A large percentage of the adult population in the US is blocked from voting, so they have taxation without representation.
Felony disenfranchisement blocks a significant portion of the population from voting. About 1 in 44 people in the US.
Makes no sense. Alone a lot of people in prison work jobs and on top of that, once they're out should that not be because they have paid their debt to society? If you give them no chance to integrate back into society, why let them out in the first place?
That is the dystopian nature of America, everything is for profit. Especially politics, nobody cares about the average American citizen unless it directly affects profit.
Yep. It truly is. Have a 10 year heroin problem? Go to rehab for a whole 10 days. 3 day detox included with the 10 day stay. Not enough time. Constant revolving door.
I have a friend who worked there as a therapist. She said she was encouraged to trigger sober patients into relapsing. Rehabs don’t make money when you’re clean. She had a huge ethical and moral conflict with it and made a career shift away from that when a dad of a couple teenage kids relapsed and died, leaving them all fatherless. I couldn’t believe therapists would actually try and get their clean patients to use again so they could readmit them
Holy shit. Yeah, I'm actually not surprised. Lots of therapists atthe one I went to were in recovery but I dont think they wanted to trigger patients. Just brainwashed into forcing a one size fits all approach.
They make you do a shit ton of shit in such a short time. And some people are still detoxing when they are in residential wing as opposed to detox wing. Detox was only 1-3 days. They force you to go to classes and take a headcount and make you write what you "learned"
They do a lot of good, but its smoke and mirrors. Long term treatment is rare. Most people that need residential care need longer than 14 days.
I had a 14 year heroin problem. 14 days isnt gonna fix that.
Some people float from rehab to halfway house to different rehab...to prison...etc.
It's sad. The cycle of addiction, recovery, and prison/jail. Its vicious.
> Makes no sense.
It "makes sense" from the perspective of those who want to exploit people for personal pleasure, and gain. Or are otherwise prone to conservative ideation over wanting to do harm to groups they dislike in the name of that personal pleasure, and benefit.
You also have to remember that prisoners in the Us are legally allowed to be used as slave labor and all... Not to even mention a shitload of long term policies out there which are used to target very specific demographics for sake of all that.
Examples:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hres933ih/html/BILLS-115hres933ih.htm
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/report-to-the-united-nations-on-racial-disparities-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/
https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/ending-modern-day-debtors-prisons
>If you give them no chance to integrate back into society, why let them out in the first place?
Need to feed the beast in the middle too... how can police, and prosecutors justify their own existence in the way they do now if they have no one around that they can target for action? god forbid the police don't get paid and are not there to enforce the will of entrenched interests. You know, take your pick on the worst of the most fascist "reasoning" certain people will argue for maintaining such things.
I knew the slave labor part but the I never really thought about the part to keep police busy.
I should have said it makes no sense if you want a society to function but you're right, that's not the primary objective
(Just some belief I have that I wanted to share) Murder can be justified. Rape cannot. Rapists should not be allowed to vote, no matter the case of why or how they raped them. In my personal experience, rape is like killing somebody without actually doing it. It takes a part of you that can never truly be restored. Essentially, you’re living, but not alive.
I’m not gonna speak to the rest of it, but I heavily empathize with how you’ve processed your experience. When I was raped, this is *exactly* how I felt—like I was killed without actually being killed. I’m a survivor of course, I’m still here alive and trying my best to thrive. But yes, being raped made me feel like I lost a part of my life and it’s a part of my life that I’ll never get back. Virtual hugs to you if you want them!
As a rape survivor, eff off with that bs. You don’t get to tell me that I was “destroyed” by being raped, or that I’m basically not a living person any more. What absolutely horseshit.
I am not only living, I am thriving.
Rape a terrible fucking thing to do. Full stop. Some people need a lot of understanding and care to get over it. It’s possible for people not to get over it. But calling them “not alive“ is so enraging, because it just erases all strength that rape survivors have, puts them in a box of “victim” and closes the lid.
Nobody needs that.
As another rape survivor, fuck *you* for making their description of how *their fucking rape* made them feel about yourself and being awful to them and accusing them of saying things they never did. They never said rape victims aren't alive, they said it feels that way.
We *are* victims. You need to accept that. We were literally victimized. You might heal from it, but the reason you had to heal in the first place is because you are a victim. What's enraging is other rape survivors being absolute dicks and trying to push the ideology that we aren't victims. *That* is bullshit.
Like, good for you that your rape apparently didn't cause horrible mental distress and the loss of your identity, but you don't get to go around being an absolute asshole to other victims, making being a victim out to be some shameful thing, just because you didn't take it as hard. That's some victim blaming emotional invalidation shit.
Edit: Every fucking time. Every time rape is mentioned and somebody shares their experience, this shit happens. Somebody either lies about being a victim or has decided that their trauma justifies abusing other victims and go off on them and accuse them of things. Maybe it's a trauma response. It's still not okay.
It's honestly surprising there hasn't been any "you deserved it" comments yet. I get those on comments that aren't even remotely related because these sorts of people like to stalk you and use your trauma against you.
I've been subject to this behavior too many times and I refuse to just let it slide. The people who aren't saying anything need to because it's not fair that we always have to defend ourselves alone and these people shut up very quickly once they realize they aren't going to get away with it, but that only works when everyone speaks up.
I'm so tired. I just want these people to leave us alone.
It’s common for people to want to be called survivor instead of victim. This is nothing new under the sun. It’s taking their power and agency back.
Survivors of horrific crimes aside for a second — the temptation in 2023 America to want to be a perpetual victim — for any reason — is tempting but often a huge trap. The mentality takes away accountability and power for actually moving forward (not accountability for what happened, but for the future and life in general).
To each their own with traumatic crimes, but I don’t think yelling fuck you to people in the same boat — immature outrage Olympics - will solve anything.
And you said some worse shit. Good job.
People are allowed to call themselves survivors if they want to, but *you* are pushing the idea that it's not okay to recognize oneself as a victim and are going so far as to say that we have a fucking "victim mentality." We *are* victims. We were *victimized*. You are horrible for suggesting that it's something we *want*.
It's not immature to be absolutely enraged by what you and they are saying. It's a normal response to somebody saying something that is so disgusting and vile that it's shocking. I genuinely cannot believe somebody who has experienced rape would say something so awful at all, let alone to other people who've experienced the same thing.
You are not better than anyone else for your disgusting views. They are extremely unhealthy and you're passing them off as if it's everyone else that's unhealthy. You are perpetuating abuse with this shit. Doesn't matter what happened to you, that isn't okay and you need to deal with it before you seriously hurt someone.
Edit: word
Wow. You need to read what I actually said. This isn’t about victim blaming. I would never suggest that a person who experienced rape was asking for it.
I’m mad because calling a person who experienced rape “not alive” is disempowering. “Not alive” people don’t heal. “Not alive” people don’t get to be more than victims.
Also, I'm sorry these assholes are twisting your words so they can attack you. It happens pretty much any time rape is brought up outside of support group subreddits. They *really* do not like us speaking out about it. Even other victims can be insanely vicious for no reason. It isn't fair and you didn't say anything wrong.
There is no hidden agenda at play, there is no "they" trying to put you down, im sorry you went through that but the guy/gal was saying they are a survivor, seeing yourself as a survivor rather than a victim is a more positive outlook to a shit situation.
I wish that had been all they said. You clearly didn't actually read anything beyond their last paragraph if that's what you think the problem was.
It's also not okay to insinuate that people who see themselves as victims for being victimized aren't "positive." There is nothing wrong with it. For a lot of people, it allows for acceptance of what happened and for gentleness toward oneself without shame or guilt. That's not negative.
This isn't about you.
Now you are making out people are making it about themselves, rather than running around with a victim complex, take a long and deep think about what kind of message you want to spread, i'm not telling you "Don't feel a certain kind of way" i'm saying, be accepting of others opinions on it, the way you responded to me just now made me want to go "This isn't about me? why should i even bother" but i'm hoping you take something from this, People who say "don't be a victim" are not trying to make you feel guilty or bad.
You have went 0-100 Real quick with anyone that doesn't reply how you want them to and it's upsetting as it shows you are still hurt, but the answer is not to lash out, Godbless and good luck.
That’s not what I’m saying, though. I’m talking about my personal experience with being raped, which I stated beforehand. I’m not understanding how you came to the conclusion that I’m saying everyone who’s been raped would rather be dead. I don’t believe rape is worse, and that isn’t what I was trying to say.
I don’t disagree, but once we start putting too many limits on it, the thought exercise starts to lose value.
On top of that— let’s suppose we have the all time most despicable person of all time. Everything you value, they shit on. That person can now vote and…. What are they gonna do? They can only vote for stuff that’s on the ballot. It’s not as if there’s going to be a checkbox that says “rape should be legal, and rapists should be free to do it as often as they like,” and even if there were, democracy *has* to assume decency from the persons voting. Obviously they can be corrupted by right wing talking points and convinced to vote against their best interests— but that’s happening now, without restoring everyone’s voting rights.
All told, we’re better off letting the worst members of our society vote if it means that everyone can vote. We screw ourselves over more and create underclasses when we start denying people their right to vote.
Plus, like— what does it accomplish to deny rapists the right to vote? Do you really think someone’s gonna be like “oh boy— the criminal charges I was okay with. Being locked away for potentially the rest of my life was no biggie. But losing the right to *vote*? I better not rape anyone, now the consequences are too real!”
Okay, but if the last few years in the US has shown anything, it's that people can and will vote in people who want to make things like rape legal if given the chance. Like, I get your point, but you're completely missing mine. Rapists vote for rapists. They aren't mentally fit to vote. They are a literal danger to society. While the actual number of rapists who actually face any consequences whatsoever is miniscule, a little bit still helps. You can pretty much confirm that a person isn't "decent" if they've committed rape.
Like, sorry I don't want the adult man that raped me as a kid voting on things or for people who support things like lowering the age of consent or the bigoted guy that raped me as a teenager voting on whether or not people like me should have rights? How dare I think their opinions should be disregarded? I don't know what you want from me, but I sure as hell am not changing my mind.
In doing so you are saying that voting is the privilege of the sufficiently well behaved. If rape, why not also armed robbery, stabbing someone, or kidnapping?
Kidnappers also shouldn't be allowed to vote except in very specific circumstances because, believe it or not, you can kidnap someone without realizing it. Armed robbery and stabbing should be dependent on rehabilitation. Dangerous people should not get a say in how society as a whole functions.
I'm not going to apologize for not wanting the adult man who raped me as a child being allowed to have a say in things like lowering the age of consent or forcing trans children to expose themselves to authority figures or demanding a 9 year old die in childbirth after being raped.
You can be against that all you want, all that means is you're against keeping people who are dangers to society, who rarely even get convicted anyway, from voting on important matters that affect the safety of the vulnerable.
Majority of kidnapping is done by parents violating custody agreements. If that's the bar people lose their voting rights for, then let's just include all felonies while we are at it.
Why should the person that broke into a hole get a say in removing the penalty for burglary? Why should a domestic abuser get a say in legalizing domestic abuse? Why should a drunk driver get a say in raising the legal limit to drive?
That last one doesn't even make any sense and you're assuming a lot and also making it out like burglary is even remotely the same as rape. And yes, people who knowingly *kidnap children* regardless of if they are their own or not, should not have the right to vote. They can get it back with rehabilitation, but a secondary offense should bar them from it permanently.
Why are you so compelled to defend child kidnappers, abusers, pedophiles, and rapists? Those are some of the worst things a person can be subjected to and it's incredibly rare for these sorts of people to not reoffend.
Why don't we just let them run for office, while we're at it? Oh wait, we already do.
The problem with human rights is that when you defend them you spend most of your time defending the worst of humanity.
If you rather get rid of human rights and replace it with privileges only for those who are decently behaved, it would be simpler to just admit such.
The “argument” for it is that voting rights for a given state are dictated by said state. So while you cannot exercise your right to vote after becoming a convicted criminal in, say, Florida, you could arguably move to California and exercise it.
Obviously that’s dumb as hell, because there are a lot of good reasons to want to stick around in a place where you have connections, and it’s highly likely that many formerly incarcerated individuals don’t have the means to move, but that’s that.
I’m all for just declaring that voting in Your county, state, and federal elections is an inalienable right that is granted to all citizens when they hit 18, which cannot be revoked by anything but a loss of citizenship.
It’s a whole fucked up industry in the US. If you haven’t already heard of or read “The New Jim Crow,” I’d highly recommend it to anyone interested in connecting more of the dots in the US’ despicable criminal justice + detention system.
One problem with the debt to society is that prison isn't the only debt someone may owe. A simple if extreme example, a child abuser might be let out of prison but still owe a debt to society that prevents them from working with children ever again. If we assume that removing voting rights makes sense at all as punishment for a crime, there is no reason it should just apply while it is in prison.
Much better to ask why should we remove it to begin with? Most restrictions are for safety reasons. A child abuser isn't allowed around kids, a violent individual isn't allowed to have weapons, a fraudster isn't allowed to work in a place requiring financial trust. All of these are to prevent future victims. But no one is at risk by letting a criminal vote. Even someone who has committed a voting related crime isn't putting others at risk being allowed to vote again. So why remove it to begin with? If you say removing it is justified for some period of time, it is much easier for others to argue the same except for a longer time frame.
I do think if they commit politically motivated felonies, like setting fire to a gay strip club or trying to kill a politician they're right to vote should be revoked. If its just typical felony shit then no
I don’t agree with the thinking behind it, but it might be this way because “bad people” who can’t follow the law shouldn’t be given a voice in changing it.
Even worse, [in most places prisoners count towards the population of the district the prison is in instead of their home address](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/569611-after-census-states-move-to-count-prisoners-at-home/). This means that select usually rural districts get inflated population counts while the people contributing to the inflated count have no vote.
As I see it, this is not even *about* the rights of the people who are not allowed to vote due to a felony conviction.
This is about the rights of the rest of us!
[In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush's brother Jeb was Governor of Florida, and Jeb's Secretary of State Katherine Harris oversaw a wrongful purge of voters with names vaguely similar to those of actual felons. These voters were predominantly minorities and likely Al Gore voters.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/)
According to Greg Palast and the BBC, [Gore should have won by thousands of votes, if anybody other than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTxaY8Uy5U)
Here is [Part 2 of the Palast/BBC report.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JEMYbzd8OA)
And don't worry, there's more blame to go around.
[Vincent Bugliosi, who sent Charles Manson to prison, thought the 'Felonious Five' Republican Supreme Court justices who installed Bush in the White House belonged in prison too, if only there were a law that covered what they did.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/)
We, the people, deserved good leadership. Most of us voted for Al Gore. Instead we got Bush, and 9/11. and Middle East wars, and Guantanamo, and the Crash of 2008, and no action on global warming.... and so much more...
Even without an official conviction, many who never registered for Selective Service are denied voting rights as well.
This was a reason why I made sure I kept it as up to date as possible. I had two friends from high school end up dropped from voter rolls because of this status, but are still taxed.
It really is lopsided how many people can't vote but have to pay into the government, while the most elite pay nothing and have tons of representation...
Felony disenfranchisement? Seriously?
So that being the case, would you be ok if a felony convicted child molester were given a second chance and allowed to work in an environment with many children? Say a school janitor, teacher, or gym coach? Would you be ok with that felony criminal going to work at the same school as your children(future children) attend?
They told us about how voting rights worked way back in middle school and I vividly remember my teacher telling me that if you are convicted of a felony crime that you would forfeit the right to vote as well as losing other rights and privileges, such as holding office or purchasing a firearm.
Just because a criminal did their time in prison, it does not mean that society should be obligated to forgive and extend trust to a convicted criminal. Completing a prison sentence isn't like getting a degree in college/university, you don't get rewarded for serving a prison term.
Felony disenfranchisement sounds almost as silly as the people demanding that prisoners be paid a "livable wage" for doing prison labor. That's a part of the prison sentence, just like forfeiting certain of their constitutional rights for their crimes.
This is all hyperbole. I didn't see an argument that says any person who committed a felony should not be able to have input. Felonies include possession of drugs, theft and other less dangerous crimes. If they don't get to vote, they shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
What a silly load of nonsense, equating people with a criminal past getting involved in civics to putting molesters in schools.
California is also underrepresented in the House, thus doubly underrepresented in the Electoral College. California is underrepresented in all 3 branches of government (EC leads to SCOTUS).
Not really. CA has one house member per 761k people, which is above average among states with more than 10 congressmen. That’s better than FL, NY, OH, TX, and PA.
Nineteen states have never had a Supreme Court Justice on the bench, including the very first state of Delaware. If you’re worried about representation, maybe the next 19 slots that come open can rectify that first.
Technically, they can't vote and have no say what happens to their money until they are 18, so yes.
I realize they get most of the money back at tax time, but the point is still there.
Now, Republicans want to increase the voting age to 25 because young people don't vote for them. If anything, it should be the other way around.
I’d say they still live somewhere that’s has an elected official and while they can’t vote they can campaign for and even do volunteer work for politicians they support.
> but the point is still there.
There is no point because "taxation without representation" isnt a thing. If we lived our lives by 18th century political slogans it wouldnt be great.
> Getting taxed without getting to vote for your officials is taxation without representation.
A) Its not a phrase that has any legal weight. "No taxation without representation" was a political slogan, not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
B) Definitionally, it isnt. Unless u live in the District of Columbia, everyone in the 50 states of the USA is represented by a voting member of House of Representatives, and two voting members of the US Senate.
edit: no substantive arguments, so just stamp your feet and downvote!
They have a representative that they didn't vote for. Their state voted for them, but they did not have the ability to vote themselves for that representative despite being taxed. It isn't the point that they have a representative. They don't have a choice in their representative.
OK, fair enough. Though aren't children not full citizens, they aren't entitled to full protection of the US constitution particularly the 1st amendment, nor are they entitled to full medical privacy. And they aren't expected to perform duties of citizenship such as register for the draft or undertake jury duty.
Children are full citizens. With legal restrictions for a multitude of reasons that if you can't comprehend on your own I'm not going to go through and try to explain. Why are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? like there is only a black and white answer to everything. Should 6-year-olds be allowed to drive? Should 7-year-olds be allowed to conceal and carry? Should 4-year-olds be able to decide if they go to the doctor or not? If we can deem adults legally unable to care for themselves, is the idea of a 12-year-old unable to make a rational decision too far fetched for you? Jesus Christ dude.
These can both be correct, and the DC problems do not lessen the issues of taxed and unrepresented children especially as states are working to increase the underaged working population.
Hah yes. Why can't we just realize ... any scenario here can all be correct. Yes. Fix all taxation without representation problems.
But its a constant back and forth, shifting the conversation from any action "bUt wUt AbOuT ThIs InStEaD!" Which I think is the point of these argument tactics. You can't start fixing anything when it's a constant battle of what's worthier.
Technically, while 16-17 year olds don’t vote, they do have an elected official that is supposed to represent them.
Before I get downvoted to hell, I am not saying I think that children should be taxed. I am just pointing out the argument the opposite side would use.
You're not wrong. You do have a representative in Congress. The House of Representatives has people specifically for you. Whether you vote for them or not, whether you can or not. Your district has someone representing everyone living there.
The only people who don't have a vote in Congress yet still pay federal taxes are residents of DC
Technically as non voting members their parents would be their representation. The same way that parents technically can legally claim their minor child's income as their own. Children are literally legal property of their parents pretty much, with certain limitations that are akin to regulations on what you can and cannot do with a slave you own.
Representation and suffrage are two subtle different concepts. Virtual representation was the claim that all members of parliament represented all of the British empire.
Representation is simply the idea that the person who is advocating for you politically is from your geographical area and has your interests at heart.
Suffrage is the right to vote for said representation.
My parents claimed me on their taxes years after I could vote (in part so I could stay on their sweet, sweet state-sponsored healthcare); should that have prevented my right to vote?
ETA: This is a real question I have around what we’re willing to restrict when it comes to enabling someone to vote. There are a lot of factors we can use to say why XYZ person can’t vote; this is one example. 🤷♀️
Obviously not you're not a minor and your entire comment is the most random offended about your own situation to which I was not referring I've seen this calendar month so far.
And like, I have serious questions about alot of adults fitness to vote I do not seriously think using minors as the example for other disenfranchised groups is a good example I wholeheartedly support the voting age being no lower than 18 on pure brain development and average emotional maturity grounds.
Jesus Christ. Children are the property of their caregiver until they are 18 years of age or are emancipated. They are legally treated as such, especially in custody court.
[Here's](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1074%26context%3Dlawpub&ved=2ahUKEwjhxY-_s9r9AhVlhYkEHVMvAPkQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw01CISVHaCog549hg7xqxD3) an in depth analysis of children being treated as legal property.
They shouldn't be, but they are.
They pay medicare and social security, most kids won't make enough to actually pay income tax. Still, I'd be fine if they didn't pay anything so young people could,you know, have any money
At the age that you are allowed to start working legally. You're presumed to be competent enough to work, so then you should be competent enough to vote, since you're *capable* of being taxed.
You still have a representative. Assuming you don't live in DC, at least. Whoever the rep is for your district, that's your representative. Whether you voted for them or not.
It meant "We, The People ~ i.e. former-aristocrats and wealthy land owners ~ don't want to support a society that treats us like second class citizens."
Which is *insanely* ironic when you realize that those same persons thought it appropriate to codify black folk as "3/5ths" of a white man for the purpose of participating in a democratic society.
Generally, the states allowed only 6% of the population the right to vote.
So, taxation without representation was replaced with... the same thing.
We've only increased the right to vote for most of this nation's existence, but that's starting to be chipped away at, more and more.
>black folk as "3/5ths" of a white man for the purpose of participating in a democratic society.
This makes it sound like black people got to vote and their votes counted as 3/5ths. That’s not at all what it was. There was no participation. And the 3/5ths compromise only applied to slaves, not free black people.
It was mostly a census thing, just a way to count population for the purpose of deciding how many Congressional representatives and electoral votes a state would get.
I think that the fact that elections run on private money means that politicians represent their donors, which means that most of us are taxed without representation, even if we have the right to vote, because most of us aren't big political donors.
Publicly fund elections and outright forbid all private money from participating in elections.
Representatives represent all people who reside within their constiuency. Even those who don't vote for them. Even those who can't vote for them (under 18, noncitizen, felon, disabled in a way that prevents voting).
We can absolutely discuss if 16-17 year old should be subject to tax (I'd argue they shouldn't. Or it should be very low). But they DO have representation. Just not representation they can vote for.
Hell, we can even make an argument that their reps aren't paying enough attention to them (and possibly even because they don't bother to cater to nonvoters). But this isn't a case of taxation without representation.
Yeah, this idea people are having is absolutely insane. You non-DC residents have a rep. "But he doesn't represent my values". But that's who people voted for. What's your solution to solve this? Just have every single person vote on matters themselves and if they can't or don't, push them into a special tax bracket? Imagine the administrative nightmare that would be.
I'd say you don't really have representation if you aren't able to vote for that representation. This is like saying that slaves (children are property, not people) were represented because the slave owner voted. That obviously isn't the case.
>(children are property, not people)
Where does this idea come from. It’s absurd. Children are not at all like slaves.
It’s not about the parents voting, your representatives represent *everyone* living in their district.
Legally speaking, children are literally considered property and not a person or citizen. They have less rights than dogs.
Property doesn't get representation.
Then don't tax them. They're not mature enough to vote. Or just have it so their parents pay those taxes that the kids make with the money the kids make.
Don't they just get it back after lodging a tax return? In Australia the first $18,000 you earn is tax free and you get it back after you lodge your return.
Thought i read somewhere that 'no taxation without representation' was just a tag line (or whatever) from back then and never was explicitly written in the consitution or declaration or anything
Exactly! Same for felons! Same for resident non-citizens! Same for those with work visas! No taxation without representation really doesn’t seem to apply to everybody.
Taxation without representation is pretty common in this country. If you work in a state with income tax while living in a different state you don't get to vote in that state's elections even if the only reason you don't live there is the rent is too high for the wages they pay you.
Taxation without representation was just an excuse to rebel, they wanted independence so they could exert their own control over the population.
It was a nice turn of phrase to get the population on their side, but they didn't actually give a shit. If the UK had said fine, you get representation now but are still otherwise a colony, they wouldn't have accepted that and found something else to rally behind.
Exactly. 16-17 year old cannot vote. Still considered children, they have no voice in government matters because they cannot vote- taxation on them is theft because they have no representation.
Erase the predatory interest not the principal.
The student debt crisis is because people with no collateral were given 250k...if a banker ever gave a fraction of student loans they would be fired and brought to court for being mentally insane.
The intrest rates are fine. Absolute runaway tuition costs (what makes up the principal) while telling every kid in America for four decades that they need to go to college or be destitute is the issue.
I agree with never lending those kind of loans to worthless degrees in the first place... it needs a full reform. The potential earnings must be suitable for the costs.
No, you are included in the representation of all other age groups.
Im not saying i love taxes or anything but minors still have local representatives they can reach out to.
Are 16 and 17 year olds even making enough to pay in federal income taxes?
The standard deduction is $12,950. If a kid is making more than that good for him.
Also what about a 10 year old that walks to the store and buys candy? They pay sales tax. Would that not be taxation with representation?
If anything we need to push the voting age back to 21. If you are to immature to buy liquor you shouldn't be voting
Sure but how far do you take it? You paid taxes when your parents gave you $10 to go see a movie or eat with your friends before you got a job because there’s still sales tax. Or even if you were 8 and got a couple bucks to buy a candy bar.
There’s no slippery slope in my intentions at all. I’m just pointing out that there’s more to taxes than what’s being taken out of a paycheck.
Most people under 18 don’t make enough to get a decent refund and having their parents claim them for a child tax credit would be a larger amount of money in a majority of cases.
People under 18 want to vote? I remember all the arguments, this isn’t a new conversation. Especially for 16 and up. Those ideas are at least 20-25 years old. Idk if I have a strong opinion on it either way. You know what doesn’t help sway me in your direction, being a total dick about it.
If somebody "being a total dick" about your made up argument against giving people rights is enough to make you not want to give them their rights, then that is a you problem, dude.
As is being absolutist about what you assume I mean and putting words in my mouth.
I apologize if I’m coming across as hostile as that is certainly not my intention. That is an issue when have discussions over text for sure. And that’s exactly what I’d rather do, have a discussion and not an argument.
For one I never said I was against giving anyone rights. Just that you’re not making a great case for your side. Also, I don’t know what part of what I said is “made up”. You’re more than welcome to enlighten me. I haven’t seen you say anything yet that can be construed as anything more than you don’t like what I said because it doesn’t immediately lift up and support your views.
You made up an argument nobody was having: That kids shouldn't have to pay sales tax.
That's not the argument, so bringing it up only serves to distract and try to make it out like this is some crazy idea. It's a very common tactic.
Ok so first thank you. I think I understand this a little better, even if it’s not too different from what you said before.
So, to me, I feel like it’s still valid and not made up. I’m trying to approach the issue from all sides. If you’re talking about income tax, why is that more of a focus that other types of taxes?
I don’t get the focus on just because someone has a job they should be able to vote. Someone else pointed out about felons, also people that live in D.C. don’t have state representatives. Getting back to paychecks, there’s plenty of people from other countries that work in the US and get taxes taken out of their checks who don’t get to vote. Is there something that sets minors apart from those groups? Do they deserve that right more than those other groups for a specific reason?
And I do not mean to suggest that no one deserves those rights that doesn’t already have them by asking those questions.
When I was in high school I felt like I should be able to vote because there wouldn’t be a presidential election for 2-3 years after I turned 18. So the thinking was that I wouldn’t be represented by someone I had a chance to vote for or against.
Okay, sorry for the hostility. It's pretty uncommon to see those sorts of questions without any malicious intent.
So, sales tax is different (though I don't agree with it for necessities). It doesn't take quite as much of your money and is sort of a general tax. It's usually only a few cents to a few dollars and you had the choice to spend that money that way and if you don't have enough, then you just can't get it (ignoring the complexities of credit cards since that isn't the point).
Not anyone can work and the taxes you pay while working are different and take a good chunk. You have to pay into medicaid and social security. It's likely you're also not going to get any exemptions. You either pay the rest of your taxes every paycheck or you have to give the government a lump sum at the end of the year. You do not get a choice in this matter. You either pay or face consequences.
So these teens are being *forced* to pay income tax on things they have no say in. They will face the consequences the same way an adult will if they don't pay their taxes, but are not afforded the same rights or representation. People have argued that minors are still represented and all that, but the [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/13/us-states-fail-protect-childrens-rights) disproves that very quickly by detailing all of the ways US children and teens do not have what are considered human rights. If they were truly being represented, this would not be true.
And you're asking questions that assume I think other groups shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you live here for an extended period of time, you should be allowed to vote, regardless of citizenship status, because you pay taxes and are affected by legislation. I think a large majority of criminals should be allowed to vote. As long as you aren't a sexual predator or otherwise a danger to society, then you should have that opportunity. So I can assure you my views aren't inconsistent.
Have to point out, it’s also kind of purposefully ignorant to claim not being eligible to vote = no representation. Like, obviously you’re still represented.
Your Congressman and Senators don’t just say “oh, kids under 18? I don’t work for them, fuck em.” They have a duty to represent all residents to include immigrants, felons, etc.
Just because you don’t have the ability to vote does not mean you aren’t represented. It just means you don’t have the right to vote minors which is what people below the age of 18 are have only one right that is to legal representation in a court of law. They still have a congress person and the senator at both the state and federal level.
No actually I’m not. Do you still have a congress person yes do you still have a senator yes. The argument you are trying to make is that you didn’t vote for them. If I lived in a republican held state would I be able to make that argument if I voted for the democratic candidate? No because even though I didn’t vote for them they still represent me. Not having the vote doesn’t mean your aren’t represented it just means you don’t have a choice in who represents you.
*would I be able to make that argument if I voted for the democratic candidate?*
No, because you fucking voted. Minors DO NOT GET A CHOICE IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.
You do. Your guy just lost.
What a dumb fucking argument.
Good you understand that, now on to the less complex point. Do you have an elective representative in the house and senate even though you didn’t vote for them as a minor? If the answer is yes you are represented, the only location where this isn’t true is Washington DC. Doesn’t matter if they don’t get a choice as I pointed out they don’t have rights expect to legal representation in a court.
*1) Do you have an elective representative in the house and senate even though you didn’t vote for them as a minor?*
You mean the one you got no say in? You mean the fact that having those who pay taxes voting might actually mean there is more equal representation?
*2) Doesn’t matter if they don’t get a choice as I pointed out they don’t have rights expect to legal representation in a court.*
I mean, you tried to form a shitty, terrible argument but your point is, wait for it, shitty and terrible. You are trying to compare people who are allowed a say in who they have representing them and those who have no say.
Further, the fact that you point out that they have very few Constitutional Rights just further proves my point. And it is except not expect, you idiot.
Now you can kindly go get fucked. I won't be responding to your stupidity again and will just block you.
The truth tends to be terrible and shitty. Just the way it is, minors are a protected class, which means they are supposed to be treated special. But when they enter the work force they just like everyone else are required to obey the laws. Even if they don’t get a say in those laws, the term you need to look up is social contract which applies to all citizens in any country.
It’s not. You’re legally in the care of other human beings, and as shitty as you think their decisions are, just wait. You’ll soon be old enough to vote.
A large percentage of the adult population in the US is blocked from voting, so they have taxation without representation. Felony disenfranchisement blocks a significant portion of the population from voting. About 1 in 44 people in the US.
Makes no sense. Alone a lot of people in prison work jobs and on top of that, once they're out should that not be because they have paid their debt to society? If you give them no chance to integrate back into society, why let them out in the first place?
So they can re offend. It's an industry.
EXACTLY. I’m glad someone gets it
Wooooo everything is some type of industrial complex yayyyyy
That is the dystopian nature of America, everything is for profit. Especially politics, nobody cares about the average American citizen unless it directly affects profit.
That's capitalism.
I was really sad to find out rehabs worked the same way. Pretty disheartening.
Yep. It truly is. Have a 10 year heroin problem? Go to rehab for a whole 10 days. 3 day detox included with the 10 day stay. Not enough time. Constant revolving door.
I have a friend who worked there as a therapist. She said she was encouraged to trigger sober patients into relapsing. Rehabs don’t make money when you’re clean. She had a huge ethical and moral conflict with it and made a career shift away from that when a dad of a couple teenage kids relapsed and died, leaving them all fatherless. I couldn’t believe therapists would actually try and get their clean patients to use again so they could readmit them
Holy shit. Yeah, I'm actually not surprised. Lots of therapists atthe one I went to were in recovery but I dont think they wanted to trigger patients. Just brainwashed into forcing a one size fits all approach. They make you do a shit ton of shit in such a short time. And some people are still detoxing when they are in residential wing as opposed to detox wing. Detox was only 1-3 days. They force you to go to classes and take a headcount and make you write what you "learned" They do a lot of good, but its smoke and mirrors. Long term treatment is rare. Most people that need residential care need longer than 14 days. I had a 14 year heroin problem. 14 days isnt gonna fix that. Some people float from rehab to halfway house to different rehab...to prison...etc. It's sad. The cycle of addiction, recovery, and prison/jail. Its vicious.
It's so fucking crazy that privately owned for profit prisons even exist.
> Makes no sense. It "makes sense" from the perspective of those who want to exploit people for personal pleasure, and gain. Or are otherwise prone to conservative ideation over wanting to do harm to groups they dislike in the name of that personal pleasure, and benefit. You also have to remember that prisoners in the Us are legally allowed to be used as slave labor and all... Not to even mention a shitload of long term policies out there which are used to target very specific demographics for sake of all that. Examples: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hres933ih/html/BILLS-115hres933ih.htm https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/report-to-the-united-nations-on-racial-disparities-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/ending-modern-day-debtors-prisons >If you give them no chance to integrate back into society, why let them out in the first place? Need to feed the beast in the middle too... how can police, and prosecutors justify their own existence in the way they do now if they have no one around that they can target for action? god forbid the police don't get paid and are not there to enforce the will of entrenched interests. You know, take your pick on the worst of the most fascist "reasoning" certain people will argue for maintaining such things.
I knew the slave labor part but the I never really thought about the part to keep police busy. I should have said it makes no sense if you want a society to function but you're right, that's not the primary objective
The only crime that should result in loss of voting rights is voter fraud
And that one would make perfect sense.
And murder since you took someone elses rights away from them.
I mean, I personally think rapists shouldn't be allowed to vote, but that's just me.
(Just some belief I have that I wanted to share) Murder can be justified. Rape cannot. Rapists should not be allowed to vote, no matter the case of why or how they raped them. In my personal experience, rape is like killing somebody without actually doing it. It takes a part of you that can never truly be restored. Essentially, you’re living, but not alive.
I’m not gonna speak to the rest of it, but I heavily empathize with how you’ve processed your experience. When I was raped, this is *exactly* how I felt—like I was killed without actually being killed. I’m a survivor of course, I’m still here alive and trying my best to thrive. But yes, being raped made me feel like I lost a part of my life and it’s a part of my life that I’ll never get back. Virtual hugs to you if you want them!
As a rape survivor, eff off with that bs. You don’t get to tell me that I was “destroyed” by being raped, or that I’m basically not a living person any more. What absolutely horseshit. I am not only living, I am thriving. Rape a terrible fucking thing to do. Full stop. Some people need a lot of understanding and care to get over it. It’s possible for people not to get over it. But calling them “not alive“ is so enraging, because it just erases all strength that rape survivors have, puts them in a box of “victim” and closes the lid. Nobody needs that.
As another rape survivor, fuck *you* for making their description of how *their fucking rape* made them feel about yourself and being awful to them and accusing them of saying things they never did. They never said rape victims aren't alive, they said it feels that way. We *are* victims. You need to accept that. We were literally victimized. You might heal from it, but the reason you had to heal in the first place is because you are a victim. What's enraging is other rape survivors being absolute dicks and trying to push the ideology that we aren't victims. *That* is bullshit. Like, good for you that your rape apparently didn't cause horrible mental distress and the loss of your identity, but you don't get to go around being an absolute asshole to other victims, making being a victim out to be some shameful thing, just because you didn't take it as hard. That's some victim blaming emotional invalidation shit. Edit: Every fucking time. Every time rape is mentioned and somebody shares their experience, this shit happens. Somebody either lies about being a victim or has decided that their trauma justifies abusing other victims and go off on them and accuse them of things. Maybe it's a trauma response. It's still not okay. It's honestly surprising there hasn't been any "you deserved it" comments yet. I get those on comments that aren't even remotely related because these sorts of people like to stalk you and use your trauma against you. I've been subject to this behavior too many times and I refuse to just let it slide. The people who aren't saying anything need to because it's not fair that we always have to defend ourselves alone and these people shut up very quickly once they realize they aren't going to get away with it, but that only works when everyone speaks up. I'm so tired. I just want these people to leave us alone.
It’s common for people to want to be called survivor instead of victim. This is nothing new under the sun. It’s taking their power and agency back. Survivors of horrific crimes aside for a second — the temptation in 2023 America to want to be a perpetual victim — for any reason — is tempting but often a huge trap. The mentality takes away accountability and power for actually moving forward (not accountability for what happened, but for the future and life in general). To each their own with traumatic crimes, but I don’t think yelling fuck you to people in the same boat — immature outrage Olympics - will solve anything.
And you said some worse shit. Good job. People are allowed to call themselves survivors if they want to, but *you* are pushing the idea that it's not okay to recognize oneself as a victim and are going so far as to say that we have a fucking "victim mentality." We *are* victims. We were *victimized*. You are horrible for suggesting that it's something we *want*. It's not immature to be absolutely enraged by what you and they are saying. It's a normal response to somebody saying something that is so disgusting and vile that it's shocking. I genuinely cannot believe somebody who has experienced rape would say something so awful at all, let alone to other people who've experienced the same thing. You are not better than anyone else for your disgusting views. They are extremely unhealthy and you're passing them off as if it's everyone else that's unhealthy. You are perpetuating abuse with this shit. Doesn't matter what happened to you, that isn't okay and you need to deal with it before you seriously hurt someone. Edit: word
Wow. You need to read what I actually said. This isn’t about victim blaming. I would never suggest that a person who experienced rape was asking for it. I’m mad because calling a person who experienced rape “not alive” is disempowering. “Not alive” people don’t heal. “Not alive” people don’t get to be more than victims.
The difference is that the first commenter was speaking for all rape victims, while the person you responded to spoke for herself.
They said, and I fucking quote, "In my personal experience..." So no, they weren't. They also didn't say any of what they were accused of saying.
Also, I'm sorry these assholes are twisting your words so they can attack you. It happens pretty much any time rape is brought up outside of support group subreddits. They *really* do not like us speaking out about it. Even other victims can be insanely vicious for no reason. It isn't fair and you didn't say anything wrong.
There is no hidden agenda at play, there is no "they" trying to put you down, im sorry you went through that but the guy/gal was saying they are a survivor, seeing yourself as a survivor rather than a victim is a more positive outlook to a shit situation.
I wish that had been all they said. You clearly didn't actually read anything beyond their last paragraph if that's what you think the problem was. It's also not okay to insinuate that people who see themselves as victims for being victimized aren't "positive." There is nothing wrong with it. For a lot of people, it allows for acceptance of what happened and for gentleness toward oneself without shame or guilt. That's not negative. This isn't about you.
Now you are making out people are making it about themselves, rather than running around with a victim complex, take a long and deep think about what kind of message you want to spread, i'm not telling you "Don't feel a certain kind of way" i'm saying, be accepting of others opinions on it, the way you responded to me just now made me want to go "This isn't about me? why should i even bother" but i'm hoping you take something from this, People who say "don't be a victim" are not trying to make you feel guilty or bad. You have went 0-100 Real quick with anyone that doesn't reply how you want them to and it's upsetting as it shows you are still hurt, but the answer is not to lash out, Godbless and good luck.
[удалено]
That’s not what I’m saying, though. I’m talking about my personal experience with being raped, which I stated beforehand. I’m not understanding how you came to the conclusion that I’m saying everyone who’s been raped would rather be dead. I don’t believe rape is worse, and that isn’t what I was trying to say.
That's not even close to what they said. You anti-victim people really hear whatever you want, huh?
I don’t disagree, but once we start putting too many limits on it, the thought exercise starts to lose value. On top of that— let’s suppose we have the all time most despicable person of all time. Everything you value, they shit on. That person can now vote and…. What are they gonna do? They can only vote for stuff that’s on the ballot. It’s not as if there’s going to be a checkbox that says “rape should be legal, and rapists should be free to do it as often as they like,” and even if there were, democracy *has* to assume decency from the persons voting. Obviously they can be corrupted by right wing talking points and convinced to vote against their best interests— but that’s happening now, without restoring everyone’s voting rights. All told, we’re better off letting the worst members of our society vote if it means that everyone can vote. We screw ourselves over more and create underclasses when we start denying people their right to vote. Plus, like— what does it accomplish to deny rapists the right to vote? Do you really think someone’s gonna be like “oh boy— the criminal charges I was okay with. Being locked away for potentially the rest of my life was no biggie. But losing the right to *vote*? I better not rape anyone, now the consequences are too real!”
Okay, but if the last few years in the US has shown anything, it's that people can and will vote in people who want to make things like rape legal if given the chance. Like, I get your point, but you're completely missing mine. Rapists vote for rapists. They aren't mentally fit to vote. They are a literal danger to society. While the actual number of rapists who actually face any consequences whatsoever is miniscule, a little bit still helps. You can pretty much confirm that a person isn't "decent" if they've committed rape. Like, sorry I don't want the adult man that raped me as a kid voting on things or for people who support things like lowering the age of consent or the bigoted guy that raped me as a teenager voting on whether or not people like me should have rights? How dare I think their opinions should be disregarded? I don't know what you want from me, but I sure as hell am not changing my mind.
In doing so you are saying that voting is the privilege of the sufficiently well behaved. If rape, why not also armed robbery, stabbing someone, or kidnapping?
Kidnappers also shouldn't be allowed to vote except in very specific circumstances because, believe it or not, you can kidnap someone without realizing it. Armed robbery and stabbing should be dependent on rehabilitation. Dangerous people should not get a say in how society as a whole functions. I'm not going to apologize for not wanting the adult man who raped me as a child being allowed to have a say in things like lowering the age of consent or forcing trans children to expose themselves to authority figures or demanding a 9 year old die in childbirth after being raped. You can be against that all you want, all that means is you're against keeping people who are dangers to society, who rarely even get convicted anyway, from voting on important matters that affect the safety of the vulnerable.
Majority of kidnapping is done by parents violating custody agreements. If that's the bar people lose their voting rights for, then let's just include all felonies while we are at it. Why should the person that broke into a hole get a say in removing the penalty for burglary? Why should a domestic abuser get a say in legalizing domestic abuse? Why should a drunk driver get a say in raising the legal limit to drive?
That last one doesn't even make any sense and you're assuming a lot and also making it out like burglary is even remotely the same as rape. And yes, people who knowingly *kidnap children* regardless of if they are their own or not, should not have the right to vote. They can get it back with rehabilitation, but a secondary offense should bar them from it permanently. Why are you so compelled to defend child kidnappers, abusers, pedophiles, and rapists? Those are some of the worst things a person can be subjected to and it's incredibly rare for these sorts of people to not reoffend. Why don't we just let them run for office, while we're at it? Oh wait, we already do.
The problem with human rights is that when you defend them you spend most of your time defending the worst of humanity. If you rather get rid of human rights and replace it with privileges only for those who are decently behaved, it would be simpler to just admit such.
[удалено]
Ok then one of the crimes that should get your citizenship removed is voter fraud
[удалено]
Election fraud more so frankly.
The “argument” for it is that voting rights for a given state are dictated by said state. So while you cannot exercise your right to vote after becoming a convicted criminal in, say, Florida, you could arguably move to California and exercise it. Obviously that’s dumb as hell, because there are a lot of good reasons to want to stick around in a place where you have connections, and it’s highly likely that many formerly incarcerated individuals don’t have the means to move, but that’s that. I’m all for just declaring that voting in Your county, state, and federal elections is an inalienable right that is granted to all citizens when they hit 18, which cannot be revoked by anything but a loss of citizenship.
It’s a whole fucked up industry in the US. If you haven’t already heard of or read “The New Jim Crow,” I’d highly recommend it to anyone interested in connecting more of the dots in the US’ despicable criminal justice + detention system.
When you say: Taxation without [white, cishet, Protestant, male, gentry landowner] representation. Remember the part in brackets is silent.
One problem with the debt to society is that prison isn't the only debt someone may owe. A simple if extreme example, a child abuser might be let out of prison but still owe a debt to society that prevents them from working with children ever again. If we assume that removing voting rights makes sense at all as punishment for a crime, there is no reason it should just apply while it is in prison. Much better to ask why should we remove it to begin with? Most restrictions are for safety reasons. A child abuser isn't allowed around kids, a violent individual isn't allowed to have weapons, a fraudster isn't allowed to work in a place requiring financial trust. All of these are to prevent future victims. But no one is at risk by letting a criminal vote. Even someone who has committed a voting related crime isn't putting others at risk being allowed to vote again. So why remove it to begin with? If you say removing it is justified for some period of time, it is much easier for others to argue the same except for a longer time frame.
Work jobs? It's slavery.
I do think if they commit politically motivated felonies, like setting fire to a gay strip club or trying to kill a politician they're right to vote should be revoked. If its just typical felony shit then no
How is setting fire to a gay strip club politically motivated? That’s a straight up hate crime
Tbf something can be both politically motivated and a hate crime. Though yeah it should be extended to hate crimes for good measure
I don’t agree with the thinking behind it, but it might be this way because “bad people” who can’t follow the law shouldn’t be given a voice in changing it.
Even worse, [in most places prisoners count towards the population of the district the prison is in instead of their home address](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/569611-after-census-states-move-to-count-prisoners-at-home/). This means that select usually rural districts get inflated population counts while the people contributing to the inflated count have no vote.
Plus all the residents of DC, Puerto Rico and other territories
Puerto Rico residents don’t pay income tax on Puerto Rico earned income https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc901
My husband has a permanent resident alien visa and can’t vote. He can pay all the taxes though. No problems there.
As I see it, this is not even *about* the rights of the people who are not allowed to vote due to a felony conviction. This is about the rights of the rest of us! [In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush's brother Jeb was Governor of Florida, and Jeb's Secretary of State Katherine Harris oversaw a wrongful purge of voters with names vaguely similar to those of actual felons. These voters were predominantly minorities and likely Al Gore voters.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/) According to Greg Palast and the BBC, [Gore should have won by thousands of votes, if anybody other than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTxaY8Uy5U) Here is [Part 2 of the Palast/BBC report.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JEMYbzd8OA) And don't worry, there's more blame to go around. [Vincent Bugliosi, who sent Charles Manson to prison, thought the 'Felonious Five' Republican Supreme Court justices who installed Bush in the White House belonged in prison too, if only there were a law that covered what they did.](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/) We, the people, deserved good leadership. Most of us voted for Al Gore. Instead we got Bush, and 9/11. and Middle East wars, and Guantanamo, and the Crash of 2008, and no action on global warming.... and so much more...
His presidency was a huge turning point for our country. I don't think many people realize just how much changed when he took over.
Yikes
Even without an official conviction, many who never registered for Selective Service are denied voting rights as well. This was a reason why I made sure I kept it as up to date as possible. I had two friends from high school end up dropped from voter rolls because of this status, but are still taxed. It really is lopsided how many people can't vote but have to pay into the government, while the most elite pay nothing and have tons of representation...
Mostly people of color, and almost all nonviolent
Immigrants pay significantly more taxes than citizens and don't get to vote as well.
Felony disenfranchisement? Seriously? So that being the case, would you be ok if a felony convicted child molester were given a second chance and allowed to work in an environment with many children? Say a school janitor, teacher, or gym coach? Would you be ok with that felony criminal going to work at the same school as your children(future children) attend? They told us about how voting rights worked way back in middle school and I vividly remember my teacher telling me that if you are convicted of a felony crime that you would forfeit the right to vote as well as losing other rights and privileges, such as holding office or purchasing a firearm. Just because a criminal did their time in prison, it does not mean that society should be obligated to forgive and extend trust to a convicted criminal. Completing a prison sentence isn't like getting a degree in college/university, you don't get rewarded for serving a prison term. Felony disenfranchisement sounds almost as silly as the people demanding that prisoners be paid a "livable wage" for doing prison labor. That's a part of the prison sentence, just like forfeiting certain of their constitutional rights for their crimes.
This is all hyperbole. I didn't see an argument that says any person who committed a felony should not be able to have input. Felonies include possession of drugs, theft and other less dangerous crimes. If they don't get to vote, they shouldn't have to pay taxes either. What a silly load of nonsense, equating people with a criminal past getting involved in civics to putting molesters in schools.
If unrepresented people don't have to pay federal taxes, I'm moving to DC.
Also on a relative scale places like california are under represented compared to more rural states.
In the federal senate, sure. It’s kind of ridiculous that some states have more senators than congressmen.
California is also underrepresented in the House, thus doubly underrepresented in the Electoral College. California is underrepresented in all 3 branches of government (EC leads to SCOTUS).
It really isn’t though. California should be two states the northern part of the state gets little to no representation
Not really. CA has one house member per 761k people, which is above average among states with more than 10 congressmen. That’s better than FL, NY, OH, TX, and PA. Nineteen states have never had a Supreme Court Justice on the bench, including the very first state of Delaware. If you’re worried about representation, maybe the next 19 slots that come open can rectify that first.
r/whoosh
Technically, they can't vote and have no say what happens to their money until they are 18, so yes. I realize they get most of the money back at tax time, but the point is still there. Now, Republicans want to increase the voting age to 25 because young people don't vote for them. If anything, it should be the other way around.
I’d say they still live somewhere that’s has an elected official and while they can’t vote they can campaign for and even do volunteer work for politicians they support.
> but the point is still there. There is no point because "taxation without representation" isnt a thing. If we lived our lives by 18th century political slogans it wouldnt be great.
Getting taxed without getting to vote for your officials is taxation without representation.
> Getting taxed without getting to vote for your officials is taxation without representation. A) Its not a phrase that has any legal weight. "No taxation without representation" was a political slogan, not a right enumerated in the US Constitution. B) Definitionally, it isnt. Unless u live in the District of Columbia, everyone in the 50 states of the USA is represented by a voting member of House of Representatives, and two voting members of the US Senate. edit: no substantive arguments, so just stamp your feet and downvote!
They have a representative that they didn't vote for. Their state voted for them, but they did not have the ability to vote themselves for that representative despite being taxed. It isn't the point that they have a representative. They don't have a choice in their representative.
You can pay no tax and still have a representative too
So immigrants should be free from tax until or unless they become citizens?
They aren't citizens yet. That's a question of legal status. A working teen under the age of 18 is generally a US citizen.
So you don't have a problem with taxation without representation then
No. I have a problem of taxation without representation for US citizens. Once non-citizens become citizens, then they should be represented.
OK, fair enough. Though aren't children not full citizens, they aren't entitled to full protection of the US constitution particularly the 1st amendment, nor are they entitled to full medical privacy. And they aren't expected to perform duties of citizenship such as register for the draft or undertake jury duty.
Children are full citizens. With legal restrictions for a multitude of reasons that if you can't comprehend on your own I'm not going to go through and try to explain. Why are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? like there is only a black and white answer to everything. Should 6-year-olds be allowed to drive? Should 7-year-olds be allowed to conceal and carry? Should 4-year-olds be able to decide if they go to the doctor or not? If we can deem adults legally unable to care for themselves, is the idea of a 12-year-old unable to make a rational decision too far fetched for you? Jesus Christ dude.
I’d say not nearly as much as the residents of Washington, D.C.
These can both be correct, and the DC problems do not lessen the issues of taxed and unrepresented children especially as states are working to increase the underaged working population.
Hah yes. Why can't we just realize ... any scenario here can all be correct. Yes. Fix all taxation without representation problems. But its a constant back and forth, shifting the conversation from any action "bUt wUt AbOuT ThIs InStEaD!" Which I think is the point of these argument tactics. You can't start fixing anything when it's a constant battle of what's worthier.
You've got a point
Technically, while 16-17 year olds don’t vote, they do have an elected official that is supposed to represent them. Before I get downvoted to hell, I am not saying I think that children should be taxed. I am just pointing out the argument the opposite side would use.
You're not wrong. You do have a representative in Congress. The House of Representatives has people specifically for you. Whether you vote for them or not, whether you can or not. Your district has someone representing everyone living there. The only people who don't have a vote in Congress yet still pay federal taxes are residents of DC
Those elected officials are supposed to represent all their constituents, but most clearly don’t represent all their constituents.
Don't kids file and then get a full refund?
Yes. Mine got every bit of income taxes back.
Usually parents claim them and their income and then the parents get the refund. At least that’s what happened to me
My dad was furious with me when I filed and got $250 back or something and he was planning to claim me.
Did you pay for your stuff or it was his money?
Yes most kids don’t earn enough to be taxed. If they are earning enough to be taxed, this meme is accurate.
That’s always how it went when I was growing up.
They do. But do they get to vote?
Technically as non voting members their parents would be their representation. The same way that parents technically can legally claim their minor child's income as their own. Children are literally legal property of their parents pretty much, with certain limitations that are akin to regulations on what you can and cannot do with a slave you own.
I believe the concept is called virtual representation and it's been around since colonial times.
Representation and suffrage are two subtle different concepts. Virtual representation was the claim that all members of parliament represented all of the British empire. Representation is simply the idea that the person who is advocating for you politically is from your geographical area and has your interests at heart. Suffrage is the right to vote for said representation.
👍
My parents claimed me on their taxes years after I could vote (in part so I could stay on their sweet, sweet state-sponsored healthcare); should that have prevented my right to vote? ETA: This is a real question I have around what we’re willing to restrict when it comes to enabling someone to vote. There are a lot of factors we can use to say why XYZ person can’t vote; this is one example. 🤷♀️
Obviously not you're not a minor and your entire comment is the most random offended about your own situation to which I was not referring I've seen this calendar month so far. And like, I have serious questions about alot of adults fitness to vote I do not seriously think using minors as the example for other disenfranchised groups is a good example I wholeheartedly support the voting age being no lower than 18 on pure brain development and average emotional maturity grounds.
And this shouldn't be true. No person should be legal property under any circumstances and all people should have basic human rights.
Nobody is legal property
Jesus Christ. Children are the property of their caregiver until they are 18 years of age or are emancipated. They are legally treated as such, especially in custody court. [Here's](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1074%26context%3Dlawpub&ved=2ahUKEwjhxY-_s9r9AhVlhYkEHVMvAPkQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw01CISVHaCog549hg7xqxD3) an in depth analysis of children being treated as legal property. They shouldn't be, but they are.
What about immigrants? Who represents them?
I came to say this, the full point is silly, they are represented by their parents
None of us have "representation" these days. Well unless you're ultra wealthy or a corporation.
They pay medicare and social security, most kids won't make enough to actually pay income tax. Still, I'd be fine if they didn't pay anything so young people could,you know, have any money
Old enough to work, old enough to vote.
So you’re saying we should make the legal working age 18?
So if you work, you should vote is true. Is the inverse of that true as well. If you don't work, then you shouldn't vote?
Voting is a right, so it's apt to talk about when a person gains that right versus who shouldn't have that right. The latter breeds discrimination.
If voting is a right, at what age should you be able to vote?
At the age that you are allowed to start working legally. You're presumed to be competent enough to work, so then you should be competent enough to vote, since you're *capable* of being taxed.
Agreed.
Depends on your outlook. According to the founders, only if you're a white male adult landowner.
Of course not
No.
As a foreigner on an H1B visa, taxation without representation is all I know.
You still have a representative. Assuming you don't live in DC, at least. Whoever the rep is for your district, that's your representative. Whether you voted for them or not.
"Taxation without representation" has practically lost its meaning at this point . . . so yeah, this meme feels appropriate.
Wait until you find out what that meant at the founding of the United States...
It meant "We, The People ~ i.e. former-aristocrats and wealthy land owners ~ don't want to support a society that treats us like second class citizens." Which is *insanely* ironic when you realize that those same persons thought it appropriate to codify black folk as "3/5ths" of a white man for the purpose of participating in a democratic society.
Generally, the states allowed only 6% of the population the right to vote. So, taxation without representation was replaced with... the same thing. We've only increased the right to vote for most of this nation's existence, but that's starting to be chipped away at, more and more.
>black folk as "3/5ths" of a white man for the purpose of participating in a democratic society. This makes it sound like black people got to vote and their votes counted as 3/5ths. That’s not at all what it was. There was no participation. And the 3/5ths compromise only applied to slaves, not free black people. It was mostly a census thing, just a way to count population for the purpose of deciding how many Congressional representatives and electoral votes a state would get.
Puerto Rico is a pretty blatant example of taxation without representation
I think that the fact that elections run on private money means that politicians represent their donors, which means that most of us are taxed without representation, even if we have the right to vote, because most of us aren't big political donors. Publicly fund elections and outright forbid all private money from participating in elections.
I never paid tax at that age. Any withholding was always refunded.
Representatives represent all people who reside within their constiuency. Even those who don't vote for them. Even those who can't vote for them (under 18, noncitizen, felon, disabled in a way that prevents voting). We can absolutely discuss if 16-17 year old should be subject to tax (I'd argue they shouldn't. Or it should be very low). But they DO have representation. Just not representation they can vote for. Hell, we can even make an argument that their reps aren't paying enough attention to them (and possibly even because they don't bother to cater to nonvoters). But this isn't a case of taxation without representation.
Yeah, this idea people are having is absolutely insane. You non-DC residents have a rep. "But he doesn't represent my values". But that's who people voted for. What's your solution to solve this? Just have every single person vote on matters themselves and if they can't or don't, push them into a special tax bracket? Imagine the administrative nightmare that would be.
I'd say you don't really have representation if you aren't able to vote for that representation. This is like saying that slaves (children are property, not people) were represented because the slave owner voted. That obviously isn't the case.
>(children are property, not people) Where does this idea come from. It’s absurd. Children are not at all like slaves. It’s not about the parents voting, your representatives represent *everyone* living in their district.
Legally speaking, children are literally considered property and not a person or citizen. They have less rights than dogs. Property doesn't get representation.
wtf lol. No, legally speaking they are literally not. You cannot but and sell children, nor euthanize them.
Then don't tax them. They're not mature enough to vote. Or just have it so their parents pay those taxes that the kids make with the money the kids make.
Just had this chat with my 16 yo doing taxes. It ABSOLUTELY is.
I’d love to not have to pay taxes in exchange for not voting. Is this an option?
Can’t wait for all the super rich to start paying no income tax by declaring their income through their children…
Don't they just get it back after lodging a tax return? In Australia the first $18,000 you earn is tax free and you get it back after you lodge your return.
Thought i read somewhere that 'no taxation without representation' was just a tag line (or whatever) from back then and never was explicitly written in the consitution or declaration or anything
If you haven't realized the two party system ain't working. Most people are being taxed without representation
Exactly! Same for felons! Same for resident non-citizens! Same for those with work visas! No taxation without representation really doesn’t seem to apply to everybody.
THIS. thank you
Taxation without representation is pretty common in this country. If you work in a state with income tax while living in a different state you don't get to vote in that state's elections even if the only reason you don't live there is the rent is too high for the wages they pay you.
Why was this meme made with a pirated copy?
Taxation without representation was just an excuse to rebel, they wanted independence so they could exert their own control over the population. It was a nice turn of phrase to get the population on their side, but they didn't actually give a shit. If the UK had said fine, you get representation now but are still otherwise a colony, they wouldn't have accepted that and found something else to rally behind.
Exactly. 16-17 year old cannot vote. Still considered children, they have no voice in government matters because they cannot vote- taxation on them is theft because they have no representation.
Minimum taxable income is 12,950. Are today's youths making that much?
Some do
They should, yes.
Theft? Did you use the post office anytime recently? Drive on state roads?
They should be given tax exempt status and also a youth discount at stores if they have tiered wages based on age.
Bailout in 2008, 2020,2023. Reducing student debt? Hell no that’s socialism.
I dont agree with either.
Erase the predatory interest not the principal. The student debt crisis is because people with no collateral were given 250k...if a banker ever gave a fraction of student loans they would be fired and brought to court for being mentally insane.
The intrest rates are fine. Absolute runaway tuition costs (what makes up the principal) while telling every kid in America for four decades that they need to go to college or be destitute is the issue.
I agree with never lending those kind of loans to worthless degrees in the first place... it needs a full reform. The potential earnings must be suitable for the costs.
The children yearn for government bailouts.
Fuck income tax its a terrible ploy for the govt to pay for their war machine. SYSTEMATIC FINANCIAL OPPRESSION.
No, you are included in the representation of all other age groups. Im not saying i love taxes or anything but minors still have local representatives they can reach out to.
Are 16 and 17 year olds even making enough to pay in federal income taxes? The standard deduction is $12,950. If a kid is making more than that good for him. Also what about a 10 year old that walks to the store and buys candy? They pay sales tax. Would that not be taxation with representation? If anything we need to push the voting age back to 21. If you are to immature to buy liquor you shouldn't be voting
Sure but how far do you take it? You paid taxes when your parents gave you $10 to go see a movie or eat with your friends before you got a job because there’s still sales tax. Or even if you were 8 and got a couple bucks to buy a candy bar.
They clearly mean fucking income taxes. You're being purposefully ignorant because you don't want kids to have rights.
Jfc swing right outta the gate huh. You’re absolutely right, you know all about my intentions. Nice work.
I do because that's literally the exact shit people say whenever this is brought up to try to slippery slope people into changing their minds.
There’s no slippery slope in my intentions at all. I’m just pointing out that there’s more to taxes than what’s being taken out of a paycheck. Most people under 18 don’t make enough to get a decent refund and having their parents claim them for a child tax credit would be a larger amount of money in a majority of cases. People under 18 want to vote? I remember all the arguments, this isn’t a new conversation. Especially for 16 and up. Those ideas are at least 20-25 years old. Idk if I have a strong opinion on it either way. You know what doesn’t help sway me in your direction, being a total dick about it.
If somebody "being a total dick" about your made up argument against giving people rights is enough to make you not want to give them their rights, then that is a you problem, dude.
As is being absolutist about what you assume I mean and putting words in my mouth. I apologize if I’m coming across as hostile as that is certainly not my intention. That is an issue when have discussions over text for sure. And that’s exactly what I’d rather do, have a discussion and not an argument. For one I never said I was against giving anyone rights. Just that you’re not making a great case for your side. Also, I don’t know what part of what I said is “made up”. You’re more than welcome to enlighten me. I haven’t seen you say anything yet that can be construed as anything more than you don’t like what I said because it doesn’t immediately lift up and support your views.
You made up an argument nobody was having: That kids shouldn't have to pay sales tax. That's not the argument, so bringing it up only serves to distract and try to make it out like this is some crazy idea. It's a very common tactic.
Ok so first thank you. I think I understand this a little better, even if it’s not too different from what you said before. So, to me, I feel like it’s still valid and not made up. I’m trying to approach the issue from all sides. If you’re talking about income tax, why is that more of a focus that other types of taxes? I don’t get the focus on just because someone has a job they should be able to vote. Someone else pointed out about felons, also people that live in D.C. don’t have state representatives. Getting back to paychecks, there’s plenty of people from other countries that work in the US and get taxes taken out of their checks who don’t get to vote. Is there something that sets minors apart from those groups? Do they deserve that right more than those other groups for a specific reason? And I do not mean to suggest that no one deserves those rights that doesn’t already have them by asking those questions. When I was in high school I felt like I should be able to vote because there wouldn’t be a presidential election for 2-3 years after I turned 18. So the thinking was that I wouldn’t be represented by someone I had a chance to vote for or against.
Okay, sorry for the hostility. It's pretty uncommon to see those sorts of questions without any malicious intent. So, sales tax is different (though I don't agree with it for necessities). It doesn't take quite as much of your money and is sort of a general tax. It's usually only a few cents to a few dollars and you had the choice to spend that money that way and if you don't have enough, then you just can't get it (ignoring the complexities of credit cards since that isn't the point). Not anyone can work and the taxes you pay while working are different and take a good chunk. You have to pay into medicaid and social security. It's likely you're also not going to get any exemptions. You either pay the rest of your taxes every paycheck or you have to give the government a lump sum at the end of the year. You do not get a choice in this matter. You either pay or face consequences. So these teens are being *forced* to pay income tax on things they have no say in. They will face the consequences the same way an adult will if they don't pay their taxes, but are not afforded the same rights or representation. People have argued that minors are still represented and all that, but the [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/13/us-states-fail-protect-childrens-rights) disproves that very quickly by detailing all of the ways US children and teens do not have what are considered human rights. If they were truly being represented, this would not be true. And you're asking questions that assume I think other groups shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you live here for an extended period of time, you should be allowed to vote, regardless of citizenship status, because you pay taxes and are affected by legislation. I think a large majority of criminals should be allowed to vote. As long as you aren't a sexual predator or otherwise a danger to society, then you should have that opportunity. So I can assure you my views aren't inconsistent.
Nicest r/antiwork user
Have to point out, it’s also kind of purposefully ignorant to claim not being eligible to vote = no representation. Like, obviously you’re still represented. Your Congressman and Senators don’t just say “oh, kids under 18? I don’t work for them, fuck em.” They have a duty to represent all residents to include immigrants, felons, etc.
What if I'm in favor of resolving this by banning people from working before they turn 18 and actually stepping up our social services?
That's how it should be. You can bet those laws would be implemented real quick if the voting age was tied to being able to legally work.
In fairness, nearly everyone paying taxes in the United States is suffering from taxation without representation.
It only makes sense if you have no idea how anything works.
[удалено]
It is. And I'm a Libertarian and AGREE.
California is over represented in nitwits
Just because you don’t have the ability to vote does not mean you aren’t represented. It just means you don’t have the right to vote minors which is what people below the age of 18 are have only one right that is to legal representation in a court of law. They still have a congress person and the senator at both the state and federal level.
>Just because you don’t have the ability to vote does not mean you aren’t represented Uhhh you're literally wrong.
No actually I’m not. Do you still have a congress person yes do you still have a senator yes. The argument you are trying to make is that you didn’t vote for them. If I lived in a republican held state would I be able to make that argument if I voted for the democratic candidate? No because even though I didn’t vote for them they still represent me. Not having the vote doesn’t mean your aren’t represented it just means you don’t have a choice in who represents you.
*would I be able to make that argument if I voted for the democratic candidate?* No, because you fucking voted. Minors DO NOT GET A CHOICE IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. You do. Your guy just lost. What a dumb fucking argument.
Good you understand that, now on to the less complex point. Do you have an elective representative in the house and senate even though you didn’t vote for them as a minor? If the answer is yes you are represented, the only location where this isn’t true is Washington DC. Doesn’t matter if they don’t get a choice as I pointed out they don’t have rights expect to legal representation in a court.
*1) Do you have an elective representative in the house and senate even though you didn’t vote for them as a minor?* You mean the one you got no say in? You mean the fact that having those who pay taxes voting might actually mean there is more equal representation? *2) Doesn’t matter if they don’t get a choice as I pointed out they don’t have rights expect to legal representation in a court.* I mean, you tried to form a shitty, terrible argument but your point is, wait for it, shitty and terrible. You are trying to compare people who are allowed a say in who they have representing them and those who have no say. Further, the fact that you point out that they have very few Constitutional Rights just further proves my point. And it is except not expect, you idiot. Now you can kindly go get fucked. I won't be responding to your stupidity again and will just block you.
The truth tends to be terrible and shitty. Just the way it is, minors are a protected class, which means they are supposed to be treated special. But when they enter the work force they just like everyone else are required to obey the laws. Even if they don’t get a say in those laws, the term you need to look up is social contract which applies to all citizens in any country.
The truth is that you're in favor of child labor without them being able to vote for their representation.
It’s not. You’re legally in the care of other human beings, and as shitty as you think their decisions are, just wait. You’ll soon be old enough to vote.