Residents of Washington D. C. have no representation in Congress but must pay Federal taxes. United States persons abroad may vote–Doesn’t that make the folks in Washington the greater victims of the injustice of “taxation without representation”?
I got wind of some complaints about my claim that US persons abroad are victims of taxation without representation. I am told basically that US persons abroad can vote for a representative–“It’s mainly people like me, who live in DC, who have ‘taxation without representation'”, opined someone to me in an e-mail. Furthermore, there are apparently lawyers and other residents of the United States who don’t accept my belief that the extraterritorial taxation of US persons abroad is without representation, though no one has yet bothered to refute the points of my arguments (here and here).
As for Washington, The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the taxation of residents of D. C. is constitutional; Chief Justice Marshall wrote:
The difference between requiring a continent with an immense population to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings, and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our Constitution, to tax a part of the society which is either in a state of infancy advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete equality so soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is the case with the territories, or which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the District, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the District, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure, and certainly the Constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.
While it is regrettable that D. C. residents have no representative, it is nevertheless mitigated by several circumstances: (1) The residents of D. C. benefit from the Federal taxes in general as most of the jobs in the city are there either to serve the Federal government or to serve those who serve the Federal government. More than any other place in the United States, these residents benefit from the Federal government expenditures, so it would be too ironic for them to complain that they have taxation without representation. (2) The U.S. Constitution provides for the creation of the D. C. and therefore created a place whose residents did not benefit from representation. (3) Most residents of D. C. could live outside in one of the border states and commute to their jobs. Of course, then they would have to pay state taxes (but we are digressing). (4) The residents of D. C. are in no wise ineligible for the the social benefits of the federal government (welfare, food stamps, etc.).
Actually, the Internal Revenue Code (§ 7701) treats United States persons abroad as residents of Washington D.C.:
(39) Persons residing outside United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title [i.e. title 26 the Internal Revenue Code] relating to—(A) jurisdiction of courts, or(B) enforcement of summons.
I looked into the issue of whether or not expats can indeed vote absentee ballots in U.S. elections and it turns out that whether or not you are able to vote depends upon the rules of your last state of residence. Not all states allow persons living abroad to vote an absentee ballot.
For those who have dual citizenship by birth and never lived in America it can be even harder to vote an absentee ballot since you don’t have a state of previous residence. Now it is possible that in some states you can vote absentee if your parent(s) lived in that state but you must know their previous address.
The other main point is too also remember that voting rights are not at all dependent on having paid income taxes. If it were then most households in the States would be ineligible because they pay no income taxes. So the voting thing is a non starter.
No matter which way you cut it residency comes into play if you want to vote and not tax remittances.
I used to live in Virginia, right across the DC border. I like DC.
My argument is about services. We can vote (even though I never have, nor want to vote in the US), but when it comes to social services, or really ANY services out of America, we get nothing – zip – zilch – nada.
Like I tell people: In six years, I haven’t stepped foot on US soil; I haven’t gotten 1 stinkin benefit, just headaches, rejections from banks, and too much senseless paperwork to do. I know the American people can care less. It’s obvious that a byproduct of the FATCA was making our lives difficult for going overseas in the first place. It’s punishment. They don’t want me so I don’t want them.
This is very interesting. I am wondering if you would be willing to write up a post with links showing your findings.
What it means is that voting is really about states and their rules. Thus, the Federal Government can only tax and is not the slightest concerned about whether those they tax have any representation in Congress. This shows the degradation of the freedoms one in the Revolutionary War in the battle against King George and his long arm reach into the colonies trying to obtain revenue to fund his wars.
It is ironic that on the one hand the American people, through their representatives, believe that U.S. citizens living abroad should be obligated to send taxes back to the U.S. but if they were to be asked should the States designate that government revenue be spent on American’s who live abroad, there would be a deafening reply of, NO.
The lack of any reciprocity in this whole issue is something that goes unacknowledged by the politicians. The fact that we are not costing the U.S. government one dime is something that is also ignored. Rather then acknowledge this fundamental truth the U.S. decides to advance a diversionary argument which says that there is “inherent” value in U.S. citizenship and we should pay for having this privilige.
Since I left American soil over 26 years ago it is evident that I for one obviously find no value in U.S. citizenship. The U.S. is conceited to believe that there some kind of intrinsic value that is to be associated with them and for which I should pay. What about the people who live in the States and pay not taxes but still require government services? Why shouldn’t they pay for the privilige of citizenship afterall they are at least getting something in return.
http://www.fvap.gov/map.html
Pick your last state of RESIDENCE and see what the rules are. Obviously if you are an accidental American there will be a problem with meeting this criteria unless you know where your parents last resided.
Voting absentee is not a fait accompli.
But either way there is NO connection between voting and taxation. If there was then every welfare recipient, homeless and unemployed person would be ineligible.
http://www.canivote.org/
DC has 3 electoral votes and an elected delegate in the House of Representatives to defend the the interest of the DC residents. She can speak on any subject, can vote only on matters affected the district. This is more than the expats have.
Which is more than what expats can ever hope to have. Congressional spendingn powers can only be exercised on behalf of those people who reside within areas of U.S. jurisdiction. In other words you have to be a RESIDENT of the U.S. in order to receive any Congressional appropriations. The Congress cannot legally spend money on U.S. ciizens for such things as roads, education, welfare, health care, etc. when those citizens live under the legal jurisdiction of a foreign body. It is only logical and just that given these limits to Congressional authority that taxation must be based solely upon residency.
Voting in a U.S. election is a waste of time because your absentee ballot is seen as being no different from the absentee ballot of a resident who is truly temporarily absent.
Also if you vote then it is hard to make the case that you want to renunce your citizenship since voting is an affirmation of citizenship. I haven’t voted in an American election since I left the country and I haven’t had a valid U.S. passport in 7 years.
Consider the following:
“The principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found and, therefore, has the power to make the benefit complete. Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, if being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal – the government having power to impose the tax.” (Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47(1924)).”
Do you feel the benefits of being a citizen of the United States of America?
I don’t think that my U.S. citizenship has added any value to my Canadian property. I haven’t received any better treatment from the Canadian government because I am a U.S. citizen. The argument that there are inherent benefits to U.S. citizenship is completely self serving.
NO ONE CARES that you are a U.S. citizen.
Okay, so I take it you don’t feel the benefits of U.S. citizenship? Could there, just could there be any detriments?
Being realistic, in EMERGENCY situations, they can help you. Let’s say that you were in Japan during the fukoshima nuclear problem. They evacuated Americans from the region, as did most countries, including Canada, I believe.
So sometimes they help, but only when there is a natural disaster and they would look really bad for not helping.
Regardless, for me, I’m still going to renounce. I don’t care if the accommodations provided by my host country are not as nice….
Will the U.S. do this for free or is there a cost involved? Would be interesting to know.
I waited until I had relinquished my citizenship before I started a business in Canada. Too many filing requirements for an US person to open a business in a foreign country.
Any Western country will evacuate its citizens and the citizens of other Western countries and only the U.S. lays claim to this being a privilige that is worth paying for. The U.S. regularly gives assistance in the evacuation efforts of non U.S. Western citizens.
So there is no value in U.S. citizenship.
There are tons of detriments and they all exist because of the stupidity of the American government because it treats us like slaves.
I have never slept better at night because I knew that I was a U.S. citizen. Right now there many people in America who would love to be able to live elsewhere but can’t.
Things only have value if they are of utility to the owner. U.S. citizenship is of now value to me because it has serves no useful purpose in my life. I don’t live in a Third World country or in a country that is ruled by an exteme religious theocracy. Canada measures up to and surpasses the U.S. when it comes to quality of life measurements and personal freedoms.
When it comes to getting its citizens out of dangerous situations the Americans don’t have an impeccable track record. People forget that during the Iranian hostage crisis of Jimmy Carter’s presidency that it wasn’t the American military that rescued the U.S. Embassy staff. Their military efforts were actually a complete failure due to an sandstorm and equipsment mechanical malfuncitions..
Six of the U.S. embassy staff were rescued by the staff of the Canadian embassy and the actions of the Canadian government, without having to fire a shot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Caper
The fact is that the U.S. never undertakes massive disaster rescue operations on its own. All of the Western countries work together to help each other but only the Americans believe that their willingness to do this gives them some kind of special right to extract perpetual servitude from their citizens.
Being a U.S. citizen didn’t help the three young American hikers who were taken hostage by Iran after the supposedly crossed over the Iraqi border into Iran. Being a U.S. citizen didn’t help Amanda Knox as she went on trial for murder in Italy. Nor did it help the American woman who spent 15 years in a Peruvian jail. There is no magic to being American. It is only the true believers who think that there is such a reality.
Renounce: your comment citing Cook v. Tait is excellent, and is just the sort of thing that helps us to focus on the problem at hand. The US Supreme Court will probably NOT support our contention that extraterritorial taxes is unconstitutional because it is without representation. So be it. My purpose is not so much to muster legal arguments that could win in a US Supreme Court battle, but to raise awareness of how our liberty has slipped away with Congress and the US Supreme Court working together. I appreciate the way that you tag-teamed my post by asking the your question: Do you feel the benefits? Of course we don’t. We just feel the heavy load of the requirements with no benefits coming our way. And Fallows thinks we should renounce over “leafblowers” (not a very good joke actual: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/fatca-the-menace-youll-hear-about-in-2012/250667/ )
Petros:
Tonight with the Iowa caucus we have an excellent example of “Grass roots democracy”. It is democracy in action. So, democracy “may” be alive and well in the U.S. But, as you point out, Liberty and freedom are not well.
This should be a lesson for those who routinely confuse freedom and democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. Democracy is only the method that the “coercive” power of government is exercised.The U.S. is rapidly becoming one of the most coercive governments in history.
It seems like a very polite way of calling U.S. citizens, slaves of the government. It does explain though as to why for the U.S. the ONLY way in which a ciizen can sever ties with the U.S. is to renunce his/her citizenship.
My ancestors were released from slavery but now I have been made a slave again.
Sw121 – I agree – US Citizenship is ONLY a liability nowadays if you never live there. I made the comment about rescuing citizens because naturally, that’s what they are going to say is a benefit.
Too funny about the Canadians that rescued the Americans in Iran. I never knew that!
When I went to the consulate for the first time, I complained about the $450. They got a little defensive. I said “That’s why I paid taxes for most of my life.” They said “Those taxes went to something else.” Ahh.. the US.. I can’t wait to get rid of my affiliation to them.
SW121: This is an excellent point. I agree 100%.
When were your ancestors slaves?
Pingback: Reasons to remain a U.S. citizen | The Isaac Brock Society
My ancestors came from the same pool of African slaves that was brought over to the U.S. to work the Southern plantations.
Last night as I was trying to sleep it occurred to me that the ruling by that judge came down to the same teaching that was held to under the system of monarchial government, which taught that the subjects of the king were one with the king.
In contrast to the monarchial view of citizenship the Founding Fathers of America set out a clear line of demarcation between the citizen and the state, which prevented the citizen’s existence from being subsumed into that of the government.
The idea that wherever the citizen goes so goes the state is something that is anathema to the founding principles of the American revolution. It seems to me that the U.S. has come full circle.
The judge’s argument is a statement of belief only. And we all know that believing something is true does not make it so. The only thing that backs up this statement of belief is over welhming government FORCE and when government laws are backed up purely by force, apart from any appeal to the citizen’s sense of right and wrong or any rules of evidence, we call that TOTALITARIANISM.
It is for this reason that the U.S. has to implement penalties that are confiscatory and totally out of line with the transgression that is committed. But this is the only way that an unjust law can be made of any effect. Not because the law itself is just but because the punishments for transgression are cruel.