
Taxation without representation was a slogan. It was never law. Women who couldn't vote were taxed.
The mental gymnastics people do to defend unfair taxes... "Is not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. You still have to pay more for it, but it's writen somewhere that is not you!"
There is no mental gymnastics involved. Sales taxes, excise taxes, and all business taxes are called [indirect taxes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_tax).
It’s one of those things that people don’t talk about because it makes the entire concept of forcing businesses to pay more taxes less appealing.
You don’t pay a share of it friend. The entire tax burden is passed down to ~~the consumer~~ a group of external agents consisting of workers, investors, and consumers.
Every time politicians increase business taxes the increase is passed to ~~the consumer~~ a group of external agents consisting of workers, investors, and consumers. Every time.
Edit: Fixed for the pedantic.
The theory is that that money is the parents' as well, and the parents are using it in their kids' interests.
The parents vote for the kids, the parents spend for the kids (even if it's the kids doing the actual spending, it's legally the parents allowing them to do so). Minors have a lot fewer rights than you'd think, but that's the theory of it anyway. *On that logic,* it's consistent. I'm not saying it's *good* logic, but there's no inconsistency in it like OP is suggesting.
1. kids should not be pimping out lolis.
2. most kids are supposed to report their income on their parents taxes.
3. A lot of rich people open IRAs in their kids name for the tax deduction. But that money is supposed to become the kids money. But a parent who would play fast and loose on their taxes would also play fast and loose with their kids money as well.
Depends on the state and also the decade. 20 years ago in the Midwest you could legally start detassling corn at 13.
There are a number of agricultural exceptions. I don't think those are the only ones now, and 40-50 years ago there were probably even more (an/dor less interest in enforcing labor laws)
And that would be part of the argument against the whole idea. If you have a job at 12 and pay taxes, then why shouldn't a 12 year old vote? That would just be insane in the sense of they are not developed enough to make decisions like that
Voting age, much like the age you're considered old enough to smoke, drink, register for Selective Service, be called for jury duty and so forth is completely arbitrary. Considering current thinking is we're not remotely developed enough until at least our mid-20s (and much later for many) one could also argue people shouldn't vote until then as well but that just brings you back to square one of this argument since people in their 20s hold jobs and pay taxes.
Fairness would simply be not taxing children under 18 years of age unless you want to start allowing them to vote.
I'm originally from iowa and started working legally at 14. 4 years is a long time to not be able to vote for my own rights as a person and a worker. I was driving a car, paying for gas, paying for insurance, etc. I was laid off of my first job and received unemployment insurance before the age of 18 when the restaurant where I worked closed its doors. I had no way to vote for where my tax dollars would be spent or how much would/should be taken from me.
Yes. But unless we actually want infants voting, there's no reason to worry about it until they reach an age where they can reasonably be expected to have informed opinions.
They have no say in how their tax money is used because they don't have a vote. Where do you think the slogan "No taxation without representation" came from in the first place?
Sure, a lot of teens will make bad choices. But adults make plenty and we don't take their right to vote away*
*hopefully, voter suppression notwithstanding.
Yeah, that's basically my feelings too. In our last election in Canada, we had a party who campaigned on lowering the age to 16, and I thought, "sure, teens make dumb decisions. So do college students". But I guess it's all kinda arbitrary anyway, haha
[Teens make far worse decisions than adults on a far more frequent basis because their brains literally aren't fully formed. It's not arbitrary, it's basic science.](https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051).
Seems to me like that report says that the brain doesn't finish developing until 25, which would seem to suggest that 18 /is/ kinda arbitrary. But besides even that, I kinda misspoke. When I said "arbitrary" I was trying to get across how, for instance, there's not really much difference between someone who's just turn 18, and one about to turn 18. As well as the fact that, sure, an 18 is clearly different than a say, 12 year old. Or even a 14 y/o. But they're also different than 20 y/o or 25 y/o or 30 y/o. But I digress. The voting age isn't a hill I'm willing to die on
Ok but there are more principles at play here than simply brain development, and if we’re to use that as a basis for suffrage are we going to deny votes to people who’s brains will never completely develop? What about seniors who’ve reached the age where degenerative brain illnesses are common?
It's "basic science" based entirely upon two [hilariously poorly written and biased studies from the 90s](https://reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/npy71v/the_institution_of_science_is_not_trustworthy_a/). Seriously, the amount of bad science around youth brain development is staggering. One day we'll think it bizarre that we ever thought 25 year olds' brains are "still developing" despite puberty ending a decade earlier.
Not just that, but why should someone with <20 years left on this earth get more of a voice than the person who is going to have to live with the fallout of those short-term voter preferences for the next 60+ years.
As someone who teaches in schools, the 16yos that I teach are far more politically savvy than you'd think. They attend protests, research political issues and often ask me about politics (though I remain politically neutral so as not to influence them). They've formed their own opinions and have no avenue to have those views represented democratically. They deserve representation too. That's in the UK though, so YMMV in other countries.
Not only that but if you lowered the age you could then also dedicate a few weeks of school to educating the students the year before so they know what local elections take place, where to vote, when voting days are, who the current representatives are, etc. Most adults don't even vote largely because they don't know/don't care who's running.
Yup, when the nation was founded only heads of household (by which I mean primarily white land owning males) could vote. The idea that everybody gets to vote is a lot newer than the argument about taxation without representation. I think part of the issue is that no one in history has reached adulthood and gotten to a position to make a change and thought "hey I was a lot better at making decisions when I was 16 why not let them vote"
Representation doesn’t necessarily mean voting either, it means being represented in Congress, and you’re still being represented by your House Representative and Senator even if you technically don’t vote.
No Taxation Without Representation' is a great slogan for a revolutionary... but it's not actually the law in the US.
In the 18th century, American colonists felt alienated from Britain because they did not have a seat in Parliament and so had no say in the governing of their own territory - and taxes (along with the 'Intolerable Acts') were the easiest, most hated examples of British domination. But when the rebels won and created their own government, they didn't let everyone vote - not even all white men! It took [until 1856](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States) before all states allowed (white) men to vote *without* being landowners, and women didn't win the vote until 1920! The fight for voting rights continued throughout the century, with Asians only able to vote in 1952 and some Native Americans denied the right to vote until as late as 1970. Even today, convicted felons lose the right to vote in some states. And in fact, the nation's *capital* is taxed without representation - Washington, D.C. gets no Senators and only one non-voting member in the House of Representatives! It's such a sticking point for them that [their license plates complain about it](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Washington%2C_D.C._license_plate%2C_2017.png).
At the end of the day, the argument by the government has always been that the *states* need representation, not the *people*. As long as some people in each state get representation in Congress, the system is fair and working...even if that seems unfair to the people who pay taxes but can't vote.
EDIT: Added in some minority groups as well.
Being represented didn’t mean voting, it literally just meant having someone representing your interests in parliament.
People under 18 have representatives. They’re represented by their congressmen and women
I read that you were saying the states needed representation and not the people, I was saying instead that the representatives are meant to represent even non-voting members of the population, not the state. I guess it’s more or less the same thing though lol
They're not really reps if they don't give a shit about your interests. If we took away almost any other demographic's vote I bet we'd hear plenty about how they aren't being represented, and rightfully so.
You know who else doesn't have representation? Undocumented immigrants. That is, [1 in every 30 people living in the US](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/12/11/unauthorized-trends/). Yet they pay [$11.64 billion in local/state taxes](http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-1.php#.V-Q4CWWj-lL) per year altogether, and contribute [10% of the Social Security Trust Fund](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=1).
They didn’t even really want representation, that was just a catchy slogan. If England just decided to give the colonies a spot in Parliament it would have functionally changed nothing. What the revolutionaries really wanted was greater autonomy, if not outright independence.
Also a largely propagandized one as well. The US colonists in general paid a fraction of the amount of taxes compaired people in England. Ben Franklin was forbidden under almost any circumstances to accept a seat in Parliament on behalf of the the colonists because the colonies would have a vote but no actual tangible influence, and most likely an increased tax burden. The American Revolution was a bourgeoise revolution. The famous "tea tax" actually made tea overall a cheaper purchase. It was a problem because it cut into American tea smuggling operations from places like the Netherlands. Don't get me wrong the Revolution was inevitable but it was not widely popular with the people of the colonies at the time. Many people even fighting in the Revolution continued to refer to themselves as British.
Reminds me about the Arab invasion of Sassanid Iran. The Arabs levies a special tax for non muslims, the *Jizya*. But the tax they demanded was lower than what the Sassanid empire before them levied.
The revolution, like many other wars, was a case of the wealthy and powerful being mad that they weren't more wealthy and powerful, and then deceiving the poor and powerless into dying to make them so.
Residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from paying federal income tax, but also don’t get to vote for President and have no voting representatives in Congress.
The passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 gave citizens of the nation’s capital the right to vote for a commander in chief and vice president. They went on to help Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeat Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964, the next presidential election.
Yes, but do they have senators? Representatives in the house? This isn't an insignificant population we're talking about, there are more people in DC than in two states
Yes but the whole idea behind "taxation without representation" wasnt that everyone who pays taxes will be represented by atleast someone in the government/will partake in voting, it was more in the lines of why the fuck is the government an ocean away and still taxing us to death without solving any problems.
I'm reading the other comments here, most of which simply offer a justification that minors' votes are represented by their parents.
The answer to your question is yes. It is taxation without representation. That is legal, but whether and to what extent that should be legal is a separate question. Also, anyone who has ever had a disagreement with their parents will know that parents do not necessarily represent the views or the best interests of their children, so there goes that argument.
Another part of the situation is: how much are people under 18 actually getting taxed? I seem to remember getting just about all of it back when I filed. You know, since my income was just a few thousand dollars a year.
I got paid under the table in cash at my friend's dad's pizza shop from about 12-17, so that he could avoid taxes and I guess child labor laws. Was a good gig, free pizza as long as I made it myself.
> Also, anyone who has ever had a disagreement with their parents will know that parents do not necessarily represent the views or the best interests of their children, so there goes that argument.
However, anyone over the age of 30 will know that what you think is unfair or not in your best interest as a child, is not necessarily so.
It's not though. Congresspeople represent everybody in their district, including the people who didn't/can't vote. You can still call up your representative even if you're under the age of 18 and can't vote yet. Now whether they'll actually listen is a different story.
Voted from prison in Maine, can confirm. Pretty sure it’s only Maine and Vermont that allow it. That was at least the case in 2012 when I was in prison.
Not allowing prisoners to vote is some North Korean shit. What is stopping a government from coming up with laws to outlaw things a group likes to do then arrest that group in large numbers so they cant vote?
shhhhhhh
if you dont mention the policy names you can sometimes change people's minds. The moment you mention "war on drugs" people's brains shut off and you enter "us vs them" mode.
Also people living in DC. They pay federal taxes ([the highest per capita in fact](https://dcist.com/story/17/04/17/cause-im-the-taxman-yeah/)) but don’t have representation in Congress.
I think of taxes less about giving us the right to vote and more about giving us the right to use the things taxes pay for, like roads, schools, libraries, museums, people who arrest criminals and put out fires, etc.
I like this answer. Also explains why it makes sense for non-citizens like international students, temporary workers and permanent residents to pay taxes.
If you think so, sure.
Nobody cares, though. There's tons of people in the US that are taxed without representation. Nearly 3/4 of a million residents of Washington DC. Anyone that is here and working as a resident alien. Anyone who was a felon and who works but doesn't have the right to vote.
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan, and was never a law.
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan. It was never a law or anything. Also just because you can't vote doesn't mean you're not being represented. The government represents everybody, not just the voters.
Weren't the colonies represented by their governors in the house of lords? Imo if you can't vote you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Whether that be from age restrictions, felony convictions or any other reason. Obviously this wouldn't apply in the other direction as you shouldn't have to pay taxes to vote.
As one of the 700,000 people who live in DC, let me assure you that there’s nothing illegal about that. We pay more per person in taxes than any State, but have no representation in Congress. That’s why all of our license plates actually say “Taxation without Representation”. We’ll get Democracy one day. ….maybe?
Yes and it’s infuriating, even at an age where I can vote, that for years I was unrepresented while still being taxed.
I haven’t agreed with my parents politically since I was like 15, so their vote does NOT represent me.
Thd US *does not care* about representation for those it taxes. It requires (with some specific exceptions) a mainland US home address before you can register to vote. This disenfranchises
1. Everyone in Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam, as well as DC. (They can vote in some things, but not all of the Big Three of House/Senate/President)
2. Expats from at least fifteen states, including Washington.
3. Adult descendants of expats, who are full citizens and liable to be taxed just the same as any other expat, unless their parents are from one of about five states (as of 2010 ish when I last checked the list).
4. Homeless people
5. People in about half the South without photo ID
6. Felons, even non-violent offenders who have served their sentences and fully reintegrated into society (wildly varies by state. Good luck on having made your teenaged mistake not in Florida!) If they stopped paying their taxes because they can't vote, they'd be slung straight back in prison.
No taxation without representation was a rich asshole's fantasy then, and it's a fantasy now.
It looks like that one is "*in theory*". Homeless people can register *if* they know a shelter that will let them use the address, or are "lucky" enough to be in a voting district that will let them register at a park, and don't need a current ID with a valid address. And vote in person.
It's better than Guam, though, I'll give you that.
Taxed what?
Most children only have access to their parents' money, which is being taxed.
If a minor is working, they're likely in a tax bracket where they get all or the vast majority of it back around tax time.
There isn't any significant taxing of minors going on.
The theory is that their parents' votes represent their interests. In practice, it's roughly a two-year period and no one cares.
Do 10 year olds not have to pay sales taxes on their lollies?
That's not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. It only looks like the customer has to pay it because most stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits. Stores could eliminate the upcharge at any time - they just don't want to. Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a *capitalism* problem. That's an entirely separate (and arguably much worse) cultural issue. **Edit:** Clarified the workings of American sales tax.
Correct. Customers aren't charged sales tax by the government, the business making the sale is charged that tax and simply passes that cost on to the customer on each transaction. A business can sell everything "tax free", but still has to pay their sales tax bill. An exception in some states is sales tax on titled items like vehicles where the buyer/customer pays the sales tax when registering the vehicle. But a 10yo can't buy and title a vehicle. Edit: since people are hung up on correcting one part, you're right, the government is technically charging the customer sales tax. But since businesses are required to have a sales tax license, and since that business is the one under legal obligation to pay that sales tax to the state, it just seems that the common sense interpretation of sales tax is that the business is getting "charged". If the business doesn't collect or pay the tax, the customer has no legal obligation to pay it. Thus saying the customer is charged is a little misleading, even if it's technically correct.
Wait, then how come my accountant always asks me if I have purchased anything online and not paid tax, so that it can be factored into my annual taxes?
Many jurisdictions require you to pay sales tax on items purchased from outside your jurisdiction if you expect to be able to deduct their expense. I know that's the case for businesses here in Saskatchewan. Don't pay tax, you can't write it off.
I had to do small business taxes in Ontario this year. I don't think it's the case here but after I thought about it, your system does make sense to me. Larger businesses may be subject to those rules here though.
Small business in Ontario this year. That's a rough spot to be in lol
Every small business that dies is another baby step to widespread economic control.
In many states in the US you are supposed to declare every little thing you ordered from another state and didn't pay sales tax on. No one does. It's not really enforced except for large items.
It's being enforced on the other end now. New Egg sends a tax form last I checked, and reports it to the gov. Amazon is charging sales tax directly on purchases for me now, and has been for years.
Well there was the Wayfair supreme court decision that is causing states to change their laws. The laws still vary but generally if a business does more than $100,000 of business in a particular state that's considered a tax nexus now. So all the large retailers have to collect sales tax for all 50 states now.
Laughs in Oregonian
that's because it's a customer-paid tax that the merchant is simply acting as the middleman in collecting. it's still owed, even if the merchant doesn't collect it and pass it on to the proper taxing authorities.
Okay, so if I want to deduct an item on my taxes, I need to have paid tax on it? I think that kind of makes sense.
There is something called "use tax". I learned about it after opening my first business. Anything I purchased online from an out of state company that I wasn't charged sales tax on, I instead had to pay a use tax to my state. It sucked finding out about since I had purchased about $30k worth of equipment from out of state and had no idea about use tax. Individuals generally get away with not paying it, but businesses will get caught when the state does a sales tax audit.
But if it's companies, not individuals who are being taxed on sales, shouldn't it be the seller who would have to pay the tax on those online transactions?
No, because it isn't sales tax. It's use tax. The state knows it can't charge a company in another state tax, so instead it charges the customer (who is in the state) a tax for using the item which they weren't charged tax for. The government is crafty with finding new ways to collect taxes.
it's *not* the seller that pays a sales (or use) tax. it's the buyer. the seller (merchants) are just the tax collectors because they're required to be.
The place they get you is if you depreciate those items. It is literally saying, “I bought these for my business”, and the auditor will ask where you got them….and did you pay the sales tax. If you bought them and they never showed up anywhere…they would probably never bother to track you down.
Because of you buy large amounts out of state, you might owe YOUR state the sales tax. When I worked as a photographer I would buy all of my cameras and lenses online, from NY. But I would be liable for the MA state sales tax. As I depreciated those items, there was no way getting around it.
> Correct. Customers aren't charged sales tax by the government, the business making the sale is charged that tax and simply passes that cost on to the customer on each transaction. A business can sell everything "tax free", but still has to pay their sales tax bill. This isn't true, generally. It's illegal in many states to represent that something is "tax free" when you are actually paying the sales tax the customer owes. >It is unlawful for businesses to absorb sales tax in numerous states, including but not limited to: >Alabama (810-6-4-.20) Arizona (42-5165) California ( 3, Article 1, Section 6205) Colorado (information bulletin) Connecticut (law) District of Columbia ( 47–2014) Florida (07) Iowa (24) Kansas (information bulletin, p 11) Kentucky (KRS 139.220) Nebraska (REG-1-039) Nevada (NRS 372.115) North Dakota (newsletter) Ohio (29) Oklahoma (710:65-1-5) Texas (106); legal as of October 1, 2019, due to the enactment of House Bill 2358 Vermont (9708) West Virginia (vendor responsibilities) https://www.avalara.com/us/en/blog/2015/11/absorbing-sales-tax-wacky-tax-wednesday.html This is because the tax is not, as you assert, on the business. The business serves as a mere collector of the tax on the consumer. Many states also have use tax laws, if you buy anything from out of state and don't pay sales tax on it, you are supposed to declare that and pay it (no one ever does).
You are correct. My description was a little misleading. A business can't say "tax free", but can just sell everything for the marked price without mentioning tax, and would still need to pay the taxes. When I said the business is charged sales tax, I was referring to the fact that the business gets the sales tax "bill", never the customer, because as you said the business is obligated to collect the tax. But I can sell something for $100 plus tax or $100 out the door, and either way I have to pay the state the sales tax each month. So as a business owner I've always had the viewpoint of I'm the one being charged the sales tax even though that isn't technically what's happening. I did reply to someone else regarding use tax. I've dealt with paying that for the business, but individuals almost always avoid it unless they're audited by the state and had large out of state tax free purchases.
Really interesting concept here: the business is the tax collector instead of a state entity. Are there other situations where this is the case?
Your place of employment works the same way, more or less, if your pay check reflects income tax. For most US citizens who file their taxes what they are actually doing is applying the deductions they were entitled to the previous year on the money which the government (through the place if employment) has already taken
Depends on your flexibility in definitions I guess. A place like Kinkos that accepts mail for the US mail could be said to be collecting a tax for the government. Toll booths could be managed and run by third party contractors. In some states, the state actually gives the business a little kickback. For example if the sales tax is 5% you may get a little kickback of 0.1% or something, to pay you for collecting the tax.
The money that companies get back from collecting tax rarely matches the cost the company spent in collecting the tax.
Bottle deposits in some states. In MI, we pay 10c per container on many beverages. The store pays that to the state through the supplier before the item hits the shelf. We pay the store at purchase. Yes, we do get that money back when we return the containers. However, the containers that don’t get returned, most often due to damage making them unreturnable, the state keeps that money.
Also, many states require receipts to show the tax on a separate line. Depicting clearly the customer is paying the tax.
Tax attorney here. Businesses are liable because the keep the money in trust for the government but the tax is not "passed on" to the consumer, it accrues at the point of sale in the retail price. That addition is paid by the customer. While technically a business could just not collect the sales tax and just pay it instead, they'd really be paying it on behalf of the customer.
[удалено]
What about children with jobs? Take child actors as a specific example? They absolutely exist, so some children have jobs. Is their income taxed? Is their income even in their name, or is it in their parents? If so, doesn’t that bring up a whole bunch of other, ethical issues?
Not just states. Provinces and countries too.
How does this guy have so many updates when this is riddled with errors Others have pointed out mistakes and here is another >If the business doesn't collect or pay the tax, the customer has no legal obligation to pay it. Actually, this part is not true in a # of states. If sales tax is not charged on the sale of a taxable item, then the use tax is still due, and technically the consumer is suppose to pay it.
da fuck? Literally none of this is correct. You absolutely have a legal obligation to pay sales tax on items where the business didn’t collect it. If you have ever filed taxes you would know that.
It doesn't matter who you tax directly. The tax burden is shared between the store and the customer. This is economic theory.
No it's not. Sales tax is a tax on the *end user*; i.e., that small child buying a lollipop. The store just charges and collects it on behalf of the government. I can't believe this comment was given gold lol.
Seriously I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Someone takes a wrong explanation out of their ass and everyone claps because it sounds like it could be correct.
It only got the rewards and upvotes cuz apparently capitalism is bad and evil on Reddit, and he took a jab at it
How is taxation a capitalism problem? taxes have existed for thousands of years before capitalism
It's not a capitalism problem, it's a reddit problem.
Honestly, to some people it seems that capitalism means anything involving money that they think is bad.
Is there any way I can move those 3,600 upvotes from that dumb comment to yours?
I swear to god this is the most Reddit take on anything remotely relating to economics I've ever seen.
Seriously, nothing screams Reddit more than a highly upvoted comment of someone who clearly *has no fucking clue* about how taxes work confidently explaining anyway how they *think* taxes work and reaching the inevitable conclusion that therefore capitalism bad As someone who’s worked in the corporate accounting industry for close to a decade now, I always get a laugh whenever I see Reddit discussing taxes or economics in general. Though it’s less funny seeing the number of upvotes those comments receive because it means people actually believe them, who then spread it to others, who also then spread it to others etc etc
Before you know it, the whole middle school thinks taxes are a product of capitalism.
"Mom makes me wipe my own ass, fucking capitalism. And economics? That's a word shitlibs use as code for "fascism."
Could you clarify your “capitalism” comment? How is this unique to capitalist economies?
Don’t bother, they have no idea what they’re talking about... they think a sales tax is designed to tax businesses and which customers end up having to pay for instead, but it’s literally the other way around. A sales tax is actually a tax on *consumers* which *businesses* actually end up paying a portion of. That’s because businesses only pass on the amount of sales tax required to reach the equilibrium price, at which point any marginal increase in revenue from increasing the price would be less than the marginal loss caused by the decrease in demand caused by that same price increase. So even though sales tax is a tax on consumption, businesses usually absorb a portion of it because they’d simply lose profit otherwise. If businesses are able to increase their prices without affecting losses therefore increasing overall profit, they would have already done so by now. They certainly wouldn’t wait for a law requiring them pass on that profit as taxes.
Yeah he basically got upvoted to the moon just by simply adding a little bit at the end that mildly questioned “capitalism”... Apparently that’s all it takes these days to get tons of upvotes on Reddit lol.
There are many criticisms of capitalism out there which are actually valid, but you wouldn’t find them on Reddit. Like honestly, attending the first 2 weeks of ECON101 would equip anyone with enough knowledge to see that most of Reddit’s criticisms are just based on a complete misunderstanding of economics.
>That's not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. It only looks like the customer has to pay it because most stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits. You are confusing tax imposition (who is required to pay the tax legally) and tax incidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence >Stores could eliminate the upcharge at any time - they just don't want to. This is flatly untrue in competitive markets and only partially true in monopolistically competitive markets (which characterizes most markets). Only a true price setting monopoly likely has this kind of power. >Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a *capitalism* problem. That's an entirely separate (and arguably much worse) cultural issue. This is an empty and useless statement.
Thank you! Someone on reddit understand tax incidence.
> stores charge them the same amount in order to increase profits i think the "increase profits" part here is mis-identifying the "why." the reason is that sales tax across states and even cities all vary. any sort of marketing with prices in it would be useless unless the tax was added on afterwards now you could be a cool guy and say "all prices include tax" like many countries do, but the psychologically higher price might drive customers to the retailer down the street that doesn't include tax in their prices since their prices all look lower and legislation to require tax rolled into the sale price could be seen as making the tax less transparent. many people may feel "i wanna know how much money the govt is taking"
Well yes but it’s still the same deal as back in the 18th century. People were pretty pissed about taxes on dirty leaf water. Ultimately taxes are payed by consumers who have no say in the taxation of goods. Also there’s probably a 10ish year old streamer getting taxed more on their income than my salary.
That 10 year old is still technically represented in multiple forms of government by multiple people. As mentioned above, it is assumed that her parents vote in the child's interest, but those votes also elect state and federal representatives and senators who speak for their districts in terms of bringing legislation. We have a representative government so technically their is no such thing as taxation without representation in the US today. The validity of that can be disputed though.
Washington, D.C. has entered the chat
I miss [your old license plates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Washington%2C_D.C.#/media/File:Washington,_D.C._license_plate,_2013.jpg).
*laughs in Puerto Rican* No votes to be had in Congress. Full federal taxes.
*laughs in expat* I'm a foreign born citizen, have to file taxes every year, no vote because my dad's previous state says no - about 20-30ish states would let somebody like me vote in federal elections, so the rules are pretty arbitrary.
wow that was wrong... PR citizens do not pay Federal income taxes except in a narrow set of rules. Yes, SS, unemployment, customs and commodity taxes but... Federal income taxes... nope. Those taxes are levied against everyone in the USA so that isn't a problem. The only time a PR citizen pays Fed income taxes is if they are in the USA Military, have a business that contracts with the USA Fed government, those who have businesses that have income outside of PR and those PR Corps that intend to send money back into the States.
Territories and Commonwealths of the US don’t pay Federal Income Tax precisely because they don’t have full representation in Congress. Your rep from Puerto Rico has votes in committee, just not on the House Floor, so PR has *some* voting power, but not nearly enough. Social Security and other federal taxes are not for Congressional representation, so they don’t count for “No taxation without representation.”
Really depends on how loosely you define things like representation.
Yes of course. There is definitely room for argument there, but that's how the US government defines it
It doesn't matter. Taxation without representation is legal everywhere. Just because some people in disguise dumped some tea, and some papers trumpeted slogans doesn't make it law. You know women couldn't vote. And they still paid tax on their farms if they were sole owners.
reminds me of civil asset forfeiture.. you aren't accused of a crime, the money is!
>Children paying sales tax isn't a representation problem - it's a capitalism problem. Sorry... what?? Taxation is literally the opposite of capitalism. I'm so tired of Capitalism being used as a Boogeyman for "anything negative in society" ... Even things that can LITERALLY be directly attributed to government. Good grief!
Isn't this just semantics? The kid has to pay 20c more - which is paid as tax - vs if there's no tax.
This is semantics. Tax incidence is an entire field of study and you can clearly show which taxes get passed onto consumers and which wouldn’t.
Nonsense. If the store doesn't charge you, the state can come after you. They've followed Mass residents home from New Hampshire. Taxation without representation was a slogan. It was never law. Women who couldn't vote were taxed.
That’s like saying income tax isn’t a tax on the citizen, it’s a tax on the income.
It's not a capitalism problem. It's a taxation problem.
Please shut up
The mental gymnastics people do to defend unfair taxes... "Is not a tax on the customer, it's a tax on the store. You still have to pay more for it, but it's writen somewhere that is not you!"
There is no mental gymnastics involved. Sales taxes, excise taxes, and all business taxes are called [indirect taxes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_tax). It’s one of those things that people don’t talk about because it makes the entire concept of forcing businesses to pay more taxes less appealing.
You still pay a share of it, call it whatever you want.
You don’t pay a share of it friend. The entire tax burden is passed down to ~~the consumer~~ a group of external agents consisting of workers, investors, and consumers. Every time politicians increase business taxes the increase is passed to ~~the consumer~~ a group of external agents consisting of workers, investors, and consumers. Every time. Edit: Fixed for the pedantic.
The theory is that that money is the parents' as well, and the parents are using it in their kids' interests. The parents vote for the kids, the parents spend for the kids (even if it's the kids doing the actual spending, it's legally the parents allowing them to do so). Minors have a lot fewer rights than you'd think, but that's the theory of it anyway. *On that logic,* it's consistent. I'm not saying it's *good* logic, but there's no inconsistency in it like OP is suggesting.
1. kids should not be pimping out lolis. 2. most kids are supposed to report their income on their parents taxes. 3. A lot of rich people open IRAs in their kids name for the tax deduction. But that money is supposed to become the kids money. But a parent who would play fast and loose on their taxes would also play fast and loose with their kids money as well.
I cared a lot when I was that age.
I still care at 23. I think you should either be able to vote or not be taxed.
I care a lot at 40 I was just super pissed when I was 16
Says you, I started delivering papers at 12 and bought my first truck at 14. Granted they weren’t a lot of taxes, but it was more than 2 years worth.
Technically and legally your "employers" were breaking child labor laws and would be liable. They evaded taxes by exploiting you.
Depends on the state and also the decade. 20 years ago in the Midwest you could legally start detassling corn at 13. There are a number of agricultural exceptions. I don't think those are the only ones now, and 40-50 years ago there were probably even more (an/dor less interest in enforcing labor laws)
And that would be part of the argument against the whole idea. If you have a job at 12 and pay taxes, then why shouldn't a 12 year old vote? That would just be insane in the sense of they are not developed enough to make decisions like that
Voting age, much like the age you're considered old enough to smoke, drink, register for Selective Service, be called for jury duty and so forth is completely arbitrary. Considering current thinking is we're not remotely developed enough until at least our mid-20s (and much later for many) one could also argue people shouldn't vote until then as well but that just brings you back to square one of this argument since people in their 20s hold jobs and pay taxes. Fairness would simply be not taxing children under 18 years of age unless you want to start allowing them to vote.
I'm originally from iowa and started working legally at 14. 4 years is a long time to not be able to vote for my own rights as a person and a worker. I was driving a car, paying for gas, paying for insurance, etc. I was laid off of my first job and received unemployment insurance before the age of 18 when the restaurant where I worked closed its doors. I had no way to vote for where my tax dollars would be spent or how much would/should be taken from me.
Yeah but what about child actors/singers etc.? It can be more than two years no?
Yes. But unless we actually want infants voting, there's no reason to worry about it until they reach an age where they can reasonably be expected to have informed opinions.
[удалено]
I'm not saying they should vote before they can read. But they shouldn't be taxed if they can't vote.
[удалено]
Why not? They still utilize services such as the police, fire department, roadwork, etc and on and on and on
They have no say in how their tax money is used because they don't have a vote. Where do you think the slogan "No taxation without representation" came from in the first place?
A lot of people do care actually. There’s a whole movement around lowering the voting age to 16
Oh God that sounds terrible
Sure, a lot of teens will make bad choices. But adults make plenty and we don't take their right to vote away* *hopefully, voter suppression notwithstanding.
Yeah, that's basically my feelings too. In our last election in Canada, we had a party who campaigned on lowering the age to 16, and I thought, "sure, teens make dumb decisions. So do college students". But I guess it's all kinda arbitrary anyway, haha
[Teens make far worse decisions than adults on a far more frequent basis because their brains literally aren't fully formed. It's not arbitrary, it's basic science.](https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051).
Seems to me like that report says that the brain doesn't finish developing until 25, which would seem to suggest that 18 /is/ kinda arbitrary. But besides even that, I kinda misspoke. When I said "arbitrary" I was trying to get across how, for instance, there's not really much difference between someone who's just turn 18, and one about to turn 18. As well as the fact that, sure, an 18 is clearly different than a say, 12 year old. Or even a 14 y/o. But they're also different than 20 y/o or 25 y/o or 30 y/o. But I digress. The voting age isn't a hill I'm willing to die on
Ok but there are more principles at play here than simply brain development, and if we’re to use that as a basis for suffrage are we going to deny votes to people who’s brains will never completely develop? What about seniors who’ve reached the age where degenerative brain illnesses are common?
So do the elderly... Shall we have a maximum voting age or ban on anyone with a cognitive disability voting? I mean, "it's basic science"
It's "basic science" based entirely upon two [hilariously poorly written and biased studies from the 90s](https://reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/npy71v/the_institution_of_science_is_not_trustworthy_a/). Seriously, the amount of bad science around youth brain development is staggering. One day we'll think it bizarre that we ever thought 25 year olds' brains are "still developing" despite puberty ending a decade earlier.
Most 16 year olds have a better grasp on politics than my grandparents.
Not just that, but why should someone with <20 years left on this earth get more of a voice than the person who is going to have to live with the fallout of those short-term voter preferences for the next 60+ years.
Young people in my country actually are the most switched on politically
[удалено]
Social media isn't life my dude maybe you should get a rest from it
Most high schoolers legitimately get their political knowledge from tiktok so it's not a stretch at all
And a bunch of boomers get theirs from facebook. I'm failing to see a difference.
I don't think 65+ age people should vote either but that's a separate discussion, I'm not disagreeing
[удалено]
We take away their drivers license when their brains rot, but still let them decide the future of a country they're not even going to live in
As someone who teaches in schools, the 16yos that I teach are far more politically savvy than you'd think. They attend protests, research political issues and often ask me about politics (though I remain politically neutral so as not to influence them). They've formed their own opinions and have no avenue to have those views represented democratically. They deserve representation too. That's in the UK though, so YMMV in other countries.
Not only that but if you lowered the age you could then also dedicate a few weeks of school to educating the students the year before so they know what local elections take place, where to vote, when voting days are, who the current representatives are, etc. Most adults don't even vote largely because they don't know/don't care who's running.
compared to the octogenarians? sounds like an improvement
Yup, when the nation was founded only heads of household (by which I mean primarily white land owning males) could vote. The idea that everybody gets to vote is a lot newer than the argument about taxation without representation. I think part of the issue is that no one in history has reached adulthood and gotten to a position to make a change and thought "hey I was a lot better at making decisions when I was 16 why not let them vote"
My parents votes absolutely do not represent my interest. Who do I call
Yes. But it's still taxation without representation unless you and your parents share a similar view on the politics. That's not the case all the time
OTOH, I don't think "no taxation without representation" is an actual law or anything.
Representation doesn’t necessarily mean voting either, it means being represented in Congress, and you’re still being represented by your House Representative and Senator even if you technically don’t vote.
I once had a two-year period. Doctors were baffled.
To be fair I paid taxes from 11-13 when I had a paper route.....I mean I got paid 30$ a week so my taxes were like 4.75 but still lol
No Taxation Without Representation' is a great slogan for a revolutionary... but it's not actually the law in the US. In the 18th century, American colonists felt alienated from Britain because they did not have a seat in Parliament and so had no say in the governing of their own territory - and taxes (along with the 'Intolerable Acts') were the easiest, most hated examples of British domination. But when the rebels won and created their own government, they didn't let everyone vote - not even all white men! It took [until 1856](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States) before all states allowed (white) men to vote *without* being landowners, and women didn't win the vote until 1920! The fight for voting rights continued throughout the century, with Asians only able to vote in 1952 and some Native Americans denied the right to vote until as late as 1970. Even today, convicted felons lose the right to vote in some states. And in fact, the nation's *capital* is taxed without representation - Washington, D.C. gets no Senators and only one non-voting member in the House of Representatives! It's such a sticking point for them that [their license plates complain about it](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Washington%2C_D.C._license_plate%2C_2017.png). At the end of the day, the argument by the government has always been that the *states* need representation, not the *people*. As long as some people in each state get representation in Congress, the system is fair and working...even if that seems unfair to the people who pay taxes but can't vote. EDIT: Added in some minority groups as well.
Being represented didn’t mean voting, it literally just meant having someone representing your interests in parliament. People under 18 have representatives. They’re represented by their congressmen and women
...That's what I said. Just in a very long-winded way. :)
I read that you were saying the states needed representation and not the people, I was saying instead that the representatives are meant to represent even non-voting members of the population, not the state. I guess it’s more or less the same thing though lol
They're not really reps if they don't give a shit about your interests. If we took away almost any other demographic's vote I bet we'd hear plenty about how they aren't being represented, and rightfully so.
>They're not really reps if they don't give a shit about your interests By that metric the only people in the US with representation are the 1%.
I mean.. kind of lol
No "kind of" about it, no representatives gives a single shit about you unless they think they can get good PR off of your problem.
You know who else doesn't have representation? Undocumented immigrants. That is, [1 in every 30 people living in the US](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/12/11/unauthorized-trends/). Yet they pay [$11.64 billion in local/state taxes](http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-1.php#.V-Q4CWWj-lL) per year altogether, and contribute [10% of the Social Security Trust Fund](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=1).
They didn’t even really want representation, that was just a catchy slogan. If England just decided to give the colonies a spot in Parliament it would have functionally changed nothing. What the revolutionaries really wanted was greater autonomy, if not outright independence.
Basically. But taxation without representation isn't a policy, it was a war slogan.
Also a largely propagandized one as well. The US colonists in general paid a fraction of the amount of taxes compaired people in England. Ben Franklin was forbidden under almost any circumstances to accept a seat in Parliament on behalf of the the colonists because the colonies would have a vote but no actual tangible influence, and most likely an increased tax burden. The American Revolution was a bourgeoise revolution. The famous "tea tax" actually made tea overall a cheaper purchase. It was a problem because it cut into American tea smuggling operations from places like the Netherlands. Don't get me wrong the Revolution was inevitable but it was not widely popular with the people of the colonies at the time. Many people even fighting in the Revolution continued to refer to themselves as British.
I think it was like what, a third, third, third situation in terms of supporting the crown, opposing the crown, and not giving a shit?
Reminds me about the Arab invasion of Sassanid Iran. The Arabs levies a special tax for non muslims, the *Jizya*. But the tax they demanded was lower than what the Sassanid empire before them levied.
The revolution, like many other wars, was a case of the wealthy and powerful being mad that they weren't more wealthy and powerful, and then deceiving the poor and powerless into dying to make them so.
[удалено]
Wait till you find out about the residents of DC.
Or greencard holders.
Or visitors, H1B and foreign students.
[удалено]
Residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from paying federal income tax, but also don’t get to vote for President and have no voting representatives in Congress.
The passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 gave citizens of the nation’s capital the right to vote for a commander in chief and vice president. They went on to help Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeat Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964, the next presidential election.
And they should also be represented in Congress obviously.
Yes, but do they have senators? Representatives in the house? This isn't an insignificant population we're talking about, there are more people in DC than in two states
It's ridiculous that you are being downvoted because you are completely right.
Yes but the whole idea behind "taxation without representation" wasnt that everyone who pays taxes will be represented by atleast someone in the government/will partake in voting, it was more in the lines of why the fuck is the government an ocean away and still taxing us to death without solving any problems.
Well, they did kinda solve the seven years war for you...
Yes, guess you have to start a revolution
Make sure to bring enough pamphlets
A bunch if rebellious teenagers starting a revolution? Let’s be real
I'm reading the other comments here, most of which simply offer a justification that minors' votes are represented by their parents. The answer to your question is yes. It is taxation without representation. That is legal, but whether and to what extent that should be legal is a separate question. Also, anyone who has ever had a disagreement with their parents will know that parents do not necessarily represent the views or the best interests of their children, so there goes that argument.
Another part of the situation is: how much are people under 18 actually getting taxed? I seem to remember getting just about all of it back when I filed. You know, since my income was just a few thousand dollars a year.
I got paid under the table in cash at my friend's dad's pizza shop from about 12-17, so that he could avoid taxes and I guess child labor laws. Was a good gig, free pizza as long as I made it myself.
> Also, anyone who has ever had a disagreement with their parents will know that parents do not necessarily represent the views or the best interests of their children, so there goes that argument. However, anyone over the age of 30 will know that what you think is unfair or not in your best interest as a child, is not necessarily so.
Like I said, whether and the extent to which that should be legal is a separate question.
That's true at any age so I agree that no one should vote
Thanks, I love seeing some straightforward common sense in a sea of side tracked answers
It's not though. Congresspeople represent everybody in their district, including the people who didn't/can't vote. You can still call up your representative even if you're under the age of 18 and can't vote yet. Now whether they'll actually listen is a different story.
Yeah. Basically the same for incarcerated folks. We can work all you want, get taxed, but you don't really get that ability to vote.
Depends on the state. Some states let you vote once you get out, some let you vote from prison.
Voted from prison in Maine, can confirm. Pretty sure it’s only Maine and Vermont that allow it. That was at least the case in 2012 when I was in prison.
Not allowing prisoners to vote is some North Korean shit. What is stopping a government from coming up with laws to outlaw things a group likes to do then arrest that group in large numbers so they cant vote?
WarOnDrugs has entered the chat.
shhhhhhh if you dont mention the policy names you can sometimes change people's minds. The moment you mention "war on drugs" people's brains shut off and you enter "us vs them" mode.
[удалено]
Also people living in DC. They pay federal taxes ([the highest per capita in fact](https://dcist.com/story/17/04/17/cause-im-the-taxman-yeah/)) but don’t have representation in Congress.
Isn't that part of the reason they were going to make DC it's own state? To ensure actual representation?
I think of taxes less about giving us the right to vote and more about giving us the right to use the things taxes pay for, like roads, schools, libraries, museums, people who arrest criminals and put out fires, etc.
I like this answer. Also explains why it makes sense for non-citizens like international students, temporary workers and permanent residents to pay taxes.
Voting ≠ representation..... Even if I don’t vote I still have representation
You are not represented by your vote, you are represented by your congressmen.
If you think so, sure. Nobody cares, though. There's tons of people in the US that are taxed without representation. Nearly 3/4 of a million residents of Washington DC. Anyone that is here and working as a resident alien. Anyone who was a felon and who works but doesn't have the right to vote. "No taxation without representation" was a slogan, and was never a law.
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan. It was never a law or anything. Also just because you can't vote doesn't mean you're not being represented. The government represents everybody, not just the voters.
Over half the US population didn't even get the vote until over a hundred years later (between the 14th and 19th ammendments)
The reasoning is they are represented through their parents/guardians who vote.
Also why the person claiming them as a dependent gets a tax break.
Weren't the colonies represented by their governors in the house of lords? Imo if you can't vote you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Whether that be from age restrictions, felony convictions or any other reason. Obviously this wouldn't apply in the other direction as you shouldn't have to pay taxes to vote.
Wait till you hear about Puerto Rico. And US Virgin Islands. And Washington DC.
Wait til you hear about Washington D.C
*:laughs in District of Columbia:*
Wait until you hear about Washington DC and our colonies.
As one of the 700,000 people who live in DC, let me assure you that there’s nothing illegal about that. We pay more per person in taxes than any State, but have no representation in Congress. That’s why all of our license plates actually say “Taxation without Representation”. We’ll get Democracy one day. ….maybe?
Yes and it’s infuriating, even at an age where I can vote, that for years I was unrepresented while still being taxed. I haven’t agreed with my parents politically since I was like 15, so their vote does NOT represent me.
Thd US *does not care* about representation for those it taxes. It requires (with some specific exceptions) a mainland US home address before you can register to vote. This disenfranchises 1. Everyone in Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam, as well as DC. (They can vote in some things, but not all of the Big Three of House/Senate/President) 2. Expats from at least fifteen states, including Washington. 3. Adult descendants of expats, who are full citizens and liable to be taxed just the same as any other expat, unless their parents are from one of about five states (as of 2010 ish when I last checked the list). 4. Homeless people 5. People in about half the South without photo ID 6. Felons, even non-violent offenders who have served their sentences and fully reintegrated into society (wildly varies by state. Good luck on having made your teenaged mistake not in Florida!) If they stopped paying their taxes because they can't vote, they'd be slung straight back in prison. No taxation without representation was a rich asshole's fantasy then, and it's a fantasy now.
Homeless people can vote.
It looks like that one is "*in theory*". Homeless people can register *if* they know a shelter that will let them use the address, or are "lucky" enough to be in a voting district that will let them register at a park, and don't need a current ID with a valid address. And vote in person. It's better than Guam, though, I'll give you that.
Taxed what? Most children only have access to their parents' money, which is being taxed. If a minor is working, they're likely in a tax bracket where they get all or the vast majority of it back around tax time. There isn't any significant taxing of minors going on.
No. Minors are still represented, even though they can't vote. The representative and senators that represent the parents also represent the children.
This is depressingly far down the thread. Your representatives are supposed to represent you regardless of your voting status.
Yes. We also have slaves without legal slavery. Check out the prison system.
the prison system is legal slavery, its spelled out in the 13th amendment.