what is representation and taxation

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Taxation Without Representation
• History of Opposition
• In Modern Times

The Bottom Line

• Personal Finance

Taxation Without Representation: What It Means and History

Julia Kagan is a financial/consumer journalist and former senior editor, personal finance, of Investopedia.

Lea Uradu, J.D. is a Maryland State Registered Tax Preparer, State Certified Notary Public, Certified VITA Tax Preparer, IRS Annual Filing Season Program Participant, and Tax Writer.

What Is Taxation Without Representation?

The phrase taxation without representation describes a populace that is required to pay taxes to a government authority without having any say in that government's policies. The term has its origin in a slogan of the American colonials against their British rulers: " Taxation without representation is tyranny."

Key Takeaways

• Taxation without representation was possibly the first slogan adopted by American colonists chafing under British rule.
• They objected to the imposition of taxes on colonists by a government that gave them no role in its policies.
• In the 21st century, the people of the District of Columbia are citizens who endure taxation without representation.

Investopedia / Candra Huff

History of Opposition to Taxation Without Representation

Although taxation without representation has been perpetrated in many cultures, the phrase came to the common lexicon during the 1700s in the American colonies. Opposition to taxation without representation was one of the primary causes of the American Revolution.

The Stamp Act Triggers Colonists

The British Parliament began taxing its American colonists directly in the 1760s, ostensibly to recoup losses incurred during the Seven Years’ War of 1754 to 1763.

One particularly despised tax, imposed by the Stamp Act of 1765 , required colonial printers to pay a tax on documents used or created in the colonies and to prove it by affixing an embossed revenue stamp to the documents.

Violators were tried in vice-admiralty courts without a jury. The denial of a trial by peers was a second injury in the minds of colonists.

Revolt Against the Stamp Act

Colonists considered the tax to be illegal because they had no representation in the Parliament that passed it and were denied the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Delegates from nine of the 13 colonies met in New York in October 1765 to form the Stamp Act Congress.

William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, John Rutledge of South Carolina, and other prominent colonials met for 18 days.

They then approved a "Declaration of the Rights and Grievances of the Colonists," stating the delegates’ joint position for other colonists to read. Resolutions three, four, and five stressed the delegates’ loyalty to the crown while stating their objection to taxation without representation.

Trial Without a Jury

A later resolution disputed the use of admiralty courts that conducted trials without juries, citing a violation of the rights of all free Englishmen.

The Congress eventually drafted three petitions addressed to King George III, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

After the Stamp Act

The petitions were initially ignored, but boycotts of British imports and other financial pressures by the colonists finally led to the repeal of the Stamp Act in March 1766.

It was too late. After years of increasing tensions, the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, with battles between American colonists and British soldiers in Lexington and Concord.  

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to Congress declaring the 13 colonies free from British rule. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were among the representatives chosen to word the resolution.

A Statement of Intent

The first part was a simple statement of intent, including the declaration that all men were created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A second section listed the colonists’ grievances and declared their determination to achieve independence. The final paragraph dissolved the colonists’ ties with Britain.

Following debate, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, with the signing occurring primarily on August 2, 1776.

Taxation Without Representation in Modern Times

Taxation without representation was by no means extinguished with the separation of the American colonies from Britain , not even in the U.S.

Residents of Puerto Rico, for example, are U.S. citizens but do not have the right to vote in presidential elections and have no voting representatives in the U.S. Congress (unless they move to one of the 50 states.)

In addition, the phrase taxation without representation appeared on license plates issued by the District of Columbia beginning in the year 2000. The addition of the slogan was meant to increase awareness of the fact that residents of the District pay federal taxes despite having no voting representation in Congress.

In 2017, the District's City Council added one word to the phrase. It now reads "End Taxation Without Representation."

Which Tax Triggered the Rebellion Against Great Britain?

The Stamp Act of 1765 angered many colonists as it taxed every paper document used in the colonies. It was the first tax that the crown had demanded specifically from American colonists.

Did Taxation Without Representation End After the American Revolution?

Yes and no. While the states in the newly formed country had representation, federal districts like Washington, D.C., and territories like Puerto Rico still lack the same representation on the federal level in the modern era.

Does Taxation Without Representation Refer to Local or Federal Government?

Today, the phrase refers to a lack of representation at the federal level. As an example, Puerto Rico has the same structure as a state, with mayors of cities and a governor, but instead of senators or representatives in Congress, they have a resident commissioner that represents the people in Washington, D.C. Puerto Ricans can only vote for president if they establish residency in the 50 states.

"Taxation without representation" refers to those taxes imposed on a population who doesn't have representation in the government. The slogan "No taxation without representation" was first adopted during the American Revolution by American colonists under British rule.

Today, the phrase refers to a lack of representation at the federal level, and only residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico are still taxed without representation.

National Constitution Center. " On This Day: 'No Taxation Without Representation!' "

Government of the District of Columbia. " Why Statehood for DC ."

United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. " French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War, 1754–63 ."

National Parks Service. " Britain Begins Taxing the Colonies: The Sugar & Stamp Acts ."

Library of Congress. " Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor - No Taxation Without Representation ."

University of Michigan Library. " Proceedings of the Congress at the New-York, Boston, 1765 ."

University of Michigan Library, Text Creation Partnership. " Proceedings of the Congress at New York - WEDNESDAY, October 23, 1765, A. M ."

University of Michigan Library, Text Creation Partnership. " Proceedings of the Congress at New York - TUESDAY, October 22, 1765, A. M ."

Yale Law School, The Avalon Project. " Great Britain: Parliament - An Act Repealing the Stamp Act; March 18, 1766 ."

American Battlefield Trust. " Lexington and Concord ."

National Archives. " Signers of the Declaration of Independence ."

Library of Congress. " Declaring Independence: Drafting the Documents ."

National Archives. " Declaration of Independence: A Transcription ."

National Park Service. " The Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence ."

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. " Voting Rights in US Territories ." Page 4.

National Archives. " Unratified Amendments: DC Voting Rights ."

Department of Motor Vehicles, District of Columbia. " End Taxation Without Representation Tags ."

Council of the District of Columbia. " B21-0708 - End Taxation Without Representation Amendment Act of 2016 ."

Library of Congress. " The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its Government Structure ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Taxation, Representation, and the American Revolution

In his day, James Otis was a prominent lawyer, legislator, and Patriot, but today his name is all but forgotten—but when all else fades from memory, words endure. His rallying cry of “taxation without representation is tyranny!” became the watchwords of the American Revolution and remain familiar to our ears. American independence, which we celebrate this week, was born of a tax A tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. revolt.

That revolt had little to do with tax rates. Oppressive levels of taxation have fomented other rebellions, but not this one. The truth is, colonists paid very little in taxes, directly or (more frequently) indirectly. Tax burdens in the colonies were incredibly light, far lighter than in England, and woefully insufficient to cover the costs of colonial administration. Nor did the luminaries of the American Revolution operate under the misapprehension that taxes would go down if they won their independence.

Set aside, for a moment, the financing of a long and destructive war. A new nation would receive no subsidies from the mother country; it would likely face an even more punitive tariff Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods or services imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers. regime than the restrictions under which the colonies already operated; it would have to fund its own administration; and it would have to take up the costs of national defense. Even under the shaky framework of the Articles of Confederation, it was clear from the start that victory in this tax revolt meant paying more in taxes, not less. So why did they do it?

Because, for champions of American independence, the problem was not that taxes were high, but that they were arbitrary, occasionally capricious and punitive, and most importantly, adopted without the consent of the governed.

Taxation and consent have long been entwined, even under relatively unrepresentative governments. There are many things that government can do against the wishes of the people, but taxation is too large an undertaking to be accomplished without at least tacit consent. Throughout history, tax compliance has been the exception rather than the rule. Champions of liberty, moreover, have recognized their power to resist taxation as a vital bargaining chip in securing other liberties.

The withholding Withholding is the income an employer takes out of an employee’s paycheck and remits to the federal, state, and/or local government. It is calculated based on the amount of income earned, the taxpayer’s filing status, the number of allowances claimed, and any additional amount of the employee requests. of revenues forced King John to parlay with his nobles at Runnymede, yielding Magna Carta. The fight over “ship money”–originally a requirement that coastal cities build and provision ships during time of war, ultimately morphing into a requirement that all communities contribute funds even in peacetime–helped predicate the English Civil War. And the need to impose taxes helped the English Parliament secure its own power.

Originally, parliament held little sway. Kings could ignore them, prorogue them, even arrest their members. What they couldn’t do, at least not easily, was fill their own coffers without the consent of parliament, which is to say, the wealthy landed elite. Parliament after parliament traded its agreement to taxes for increased power over the prerogatives of government.

The colonists knew their English history. Indeed, James Otis wasn’t entirely original; the earliest attested precursors to “taxation without representation is tyranny” came out of the ship money disputes. John Hampden, a future parliamentarian who rose to prominence when he stood trial for refusing to pay ship money, is memorialized in the names of towns in Connecticut , Maine , Maryland , and Massachusetts , and–with fellow parliamentarian Algernon Sydney (also spelled Sidney)–in Virginia ’s Hampden-Sydney College. By insisting that taxes only be imposed with the consent of the governed, America’s founders believed they were doing nothing more than vindicating their rights as Englishmen, the latest in a long line of patriots who zealously guarded their ancient liberties.

There can be little doubt that taxes hold pride of place in the causes of the American Revolution. Colonists protested the Stamp Act and the Navigation Acts; they rechristened one set of parliamentary enactments the Intolerable Acts, which left little room for interpretation; they boycotted dutiable goods; led by troublemakers like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, they turned to smuggling to evade tariffs ; and, of course, they brewed their tea in Boston Harbor. Clearly, the colonists did not care for British taxes. But mainly, they did not care for the fact that they weren’t consulted about them.

The system worked for a while. The era of “salutary neglect,” presided over by statesmen like Sir Robert Walpole, saw the colonies barely taxed at all. But as the mother country reeled from one European conflict to another–the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the Seven Years’ War, and others–it fell deeply into debt and increasingly saw the colonies as a way to replenish the Exchequer. The amounts demanded weren’t extreme; indeed, during and after the Seven Years’ War, the high-water mark of supposedly oppressive colonial taxation, the levies weren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of the military defense of the colonies in the North American theater, where the conflict took the form of the French and Indian War.

British debt ran to 140 percent of gross national product, and 45 percent of British tax revenues went to servicing the debt. Effective tax rates in England exceeded 11 percent of national income; in the colonies, they were but a fraction of a percent, and most of that local. Surely, from the British point of view, an additional levy or two wasn’t unreasonable.

But it was never about the money. Frequently, colonial assemblies refused to even remit sums necessary to pay the salaries of colonial governors. It was about a principle: the power of the purse belongs with the people. They saw this not as a new right, but as the rights of Englishmen, a hard-won battle stretching from Magna Carta through the Civil Wars, surviving the Stuart Restoration and coming to full blossom in the Glorious Revolution. It was a heritage, it was a right—and it was being denied them.

Parliament couldn’t see this. The king couldn’t understand. Weren’t the colonists heavily subsidized? This wasn’t how the mercantile system was supposed to work. Colonies were supposed to enrich the mother country, not the other way around, yet here were these colonists, a draw on the country’s finances, and they had the gall to protest–violently protest!–a few stamp duties?

There were solutions, surely. The colonies could elect their own members of parliament, perhaps. Their votes would have been drowned out by those of the English MPs, but there were nearly four times as many residents of the Isles as there were of British North America, and that’s how representative democracy works. If that did not suffice, in the far fringes of debate there were even discussions of a North American parliament.

To the colonists, though, these were sops; neither gave them a meaningful say over their own taxation. Taxation without representation was still tyranny, be those taxes ever so low. Whatever else taxation should be, it had to be by consent. That idea, at once steeped in British history and radically revolutionary, remains an animating principle not only in taxation, but for the whole of the American experiment. That’s something worth celebrating this Independence Day.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College US History

Course: ap®︎/college us history   >   unit 3.

• The Townshend Acts and the committees of correspondence
• Uproar over the Stamp Act

The Boston Massacre

• The Boston Tea Party
• The Intolerable Acts and the First Continental Congress

Taxation without representation: lesson overview

• Taxation without representation

Core historical themes

Review questions.

• How did British control of the American colonies change after the Seven Years’ War?
• In what ways did American colonists develop a unified sense of identity before the American Revolution?
• What were three factors that led to increased tension between Britain and the colonies?

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Tax Planning

What Is Taxation Without Representation?

How Taxation Without Representation Works

Examples of taxation without representation, frequently asked questions.

miralex / Getty Images

“T axation without representation ” is a slogan used to describe being forced by a government to pay a tax without having a say—such as through an elected representative—in the actions of that government.

Key Takeaways

• “Taxation without representation” is a phrase used to describe being subjected to taxes without having a legislative say in the government imposing the tax.
• In the U.S., the phrase has its roots in the colonial period when colonists were angered by the British Parliament imposing taxes on them while the colonists themselves had no representatives in Parliament.
• Throughout the history of the U.S., other groups, such as free Black men, women, and residents of certain jurisdictions, have complained that they were and remain subject to taxation without representation.

In the U.S., the concept of taxation without representation has its origins in a 1754 letter from Benjamin Franklin to Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts.

In this letter, titled “On the Imposition of Direct Taxes Upon the Colonies Without Their Consent,”  Franklin wrote:

“...[E]xcluding the people of the colonies from all share in the choice of the grand council will give extreme dissatisfaction, as well as the taxing them by act of Parliament, where they have no representative. …It is supposed an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own consent, given through their representatives.”

The phrase was widely used a decade later in the colonial response to Parliament’s imposition of the Stamp Act of 1765. The Stamp Act imposed a tax on paper, legal documents, and various commodities. It also reduced the rights of colonists, including limiting trial by jury. It was repealed in 1766.

The same day that the Stamp Act was repealed, the Declaratory Act was enacted by the British Parliament. That Act effectively stated that the British Parliament had absolute legislative power over the colonies.

The Stamp Act and other British tax acts, like the Townshend Acts of 1776, were a major catalyst for the American Revolution.

“Taxation without representation” is a phrase describing the situation of being subject to taxes imposed by a government without being represented in the decisions made by that government.

Washington, D.C.

Throughout the history of the U.S.—and even today—various disenfranchised groups and individuals have criticized the fact that they have been subjected to taxation without representation.

Washington, D.C. is an example of modern-day taxation without representation. The residents of the district pay federal taxes, but the District of Columbia has no voting power in Congress . Because the District of Columbia is not a state, it sends a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. While this delegate can draft legislation, they can’t vote. In addition, the District of Columbia can’t send anyone to the U.S. Senate, so it is effectively shut out of that congressional body.

In Washington, D.C. license plates with the phrase “End Taxation Without Representation” at the bottom are issued by default to newly registered vehicles.

While the residents of the District of Columbia are subject to new federal taxes or increases of existing federal taxes that are passed by Congress, they do not have someone representing them who can actually vote on this legislation. They are, therefore, taxed without representation.

Many believe this issue of taxation without representation is a strong argument in favor of D.C. statehood. Others believe, instead, that residents of Washington, D.C., should not be subject to the same federal income taxes as residents of represented states.

Residents of U.S. Territories

The U.S. has five permanently inhabited territories: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Like Washington, D.C., the five U.S. territories only have non-voting delegates in the U.S. House and no members in the U.S. Senate.

While those residing in the territories are subject to different income tax rules than other residents of the U.S. and, in some cases, pay no federal income taxes, they are subject to other federal taxes, such as the Social Security tax and Medicare tax.

As with Washington, D.C., many have called for statehood for these U.S. territories, especially Puerto Rico.

Free Black Men

Throughout most of the 19th century, free Black men complained they were subject to taxation without representation, and petitioned their governments for tax exemptions , in some cases receiving them. Other states that were petitioned chose to not use race as a voting qualification.

It was not until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 that it was made unconstitutional to prevent a citizen’s right to vote on the basis of race.

It was not until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 that it was made unconstitutional in the U.S. to prevent a citizen’s right to vote on the basis of sex.

Before this amendment was ratified, many women appealed that they were subject to taxation without representation. For example, in 1872, American social reformer and women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony went on a speaking tour to deliver an address called “Is It a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?” In this address, she pointed out that it was taxation without representation to not allow women to vote:

“The women, dissatisfied as they are with this form of government, that enforces taxation without representation…are this half of the people left wholly at the mercy of the other half, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the decorations of the framers of this government, every one of which was based on the immutable principle of equal rights to all.”

Is there still taxation without representation in the United States?

If you are a resident of Washington D.C. you have to pay federal income taxes, but you don't get a senator or voting congressperson to represent you. Minors are also subject to income taxes above a certain threshold, but they are not permitted to vote. In some states, felons lose the right to vote even after serving their prison sentence, but they are still required to pay taxes.

Why did colonists consider British taxes unjust?

American colonists were unable to vote for any of the legislators in London who determined how much they should pay in taxes, and how those taxes were used. That means they were forced to pay for and support a government that did not give them a voice or a vote.

Constitution.org. “ A Plan for Colonial Union by Benjamin Franklin .”

Library of Congress. “ Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor - No Taxation Without Representation .”

Library of Congress. “ Documents From the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774 to 1789 .”

Government Publishing Office - Ben’s Guide. “ Declaration of Independence - 1776 .”

Government of the District of Columbia. “ Why Statehood for DC .”

District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles. “ End Taxation Without Representation Tags .”

Office of Congressman Michael F.Q. San Nicolas. “ Senate Representation for the U.S. Territories .”

IRS. “ Individuals Living or Working in U.S. Territories/Possessions .”

IRS. “ Persons Employed in a U.S. Possession/Territory - FICA .”

Christopher J. Bryant. “ Without Representation, No Taxation: Free Blacks, Taxes, and Tax Exemptions Between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars .” Page 108. Michigan Journal of Race & Law .

National Constitution Center. “ 15th Amendment - Right to Vote Not Denied by Race .”

National Constitution Center. “ 19th Amendment - Women’s Right To Vote .”

Famous Trials by Prof. Douglas O. Linder. “ Address of Susan B. Anthony .”

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, the taxing clause, matters of debate, common interpretation, the power to tax, not to destroy: an effects theory of the taxing clause, the power to tax.

by Neil S. Siegel

David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Duke Law School; Director of Duke's D.C. Summer Institute on Law and Policy

by Steven J. Willis

Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the power to protect the states from military warfare waged by foreigners and from commercial warfare waged by one another. The states proved unable to solve these difficulties on their own. They acted individually when they needed to act collectively, and the Framers of the United States Constitution concluded that the states cannot reliably accomplish an objective when doing so requires them to cooperate.

Arguably the most severe problem facing the young nation under the Articles was that the national government had no power to tax individuals directly; indeed, it had no effective way of raising money at all. Instead, it was limited to “requisitioning” (that is, asking) the states to contribute their fair share of tax revenue to the national treasury in order to repay the Revolutionary War debts and fund the national government. Instead of complying with these requests, states free rode off the contributions of sister states. The consequence was that the national government was severely underfunded, which (among other things) gravely threatened national security.

The solution to the collective action failures of the Articles lay with the establishment of a more powerful and comprehensive unit of government—a national government with the authority to tax, raise and support a military, regulate interstate and international commerce, and act directly on individuals. The Taxing Clause of Article I, Section 8, is listed first for a reason: the Framers decided, and the ratifiers of the Constitution agreed, that Congress must itself possess the power “to lay and collect Taxes . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Congress was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes without any need of assistance from the states, and Congress’s taxing power was not limited to repayment of the Revolutionary War debts—it was prospective as well.

After the Constitution was ratified, Alexander Hamilton (representing the Federalist Party) and James Madison (representing the Democratic Republican Party) debated the scope of the Taxing Clause. According to Hamilton, Congress possessed a robust power to tax (and spend) regardless of whether the tax (or expenditure) could plausibly be viewed as carrying out another enumerated power of Congress, such as regulating interstate commerce or raising and supporting a military. Madison argued that Congress had no independent power to tax and spend in pursuit of its conception of the general welfare; rather, Madison contended, the constitutional meaning of the phrase “general Welfare” is defined and limited by the specific grants of authority in the rest of Section 8. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on this longstanding debate over the scope of the federal taxing and spending powers until 1936, in United States v. Butler (1936), when it sided with Hamilton. Ever since, the law has been that Congress can use the Taxing Clause without tying such use to another of its constitutional powers.

What are the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority to use the Taxing Clause? It is clearly established that such power is limited by constitutional provisions protecting individual rights. For example, it would undoubtedly violate the Free Speech Clause if Congress taxed people just because they criticized the federal government. 

More controversial is whether there are internal limits on the Taxing Clause, and whether they may be enforced by courts. Relatively early in American history, the Supreme Court suggested, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), that redress for misuse of the taxing power lies with the political process, where unhappy citizens can vote politicians out of office.  Later, the Court suggested that courts, too, may enforce the limits on the Taxing Clause, and that Congress exceeds its power when it imposes monetary payments that have the primary purpose of regulating people’s behavior, not of raising revenue, even when Congress labels the payment a “tax,” not a “penalty.” Child Labor Tax Case ( Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. ) (1922). In more recent times, the Court sustained the constitutionality of required payments just because they raised at least some revenue. Sonzinsky v. United States (1937); United States v. Kahriger (1953). Because decisions from one era deviated from earlier decisions without overruling them, the Court’s Taxing Clause jurisprudence was for a long time difficult to sort out.

In 2012, in NFIB v. Sebelius (the Health Care Case), the Court clarified much of the confusion. It rejected a focus on the primary purpose of the required payment at issue, observing that in America, “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.” Instead of asking about the primary purpose of the required payment, the Court adopted a “functional approach,” and made whether the payment was a tax or a penalty turn on the “practical characteristics” and likely effects of the payment. 

Specifically, the Court held that the so-called “individual mandate” in the federal health care law (the requirement to either obtain health insurance or make a payment to the federal government) was within the scope of the Taxing Clause—even though Congress labeled the payment a “penalty,” not a “tax”—primarily because it was likely to have a relatively modest impact on people’s behavior. The Court reasoned that the required payment would likely discourage people from going without insurance without preventing them from doing so, which is why it was expected to raise several billion dollars in revenue each year. The Court’s holding in NFIB on the scope of the Taxing Clause is today the law of the land.

The Taxing Clause solved perhaps the single greatest collective action failure of the states under the Articles of Confederation: the serial inability of the several states to adequately fund the national government in light of free riding by sister states.  See, e.g. , Robert D. Cooter & Neil S. Siegel, Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory of Article I, Section 8 , 63 Stanford Law Review 115 (2010). This failure caused serious financial problems for the young, vulnerable nation and raised grave national security concerns. Where the colonists had insisted that “taxation without representation” was illegitimate, Americans under the Articles learned that taxation with representation was indispensable.

And so the Constitution confers upon Congress robust taxing authority. Congress was granted the power in the initial clause of Article I, Section 8, “to lay and collect Taxes” not just to repay the Revolutionary War debts—the most immediate concern of the country at the time—but more broadly and prospectively to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” 

Are there any internal constitutional limits on Congress’s authority to use the Taxing Clause—limits that courts should be prepared to enforce? Many progressive constitutionalists would say “no.” They would follow Chief Justice John Marshall’s suggestion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), that the power to tax, where it exists, “is the power to destroy.” On this view, redress for misuse of the federal taxing power lies with the political process, where angry citizens who feel overtaxed can “vote the bums out.” Progressive constitutionalists often believe in political safeguards, not judicial safeguards, to limit the exercise of legislative power by the federal government.

My own view is closer to that of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously wrote (at a much later date in American history) that the power to tax, while broad, “is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.” Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The text of the Taxing Clause is best read to require that exercises of the taxing power be consistent with revenue-raising, regardless of whether raising revenue—as opposed to regulating human behavior—is Congress’s primary purpose. (The Taxing Clause, unlike the Origination Clause of Article I, Section 7, does not require that Congress’s purpose be “for raising Revenue.”) 

Moreover, without any enforceable limits on the Taxing Clause, Congress could readily circumvent even very modest limits on the scope of the Commerce Clause. For example, the Supreme Court has held for more than two decades that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to use penalties to regulate economic conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce, but not to regulate noneconomic conduct. What prevents Congress from penalizing non-economic conduct by calling a penalty a tax and invoking the Taxing Clause? The only obstacle is the distinction between a penalty and a tax for purposes of the federal tax power.

In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court considered whether the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a penalty or a tax by requiring most individuals to either obtain health insurance or make a payment to the Internal Revenue Service. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that this “shared responsibility payment” for going without insurance is a tax for purposes of the Taxing Clause, even though Congress called it a penalty. Along with Robert Cooter, I have developed an effects theory of the federal tax power in order to distinguish between penalties and taxes. See Robert D. Cooter & Neil S. Siegel, Not the Power to Destroy: An Effects Theory of the Tax Power , 98 Virginia Law Review 1195 (2012). We believe that the Court’s tax-power ruling in NFIB is correct, and that our effects theory provides the best theoretical justification for it.

The effect of a penalty is to prevent conduct, thereby raising little revenue, whereas the effect of a tax is to dampen conduct, thereby raising revenue. Three characteristics of a mandatory payment create incentives that either prevent or dampen conduct. These characteristics provide criteria for distinguishing between penalties and taxes. A pure penalty (1) condemns the actor for wrongdoing; (2) she must pay more than the usual gain from the forbidden conduct; and (3) she must pay at an increasing rate with intentional or repeated violations. Thus, a penalty expressively coerces a person by condemning her conduct, and it materially coerces a person with relatively high rates and enhancements for repeated violations. Alternatively, a pure tax (1) permits a person to engage in the taxed conduct; (2) she must pay an amount that is less than the usual gain from the taxed conduct; and (3) intentional or repeated conduct does not enhance the rate. A tax does not coerce expressively because it permits the person to engage in the taxed conduct. And it does not coerce materially because relatively low rates without enhancements leave the person with a reasonable financial choice to engage in the taxed conduct.   The ACA’s required payment for remaining uninsured has the expression of a penalty and the material characteristics of a tax (the Court in NFIB called them “practical characteristics”). The constitutional identity of this required payment for purposes of the Taxing Clause depends upon the reasonable expectations of Congress concerning its effect. If Congress could have reasonably concluded that the exaction will dampen—but not prevent—the general class of conduct subject to it (people going without health insurance) and thereby raise revenue, then courts should interpret it as a tax regardless of what the statute calls it. If Congress could have reasonably concluded only that the exaction will prevent the conduct of almost all people subject to it and thereby raise little or no revenue, then courts should interpret it as a penalty. 

In the case of the minimum coverage provision in the ACA, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that the required payment for non-insurance would dampen uninsured behavior but not prevent it, thereby raising several billion dollars in revenue each year. Accordingly, the payment is a tax for purposes of the Taxing Clause.    

Without the power to tax, a government will have few resources to do anything. It cannot effectively police its citizens, protect its people from foreign invaders, or regulate commerce because it cannot pay the associated costs. Discarding the Articles of Confederation—which merely allowed Congress to ask states for money—the drafters effectively adopted a taxing document – the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gave Congress the power to lay taxes and also to collect them. Taxes—more precisely, the money they provide—make all other government actions possible. One might think about that in relation to present-day loose confederations such as the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union. Without the enforceable power to tax, they are necessarily subject to the potentially fleeting willingness of members to contribute.

The U.S. taxing power, while very broad, has important limitations. First, direct taxes must be apportioned, a very difficult requirement. Second, duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform—an easy-to-meet standard, but one which, if ignored, can be fatal to a statute.    See , Steven J. Willis & Hans G. Tanzler IV, Affordable Care Act Fails for Lack of Uniformity , 27 U. Fla. J. Law Pub. Pol’y 81 (2016). Third, bills for “raising revenue” must originate in the House. Although “raising revenue” and “taxing” are not fully the same, the overlap is substantial and can have important consequences. See , Steven J. Willis & Hans G. Tanzler IV, The Wrong House: Why “Obamacare” Violates the U.S. Constitution’s Origination Clause , Wash. Leg. Found. Critical Legal Issues Number 190 (2015).

Fourth, under the Sixteenth Amendment , “income taxes” apply only to “income” “derived” “from a source.” What constitutes an “income tax,” let alone “income,” and what “derived” “from a source” means have been subject to more than one hundred years of debate. Essentially, a taxpayer must experience an “accession to wealth” from an event such as a sale, exchange, or receipt.    See , Steven J. Willis & Nakku Chung, Of Constitutional Decapitation and Healthcare , 128 Tax Notes 169, 189-93 (2010). A mere increase in value is not “income” and thus cannot be taxed to humans. For entities, such as corporations, however, a tax on value increases is not an income tax; instead, it is an excise subject merely to uniformity. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co . (1911). To summarize: the power to tax humans differs substantially from the power to tax entities.  

Fifth, taxes exist in the presence of various power limitations and personal rights found in the Constitution. Although the application of a tax surely cannot violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court has more generally held that the Due Process Clause does not restrict the taxing power. A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton (1934) (“Except in rare and special instances, the due process of law clause contained in the Fifth Amendment is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.   Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916). And no reason exists for applying a different rule against a state in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) Recognizing the lack of constitutional due process protections, Congress statutorily created “collection due process” limitations.    See , Steven J. Willis & Nakku Chung, No Healthcare Penalty? No Problem: No Due Process , 38 Am. J. Law & Med. 516 (2013). Those important protections, however, are subject to the whim of future Congresses.

Sixth, arguably taxes must be imposed “for the general welfare.” A close reading of Article One, Section Eight suggests the limitation actually restricts the spending power rather than the taxing power. Interestingly, in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), Justice Ginsburg spoke of the general welfare restriction as applying both to taxing and spending. In contrast, Chief Justice Roberts twice discussed the restriction, but only in terms of the spending power. In any event, this restriction is easily met and thus largely inconsequential.       

Lastly, the reach of taxing power limitations remains partially unclear, even 225 years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers spoke of two broad tax categories: direct and indirect, with direct being subject to apportionment and indirect being subject to uniformity. The Constitution, however, does not quite say that. Instead, it first grants Congress broad taxing power. It then requires that direct taxes be apportioned. Next, it requires that duties, imposts, and excises be uniform. It never uses the term “indirect.” This leaves open the question of whether some other type of tax is possible, which need be neither apportioned nor uniform. In 1796, the Supreme Court suggested, but did not hold, that any such “other” tax must be uniform. Hylton v. United States (1796) (Chase, J.). Over the past two hundred years, the Court has routinely spoken of taxes as being either direct or indirect; however, it has yet to consider a case holding “indirect taxes” as encompassing duties, imposts, and excises and nothing more. As a result, the question remains at least technically unresolved. 

Arguably, the Affordable Care Act tax is just that: a newly found type of tax. In NFIB , the Supreme Court held it was a tax, but not a direct one. Traditionally, duties, imposts, and excises each involve some activity: duties and imposts involve imports and transactions, while excises involve an activity, the use of something, or the exercise of a privilege. Not having health insurance does not seem to fit within any of those categories because it involves not doing something rather than doing something . The commerce clause holding in NFIB rested on inactivity not being “commerce.” Whether the Court will apply analogous reasoning to the meaning of “duties, imposts, and excises” is uncertain but plausible. The ACA tax on the lack of insurance need not be apportioned because the Court said so in 2012. The tax appears not to be uniform; however, whether it must be uniform is less clear and remains to be litigated.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Get PolitiFact in your inbox.

• Weekly Email Newsletter
• Daily Email Newsletter

• State Budget
• Kelly E. Hastings

Our story on fact-checks about the Founding Fathers was our most popular story in July. (Tampa Bay Times Illustration by Don Morris)

Did taxation really cause the American Revolution?

North Carolina prides itself on its role in the American Revolution, even claiming to be "first in freedom." And ahead of Independence Day, Republican state Rep. Kelly Hastings hearkened back to the country’s beginnings as he promised to protect taxpayers.

" The Seven Years’ War  led to near bankruptcy for many countries; Britain’s need to raise taxes fueled the American desire for independence," Hastings said in a tweet Sunday. "I pray that I maintain the wisdom to spend money wisely, prevent budget deficits, and efficiently manage debt. In turn, we can continue to cut taxes and protect the taxpayers."

The background to Hastings’ promise: Gov. Roy Cooper had announced Friday that he would veto state House and Senate Republicans’ proposed budget. Among other things, the budget did not include a plan for Medicaid expansion, which Cooper said was a must months before the budget was proposed. Many Republicans are wary of Medicaid expansion because they fear its reliance on federal tax dollars could backfire.

Hastings, a five-term House member from Cherryville, said in an email interview Tuesday that he based his tweet on knowledge from history classes and the Declaration of Independence.

"I appreciate the role that North Carolina played in our independence," Hastings added. "According to William S. Powell, the author of ‘North Carolina: A History,’ the Halifax Resolves document was the first official state action for independence."

The adoption of the Halifax Resolves by North Carolina was the first official action calling for independence from Great Britain. The date of the resolution, April 12, 1776, appears on the North Carolina flag. It’s part of the reason some North Carolina license plates say  "First in Freedom."

The famous phrase "no taxation without representation" has been remembered as the inspiration for the American Revolution, but were taxes the main cause for revolution? We decided to investigate further.

The Seven Years’ War

In Hastings’ tweet, he referenced the Seven Years’ War, a conflict started in 1756 between Great Britain and France, among other countries. In North America, the skirmish began as the French and Indian War with a border dispute with the French over the upper Ohio River Valley. The British forces, led by a young George Washington, were defeated by the French at Fort Necessity. Soon after, Great Britain retaliated.

The scuffle escalated into a worldwide conflict because of the immense imperial power Great Britain, France and their European allies held around the world. At the time, Great Britain controlled the 13 colonies from the coast to the Appalachian Mountains, and France controlled the surrounding land west of the Appalachians from Louisiana stretching up to Canada.

The Seven Years’ War was a long and expensive affair for all parties involved. In the 1762 Treaty of Paris, France and Spain also lost a considerable amount of territory. However, even though Great Britain won the war because of its strong navy, it spent a great deal of money on the conflict — which it then tried to get from the colonies.

‘Taxation without representation’

Featured Fact-check

Following the end of the French and Indian War, a series of taxes and policies, including the Stamp Act, the Townshend Tariffs and the Tea Act, were implemented in the Americas in order to help Great Britain cover the cost of winning a war in the colonies.

Kathleen DuVal, professor of history at UNC Chapel Hill, said that colonists were equally as upset about being taxed as they were angry that they were not represented in the British government.

"Colonists did pay local taxes, which they viewed as legitimate because local governments, including colonial legislatures like North Carolina’s, were locally elected," DuVal said.

The colonists believed that, as British citizens, they should only be taxed with their consent and being taxed without representation was therefore tyranny. Hence the slogan, "no taxation without representation."

"The new taxes that Parliament passed to pay down the Seven Years’ War debt were an important cause of the Revolution, but the fact that colonists weren’t represented in Parliament was central to their cause," DuVal said. "The ‘representation’ in the phrase ‘taxation without representation’ was at least as important as the ‘taxation.’"

While taxation was a main cause for revolution, the reason why it was so abhorrent was not that the taxes were high and needed to be cut. It was a problem because the colonies had no say in how they wanted to be taxed.

"Among other things, the Revolution was not about a desire to CUT taxes," said Wayne E. Lee, a professor of Peace, War and Defense at UNC Chapel Hilll.

Furthermore, if Britain had offered the colonists representation in Parliament before the war gained more momentum, the movement for independence probably would have fizzled out, DuVal said.

Hastings is correct that the Seven Years’ War caused multiple countries, including Great Britain, to plunge into debt. In order to pay it off, Great Britain taxed the American colonies.

Hastings said revolution was "fueled" by this taxation. This is true, but it does miss some key context because the colonies’ lack of representation was just as important as the excess of taxation. Because they were not represented in Parliament and thus taxed without any input, the colonists felt like second-class citizens and started their battle for equality that ultimately resulted in independence.

Therefore, we rate this statement Mostly True.

This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters’ Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email  [email protected] .

Our Sources

Email interview with North Carolina Rep. Kelly Hastings, July 2, 2019.

Email interview with Kathleen DuVal, professor of history at UNC Chapel Hill, July 2, 2019.

Email interview with Wayne E. Lee, a professor of Peace, War and Defense at UNC Chapel Hill.

"French and Indian War/ Seven Years’ War, 1754-1763" by the Office of the Historian.

"Revolutionary War" by History.com Editors on October 29, 2009.

"Roy Cooper will veto GOP-backed state budget. Will lawmakers override him?" by Paul Specht on June 28, 2019.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by elizabeth thompson.

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Boston Tea Party

By: History.com Editors

Updated: December 6, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

The Boston Tea Party was a political protest that occurred on December 16, 1773, at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. American colonists, frustrated and angry at Britain for imposing “taxation without representation,” dumped 342 chests of tea, imported by the British East India Company into the harbor. The event was the first major act of defiance to British rule over the colonists. It showed Great Britain that Americans would not tolerate taxation and tyranny sitting down, and rallied American patriots across the 13 colonies to fight for independence.

Why Did the Boston Tea Party Happen?

In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.

The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.

The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf.  The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.

Boston Massacre Enrages Colonists

On March 5, 1770, a street brawl happened in Boston between American colonists and British soldiers.

Later known as the Boston Massacre , the fight began after an unruly group of colonists—frustrated with the presence of British soldiers in their streets— flung snowballs , ice and oyster shells at a British sentinel guarding the Boston Customs House.

Reinforcements arrived and opened fire on the mob, killing five colonists and wounding six. The Boston Massacre and its fallout further incited the colonists’ rage towards Britain.

Tea Act Imposed

Britain eventually repealed the taxes it had imposed on the colonists except the tea tax. It wasn’t about to give up tax revenue on the nearly 1.2 million pounds of tea the colonists drank each year.

In protest, the colonists boycotted tea sold by British East India Company and smuggled in Dutch tea, leaving British East India Company with millions of pounds of surplus tea and facing bankruptcy.

In May 1773, British Parliament passed the Tea Act which allowed British East India Company to sell tea to the colonies duty-free and much cheaper than other tea companies—but still tax the tea when it reached colonial ports.

Tea smuggling in the colonies increased, although the cost of the smuggled tea soon surpassed that of tea from British East India Company with the added tea tax.

Still, with the help of prominent tea smugglers such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams —who protested taxation without representation but also wanted to protect their tea smuggling operations—colonists continued to rail against the tea tax and Britain’s control over their interests.

Sons of Liberty

The Sons of Liberty were a group of colonial merchants and tradesmen founded to protest the Stamp Act and other forms of taxation. The group of revolutionists included prominent patriots such as Benedict Arnold , Patrick Henry and Paul Revere , as well as Adams and Hancock.

Led by Adams, the Sons of Liberty held meetings rallying against British Parliament and protested the Griffin’s Wharf arrival of Dartmouth , a British East India Company ship carrying tea. By December 16, 1773, Dartmouth had been joined by her sister ships, Beaver and Eleanor ; all three ships loaded with tea from China.

That morning, as thousands of colonists convened at the wharf and its surrounding streets, a meeting was held at the Old South Meeting House where a large group of colonists voted to refuse to pay taxes on the tea or allow the tea to be unloaded, stored, sold or used. (Ironically, the ships were built in America and owned by Americans.)

Governor Thomas Hutchison refused to allow the ships to return to Britain and ordered the tea tariff be paid and the tea unloaded. The colonists refused, and Hutchison never offered a satisfactory compromise.

Facts: What Happened at the Boston Tea Party

That night, a large group of men—many reportedly members of the Sons of Liberty— disguised themselves in Native American garb, boarded the docked ships and threw 342 chests of tea into the water.

Said participant George Hewes, “We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.”

Hewes also noted that “We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.”

Did you know? It took nearly three hours for more than 100 colonists to empty the tea into Boston Harbor. The chests held more than 90,000 lbs. (45 tons) of tea, which would cost nearly $1,000,000 dollars today.

Boston Tea Party Aftermath

While some important colonist leaders such as John Adams were thrilled to learn Boston Harbor was covered in tea leaves, others were not.

In June of 1774, George Washington wrote: “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America.” But his personal views of the event were far different. He voiced strong disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea” and claimed Bostonians “were mad.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct. 

Benjamin Franklin insisted the British East India Company be reimbursed for the lost tea and even offered to pay for it himself.

No one was hurt, and aside from the destruction of the tea and a padlock, no property was damaged or looted during the Boston Tea Party. The participants reportedly swept the ships’ decks clean before they left.

Who Organized the Boston Tea Party?  

Though led by Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty and organized by John Hancock, the names of many of those involved in the Boston Tea Party remain unknown. Thanks to their Native American costumes, only one of the tea party culprits, Francis Akeley, was arrested and imprisoned.

Even after American independence, participants refused to reveal their identities, fearing they could still face civil and criminal charges as well as condemnation from elites for the destruction of private property. Most participants in the Boston Tea Party were under the age of 40 and 16 of them were teenagers . 

Coercive Acts

But despite the lack of violence, the Boston Tea Party didn’t go unanswered by King George III and British Parliament.

In retribution, they passed the Coercive Acts (later known as the Intolerable Acts) which:

• Closed Boston Harbor until the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party was paid for
• Ended the Massachusetts Constitution and ended free elections of town officials
• Moved judicial authority to Britain and British judges, basically creating martial law in Massachusetts
• Required colonists to quarter British troops on demand
• Extended freedom of worship to French-Canadian Catholics under British rule, which angered the mostly Protestant colonists

Britain hoped the Coercive Acts would squelch rebellion in New England and keep the remaining colonies from uniting, but the opposite happened: All the colonies viewed the punitive laws as further evidence of Britain’s tyranny and rallied to Massachusetts’ aid, sending supplies and plotting further resistance.

Second Boston Tea Party

A second Boston Tea Party took place in March 1774, when around 60 Bostonians boarded the ship Fortune and dumped nearly 30 chests of tea into the harbor.

The event didn’t earn nearly as much notoriety as the first Boston Tea Party, but it did encourage other tea-dumping demonstrations in Maryland , New York and South Carolina .

First Continental Congress Is Convened

Many colonists felt Britain’s Coercive Acts went too far. On September 5, 1774, elected delegates from all 13 American colonies except Georgia met in Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress to figure out how to resist British oppression.

The delegates were divided on how to move forward but the Boston Tea Party had united them in their fervor to gain independence. By the time they adjourned in October 1774, they’d written The Declaration and Resolves which:

• Censured Britain for passing the Coercive Acts and called for their repeal
• Established a boycott of British goods
• Declared the colonies had the right to govern independently
• Rallied colonists to form and train a colonial militia

Britain didn’t capitulate and within months, the “ shot heard round the world ,” rang out in Concord, Massachusetts , sparking the start of the American Revolutionary War .

A Tea Party Timeline: 1773-1775. Old South Meeting House. The Boston Tea Party. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. The Boston Tea Party. Massachusetts Historical Society. The Boston Tea Party, 1773. EyewitnesstoHistory.com. The Intolerable Acts. U.S.History.org.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Taxation and Representation: The Imperial Debate between Britain and the Americans

By gordon s. wood.

Brown University historian Gordon Wood describes the British and American conceptions of representation during the eighteenth century, widely diverging points of view that were forged by radically different experiences with government. This deep divide led ultimately to revolution, but first, Wood explains, to "one of the great debates about politics in world history."

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

On Taxation and Representation: An Empirical Investigation

According to two scholarly traditions, namely the democratization and resource curse theories, greater taxation leads to demand for representation; however, the empirical evidence for the taxation–representation connection remains mixed. We emphasize two crucial conditions under which this relationship is likely to hold: First, pressure for representation in return for taxation should increase when rulers have problems of credible commitment in policy-making, which often happens in autocratic regimes. Second, such pressure should grow stronger among those whose wealth is disproportionally exposed to state predation. Taken together, we expect rising economic elites in autocracies experiencing economic transformation to be the focus of taxation–representation demands. To test our predictions, we draw from original individual-level panels of business elites and ordinary citizens in China and Taiwan, leveraging regime type and elite status variations. Our investigation sheds light on th...

Related Papers

The literature maintains that in the history of mature democracies, a progressive income tax evolved with a demand for equality, as reflected in the phrase "no taxation without representation." Starting in the mid-1970s, international economic pressure led to the introduction of regressive consumption taxes in countries that have been democratizing and are yet to democratize. However, little attention has been paid to the emerging link between regressive taxation and representation. Redistributive politics is a critical intervening factor. Although elites accept modern taxation without fearing redistribution, with its regressive effect, citizens increase their demand for equality. We conduct a quantitative analysis of 160 countries from 1960 to 2008 and confirm a positive effect of regressive taxes on democratization. We also find that economic growth alleviates the negative effect of tax inequality on democratization. This study illuminates the new tax-democratization lin...

American Journal of Political Science

Ling Chen , Hao Zhang

A rich literature has noted political business cycles in democracies. We argue that in an autocracy with strong bureaucratic institutions, the pressure of evaluation and promotion has also generated political cycles of tax-break policies. Furthermore, the timing and content of the evaluation have driven leaders to use tax breaks strategically to build economic performance, producing distributional consequences. Combining panel data of 1,510,153 firm-year observations, city-leader data from 1995 to 2007, and field interviews, we find that the tax-break rates dropped for most firms during mayors' turnover years. In the first year of office, that is, the "busy year," mayors needed to prioritize large firms and especially large foreign firms. Small domestic private firms bore the cost of tenure cycles. In the last year of the mayors' tenure, that is, the "dust-settled" year, there was little incentive to seek promotion, and even important firms could not gain the mayors' attention.

Mario R Gilli

SSRN Electronic Journal

Ekaterina Zhuravskaya

Alexander F Day

In Tax Reform in Rural China, Hiroki Takeuchi puts rural governance reforms into the larger context of center-local relations under China’s authoritarian governance structure of the 1990s and early 2000s, arguing that tax reform needs to be understood as an attempt by the central government to maintain an authoritarian system at the expense of local rural governments more than a response to the actual problem of excess peasant burden. In other words, in order to maintain an authoritarian system the central government chose not to expand political reforms at the local level—which might have led to good governance and a better provision of public goods—and instead used the local governments as scapegoats for rural problems that were of central origin.

Comparative Political Studies

Sven Steinmo

Europe-asia Studies

Christopher J Gerry

Alejandro Pachon

Studies in Comparative International Development

Xian Yu Huang

Francois Bourguignon

RELATED PAPERS

Shukri S Fetahu

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

Sarina Ergas

NEVZAT ARTIK

Fernando Bellandi Rullo

Neuro-Oncology Advances

Parmo Parmo

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Giorgio Musazzi

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice

Dirk Janssens

Cultura Y Religion

Mariana Espinosa

Journal of Electrical …

aissaoui mohamed

Journal of clinical immunology

Lisa Forbes

Advanced Computing: An International Journal

Prof Sunday Ojo

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Patrick Possel

John Waldon

Priyadharshini Priya

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Nico Rijkhoff

Jurnal Ilmu Keperawatan: Nursing and Public Health

reflis ayek

Melanie Haller

Norzalita Abd Aziz

21º Congresso da SBS

Alexander Englander

Human care journal

Helena Patricia

文凭毕业证、毕业证认证 仿制学位证书、毕业证文凭、

Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah

Iqbal Maulana

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

On Friday July 12. [1776] the Committee [of the Continental Congress] appointed to draw the articles of confederation reported them, and on the 22d. the house resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th. & 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles were expressed in the original draught in these words. "Art. XI. All charges of war & all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken & transmitted to the Assembly of the United States."

Mr. [Samuel] Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the "white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be alwais in proportion to property, that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern states on the farmer's head, & on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their farmer's heads & the heads of their cattle, that the method proposed would therefore tax the Southern states according to their numbers & their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the state more than cattle & that they have no more interest in it.

Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the state, & not as subjects of taxation, that as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers in his farm, gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand. The ten labourers add as much wealth annually to the state increase it's exports as much in the one case as the other. Certainly 500 freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the paiment of taxes than 500 slaves. Therefore the state in which are the labourers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law one half the labourers of a state could in the course of one night be transformed into slaves: would the state be made the poorer or the less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen particularly of the Northern states, is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of labourers which produce the surplus for taxation, and numbers therefore indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of the word "property" here, & it's application to some of the people of the state, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of labourers in his country, and proportionably to it's profits & abilities to pay taxes. If he buys from his neighbor it is only a transfer of a labourer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual produce of the state, & therefore should not change it's tax. That if a Northern farmer works ten labourers on his farm, he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labour in cattle: but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a state of one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore they have no more of that kind of property. That a slave may indeed from the custom of speech be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free labourer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the state, both were equally it's wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of it's tax.

Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison proposed as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do so much work as freemen; and doubted if two effected more than one. That this was proved by the price of labor. The hire of a labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8 to £12. while in the Northern it was generally £24.

Mr. [James] Wilson said that if this amendment should take place the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern. That slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves & freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would give the jus trium liberorum to him who would import slaves. That other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed thro' all the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, & sheep, in the North as the South, & South as the North; but not so as to slaves. That experience has shown that those colonies have been alwais able to pay most which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white, and the practice of the Southern colonies has alwais been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his labourers whether they be black or white. He acknowledges indeed that freemen work the most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again white women are exempted from labor generally, but negro women are not. In this then the Southern states have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery is necessary because the commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.

Mr. Payne [Robert Treat Paine] urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas of the states to the number of souls.

Dr. [John] Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands & houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen & therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said too that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the state is to pay, we do no more than those states themselves do, who alwais take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern colonies slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent. That as to the original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas according to the souls, it was temporary only, & related to the monies heretofore emitted: whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.

Aug. 1. The question being put the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of N. Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island, Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, & Pennsylvania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Georgia was divided.

The other article was in these words. "Art. XVII. In determining questions each colony shall have one vote."

July 30. 31. Aug. 1. Present 41. members. Mr. Chase observed that this article was the most likely to divide us of any one proposed in the draught then under consideration. That the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their weight in congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together, as should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us at all, or the different states will form different alliances, and thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed which in such a state of separation & independence would render us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion the smaller colonies would lose their rights, if they were not in some instances allowed an equal vote; and therefore that a discrimination should take place among the questions which would come before Congress. That the smaller states should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty & the greater ones in all respecting property. He therefore proposed that in votes relating to money, the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.

Dr. Franklin thought that the votes should be so proportioned in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their Delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it a very extraordinary language to be held by any state, that they would not confederate with us unless we would let them dispose of our money. Certainly if we vote equally we ought to pay equally; but the smaller states will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had he lived in a state where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time & accident he might have submitted rather than disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out in this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right. That at the time of the Union between England and Scotland the latter had made the objection which the smaller states now do. But experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them. That their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen as in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought the prediction reversed in event and that Jonas had swallowed the whale, for the Scotch had in fact got possession of the government and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies and therefore was for their voting in all cases according to the number of taxables.

Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, & lessen it's importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war & dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the smaller states will become vassals to the larger; & all experience has shown that the vassals & subjects of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome. He observed that foreign powers discovering this blemish would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal a confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as individuals; and that as such, in all disputes they should have an equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain with each other, & of course had a right to vote as individuals. That in the East India company they voted by persons, & not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller states were as much interested as the larger, & therefore should vote equally; and indeed that the larger states were more likely to bring war on the confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it must be of things which are co-ordinate; that is, of things similar & of the same nature: that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating & a federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union: for that it's inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places & employments. Nor was it an instance of equality of representation; because while Scotland was allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation they were to pay only one fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes that in the present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.

John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said that we stand here as the representatives of the people. That in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted. That therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors. That the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase it's wealth or numbers. If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument. A. has £50. B. £500. C. £1000. in partnership. Is it just they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership? It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons which prove the justice & expediency of equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusetts are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests & of manners, & it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller. That the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode isld, from it's relation, similarity & intercourse will generally pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland, with Pennsylvania.

Dr. [Benjamin] Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of great Britain also are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There it was admitted there should be an equality of representation. Another part of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress: why is it not equally necessary there should be an equal representation there? Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together, they would determine the questions submitted to them by their majority. Why should not the same majority decide when voting here by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially divided in situation as to render every fear of their combining visionary. Their interests are different, & their circumstances dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals & leave it in the power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants will have one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to discourage slavery & to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.

Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins observed there were 4 larger, 4 smaller, & 4 middle-sized colonies. That the 4 largest would contain more than half the inhabitants of the confederated states, & therefore would govern the others as they should please. That history affords no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic body votes by states. The Helvetic body does the same; & so does the Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient confederations to say what was their practice.

Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of all. That if any government could speak the will of all, it would be perfect; and that so far as it departs from this it becomes imperfect. It has been said that Congress is a representation of states; not of individuals. I say that the objects of its care are all the individuals of the states. It is strange that annexing the name of "State" to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not of reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are not so many states, we are one large state. We lay aside our individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a burlesque on government; and their practice on any point is a sufficient authority & proof that it is wrong. The greatest imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly sacrificed to that of the small states. The history of the war in the Reign of Q. Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked shall nine colonies put it into the power of four to govern them as they please? I invert the question, and ask shall two millions of people put it in the power of one million to govern them as they please? It is pretended too that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. Speak in honest language & say the minority will be in danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth where this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is that our proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater than the larger states will disagree than that they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent a possible case or to suggest any one thing on earth which shall be for the interests of Virginia, Pennsylvania & Massachusetts, and which will not also be for the interest of the other states.

These articles reported July 12. 76 were debated from day to day, & time to time for two years, were ratified July 9, '78, by 10 states, by N. Jersey on the 26th. of Nov. of the same year, and by Delaware on the 23d. of Feb. following. Maryland alone held off 2 years more, acceding to them Mar. 1, 81. and thus closing the obligation.

The Works of Thomas Jefferson . Collected and edited by Paul Leicester Ford. Federal Edition. 12 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904--5.

• US Settler-to-Corporate Terrorism
• Tech Impacts on Evo
• Beyond 1984
• Mil Int Dominance
• Children of Earth & Sky
• Pandemic Parallax View
• Our Founder
• HHC in York
• 4-Stage Plan
• Sponsors & Board
• Donate / Get Involved
• Table Of Contents

Taxation With Representation

Help support our mission….

Hidden History Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and presentation of little-known history. We depend on your tax-deductible contributions to continue our work.

(Click on an image to go to its source.)

Taxes are indeed our money, and therefore we should be allowed to spend them as we see fit. Taxes, if paid by the people, should be directly allocated by the people. Bush appeals to the selfish position of those who do not wish to pay taxes for social services or welfare, but are fine with paying for the military and CIA that protect their wealth, privilege and investments here and abroad. He hands us back a rebate which is little more than chump change after he has taken out the massive ($238 billion) Pentagon budget, the increased CIA budget, and cut the social services once more. What is the average citizen to do with $300? Will it educate the children? Will it pay for health care? Or is it just meant to take the edge off the gouging profits of the rate hike at our gas pumps this year? …

I propose that if we are to pay any tax on income exchanged for labor, it should be directly allocated by each taxpayer to whatever programs they feel are a priority. The net effect of a tax cut and a Pentagon increase has to mean a social services cut in education, health, infrastructure, or assistance. I would propose that the corporations pay a fair share but have no power in its allocation. Once the collective will was clearly expressed by compiling a taxpayers allocation pie, the corporate funds would be allocated proportionately as well, or used to create an emergency backup fund for direct allocation when conditions arose or funds allocated were insufficient to public needs and desires.

My first approach would be to plant the seed of this idea, for which I have found almost universal acceptance among diverse groups of people: implement it without binding the government at first. A simple three-layer carbon form could be mailed to all taxpayers in a given area, along with printed pie charts showing how current taxes are being spent at local, state and national levels. Taxpayers would be invited to fill out their own charts, showing their priorities on the form. One copy would be added to their payments of local, state and federal taxes, enclosed with the tax return. This would indicate their intent and educate them about whose money it is. The second copy would be returned to the public interest group doing the mailings, and they would be complied into several “People’s tax pies” for each municipality, county and state. At a public meeting and press conference, these pies could be compared to the current spending pies based on the allocation voting records of their elected “representatives”. I can guarantee you they would not be the same pies. The elected representatives could be invited to attend and explain who they really represent, or why they feel better qualified to spend the people’s money than the people themselves.

Once the principle was established it would be easy enough to make the last page of any tax form an allocation chart and let the taxpayers allocate the funds. A one-year lag time could be established, to give time for corrections by way of referendum or reallocation of the corporate based emergency funds if needed. This then would truly represent taxation with representation, and our money would be allocated democratically and directly by the people. The current unrepresentative allocation that bloats the coffers of the military-industrial complex and guts the social benefits of this productive economy could be put to use to end poverty, homelessness, miseducation, and many other social ills, as the people might so direct.

READ FULL ARTICLE .

Support Our Work

Subscribe to our mailing list.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Gateway for Truth

• Hwy. B reconstruction project, traffic reroutes, begin Monday
• Man with six open felonies held on $25K cash following domestic incident

Letter: Passage of school referendum is ‘taxation without representation’

• Musical performances scheduled in April at UWSP
• It’s ba-ack: Cops-n-Bobbers returns to Lake Pacawa in June

Send your open letters here

To the Editor-

What was the reason the Stevens Point Area Schools passed? What made 7,500 people vote yes to a plan that burdens taxpayers to the tune of $14 million from now to eternity?

Was it retaining quality teachers, mental health, or something else? According to the superintendent, our quality teachers spend more of their day dealing with mental health issues than they do educating. Or is it providing a range of academic programs? If a student can’t read, write, do simple math, and balance a bank account, what good does a range of academic programs achieve?

According to the MacIver Institute, now that this referendum has passed, the district will receive roughly $17,000 per student. A minimum wage worker in Wisconsin receives $15,000 working 40 hours for a year. Was this referendum enacted to throw more money at problems the district has either addressed or kept hidden from the public in hopes more money will solve these problems?

I feel, as I’m sure most others do, that this is taxation without representation. Who in the district is working for the best interest of the taxpayers pumping all this money in and what tangible proof will that taxpayer receive to show all this new money will have a positive impact on the district, now and in the long term? Continued mediocrity cannot be the answer.

This fall, Stevens Point has a referendum to seek an additional $1 million to help the fire department increase staff. If that referendum fails but the school district passed, does the community value the cost of a student compared to the benefit of a firefighter/paramedic? There are too many questions without enough answers.

Cash Cooke Linwood