Revolutionary Opinion Essays - Taxation In The United States

Revolutionary Opinion They all say, ?Taxation without representation is tyranny.? Those revolutionary fools! Surely they jest! I am well aware that many of my fellow townspeople believe in this notion. It is rather sensible, after all. Who really likes to pay taxes? Not I! However, all those that subscribe to this train of thought are living in a dream world. In reality, it is the other way around. ?Representation without taxation is tyranny.? Revolution is futile and will only result in more taxes for the whiners to gripe and moan about. Frankly, I?ve had enough. A few days ago, I saw some protesters walking down the road chanting and marching with signs that read Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny.? I seem to remember that other Americans also once expressed similar views. Most people would now regard that point as a fair one. I am no great fan of democracy, as I prefer liberty, but even I can agree that people who are taxed but not allowed to vote are likely to be more than averagely oppressed by those who can vote. This then prompted me to consider the converse proposition: Representation Without Taxation Is Tyranny. It would, of course, be a fallacy to think that this is entailed by the first proposition, but surely it is just as reasonable. If we must have state services, it should at least be for those who pay for them to vote for which services they want and how much they wish to pay. To allow those providing, or living off, the services to vote is like allowing a shopkeeper to vote on what you must buy from him, or a beggar to vote on what you must give him. Naturally, I hear them say, ?but doesn't everyone pay tax, at least on goods and services Furthermore, is it not trivially true, insofar as morals can be ?true No, they do not and it is not. Not by a long shot. Lord Grenville, everyone?s favorite exchequer, has recently been parading around town saying how he realizes that the recent practices of taxation have been unfair and how he relates to the feelings of the townspeople. He even went so far as to state, or shall I say lie, about how much he strongly dislikes his job because he, like everyone else, has to pay taxes. I scoff at this, as it has been fortuitously proven that since he is paid by the state, he is not a true taxpayer. Consider state distribution of taxes. We can see that this must create two social categories: those who are net taxpayers, as most of the townspeople are and those who are net tax recipients, like Lord Grenville. Only the net taxpayers can be said to provide the state with tax funds. The net tax recipients are paid out of taxation, plus any payments in newly created state currency that effectively taxes those who hold money. This proves that people who are state-paid cannot be genuine taxpayers. Proof of this is that if their jobs were abolished the state would have more money to spend elsewhere, unlike those jobs in the genuinely taxpaying sector. To take a clear case, when a direct state-employee, such as a civil servant (let?s just say Lord Grenville for an example,) receives his salary check there will be an apparent deduction for the amount of tax that he pays. As a matter of fact, this is a mere bookkeeping exercise designed to keep up the pretense that he is a taxpayer along with everyone else. Abandoning this pretense of taxpaying and simply paying him less in the first place would save taxpayers' money in administration and make the political reality clearer to all, as opposed to being a blurry, vague cloud of smoke as it is now. Now, I am not arguing (here at least) that the people who live off taxation are social parasites. On the contrary, I would enjoy very much to be one of the ?lucky? ones. For the sake of argument, I am prepared to grant the (absurd) assumption of so many superior state services that the state ought to employ half the population. Anyway, my point is that it should be clear who is paying