No Tax, No Vote: A Bold New Vision of Democracy?

by Roland Hulme

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. 

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)

In Great Britain, an astonishing 25% of people live on some form of government benefit. In fact, a significant number receive all their income from the government; with their living expenses essentially paid for by the beneficent taxpaying subjects of the nation.

No representation without taxation?

Understandably, come election time, these people passionately support candidates who will endeavor to maintain - or even increase - the stipend they receive from the government.

In many ways, this is proof positive that the situation Alexander Fraser Tytler warned us about two centuries ago has come to fruition. A quarter of the electorate vote for whichever candidate will continue redistributing other people's money into their pockets.

Over here in America, many conservatives fear that so-called "progressives" are pushing the United States closer and closer towards this European style of Democracy; and in their defense, they're not wrong. Thanks to the dire financial policies of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, more Americans than ever are on some kind of government financial support; and that number is increasing each and every year. Soon, just like in Britain, a significant number of voters will be partially or fully dependent on the government to supply their needs.

Which is why I've considered a controversial new form of democracy in America: No tax, no vote.

Think about it: One of the chief responsibilities of government is to spend tax revenue; on projects needed (national defense, education) and unneeded (bridges to nowhere, renovating empty malls, other pork barrel projects.)

Doesn't it make sense that the people who actually contribute to this tax revenue should be the ones who decide how to spend it? Because otherwise, you've giving people who don't pay tax the power to essentially spend other people's money (and, as per Britain's example, they'll sometimes choose to spend it on themselves.)

This is significant when you look at the statistics. Did you know that 40% of Americans don't pay federal income tax at all? This is because they don't earn enough to offset the amount they pay in other taxes (social security, FICA and state and local taxes.)

Now, I'm not suggesting that we disenfranchise 40% of Americans. In fact, I don't really care how much tax somebody pays; just the fact that they do. My "no tax, no vote" system works on the theory that any American - from a minimum-wage server to a CEO - who pays basic payroll taxes or any state or federal income tax should be allowed to march up to the polling station come election day and make their mark.

They warned us this situation would arise.

My complaint is with those that don't pay any form of tax at all - and before you complain, I'm not just talking about the poorest Americans. Some of the richest file zero-owed tax returns each April too.

The U.S. tax system is one of the most convoluted and bureaucratic monstrosities ever devised by man. Tax credits, exemptions, deductions and offsets make the role of a Certified Public Accountant more like a canny defense lawyer; wriggling their richest clients out of paying what they're due through the use of very creative bookkeeping.

Personally, I think that if you're a multi-billionaire who had a "bad year" (at least according to your accountant's books) you should lose the right to vote the moment you file a tax return claiming that your deductions outweigh your liability.

More than that, I think any person or corporation that claims a zero tax liability should be forbidden from contributing financially to any political party or candidate; basically removing them from the democratic process entirely.

I believe that if you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote - because if you don't contribute to the running of this nation, you shouldn't have any say in how it's run. Nobody likes paying tax; but you should at least be rewarded for it if you do.

Personally, I feel the life blood of this nation and its economy are the working class and middle class American taxpayers - yet ever since Reagan was in office, it's been the working and middle classes who have been getting increasingly tightly squeezed by the government.

The Democrats are fighting to cultivate a "welfare state" like in Britain, in which more and more people are dependent on the government (and compliant with their votes.)

Meanwhile, the Republicans sell this nation's future away by shifting the burden of taxation away from the wealthiest corporations and individuals and onto the shoulders of the middle and working class (despite record profits, Exxon Mobile, General Electric and Bank of America didn't pay any federal taxes in 2009 and/or 2010.)

It's about time we turned the tables on a government who'd buy votes by selling freedom from taxation. No more free rides.

We need to return America to the hands of the hard working, leather-apron strings producers and contributors; the same stock that the founding fathers were drawn from.

We need to make paying tax actually mean something; and then maybe the government will think more seriously about how frivolously they spend our money.