Add Your Idea

No representation without taxation

1 Comment 15th March 2013

In 1776 the American colonies declared independance from Britain on the basis that as they had no representation in parliament, rule from London was illegal. Specifically the taxation of American settlers did not give them any representation, leading to the call for No taxation without representation.

By the same token the opposite should be valid and no one should be able to claim representation unless they are paying tax.

In essence, this means that the right to vote and be represented at Westminster should be conditional on paying taxes.

Why does this matter?

On the basic tenet of either statements, it is only right that those paying taxes should be the only ones that are represented in parliament over the expenditure of those taxes. Why should a person who doesn't contribute to the countries running costs expect the same level of representation as those paying taxes and still have a say through an MP how those taxes are spent.

Highlighted posts

Add Your Idea

One Response to No representation without taxation

  1. John Herbster says:

    Just theoretically, consider having two houses of representation with one house being elected on the basis of one-person-one vote and the other house elected on the basis of one-tax-dollar-one-vote. Require all laws to be approved by both houses.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.

Back to top
Add Your Idea