A reader of one of England's top daily newspapers has propounded a thesis, based on the converse of that which sparked off the American 'War of Independence'; namely "No representation without taxation".
Actually this is not historically new since the Roman Senate decreed it on one occasion with intention of removing the right of those who contributited nothing to the exchequer to influence policy. What do the RHP debaters think about this?
Originally posted by NargagunaWhat degree of representation would justify taxation, if any, in your opinion?
A reader of one of England's top daily newspapers has propounded a thesis, based on the converse of that which sparked off the American 'War of Independence'; namely "No representation without taxation".
Actually this is not historically new since the Roman Senate decreed it on one occasion with intention of removing the right of those who contributit ...[text shortened]... d nothing to the exchequer to influence policy. What do the RHP debaters think about this?
Originally posted by aging blitzerThis would mean the biggest beneficiaries of all couldn't vote, the pollies and bureaurats, this idea is more appealing all the time.
Paying tax is not the only way of contributing to the betterment of society.
and would it mean net taxpayers, i.e. those who pay more tax than they receive in benefits?