Author: Rick Gordon
The views of the Authors are not necessarily the views of Enigmose.
"No taxation without representation" should be familiar to anyone who has delved into American History, even toe-deep. It is a political slogan of the American Revolution which summarized one of many grievances of the colonists. Historians cite it as one of the major causes of the Revolution. Many colonists believed that because they were not directly represented in the British Parliament halfway across the world, any laws it passed affecting them were illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.
The belief that the government should not tax the people unless they were represented within the government arose from the English Civil War, the Brits didn't learn their lesson the first time and the issue cropped up again in the colonies, with dire consequences. Three times is a charm, except that this time it's not the Brits, it's us Yankee Doodle Dandies who are guilty of taxation without representation.
Democrats are using the slogan "taxation without Representation" in reference to the city of DC - District of Columbia being granted statehood. Statehood would in all likelihood give the Party an additional 2 seats in the Senate. Most of DCs residents are plantation dwellers, largely beholden to the DNC and rarely vote Republican. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out a glass of water with a "D" next to its name could win in these districts, hell even AOC, who is a tad sharper than a glass of water won in one of these NY districts. DC has 3 electors in the electoral college, but is not represented in the Senate. Our Nations capital is home to some of the most deplorable slums in America, where the plantation dwellers continue to vote for the master on the promises of a better future - which never comes, generation after generation.
Not only does DC house some pretty nasty ghettos, but most major urban areas do as well, which is why the Democrats are able to maintain control of these regions. They never relinquished their slaves at the culmination of the Civil War, they simply semantically hid the shackles, which are now empty promises and entitlement.
The Democratic party has come to the realization that you can actually enslave an entire race of people and not call it slavery? 'Liberal' Democrats and their useful idiot lapdogs have reintroduced slavery to the African American Community through so called social welfare programs. See: Decline of the Family and Rise of Entitlement
These blighted urban areas are unable to maintain themselves without 'outsiders', most residents pay little or no taxes as they have little or no income on the books. They are supported by taxing businesses and non-residents, middle class suburbanites who must commute to these urban hell holes to eek out their livelihood. It is referred to as as the “suburban exploitation thesis.”
A one sided theory states that suburbs have prospered at the expense of inner cities. They [the suburban municipalities] have leeched away taxpayers and businesses, and left behind withering cities. They [the people] use the city resources but contribute nothing in exchange. The "contribute nothing in exchange" stipulation is highly debatable.
Suburbanites pay a cluster of user fees and taxes, outside the income tax which many cities slap them with. They pay exorbitant fees to support the fiefdoms of mass transit, tolls, airports, arenas, and entire infrastructures that serve cities. This of course does not even touch on state and federal mandates that further redistribute their wealth -- all toward the inner cities and to support the shackles of its residents.
Local income taxes
About 1 in 7 municipalities levy taxes on income earned within the city limits, whether the earner is a resident or not. The taxed have no say whatsoever in city governance. Sometimes even city residents are taxed regardless of where they are employed, some of these folks even pay income tax to other municipalities as well. Theoretically at least, Local income taxes are to ensure that those who use city services, whether they live there or not, chip in to support those services. Forget the fact that you can't swing a dead cat in most of these cities without getting hit by one user fee or another and also forget the fact that many businesses, from mom and pop up to corporate entities simply could not survive without the suburbanite dollars.
Many major cities Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., and Philadelphia. All saw a huge out flux of jobs 30 to 40 years ago when they imposed a local income tax designed to keep jobs within the city lines, so much for that theory.
Local income taxes, despite their evident failure continue unabated. Voters in Kansas City and St. Louis overwhelmingly approved measures to renew their local income taxes, hell why not, why should they have to pay when the suburbanites can be sucked a tad drier. The suburbanites of course have no say in the matter - it's taxation without representation. The argument that suburbs exploit cities has been broadcast from the rooftops for so long that many simply accept it as fact. As per Vladimir Lenin "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". Advocates of the suburban exploitation thesis rarely have to, or are able to produce evidence to support their supposition.
"Studies that examine only costs are not convincing evidence that suburbs damage cities. Relatedly, what evidence exists that metropolitan government fragmentation damages cities, while concentration helps them? When studies of those subjects are reviewed, the patterns challenge the suburban-exploitation thesis" Brett W. Hawkins and Douglas M. Ihrke - Reexamining the Suburban Exploitation Thesis in American Metropolitan Areas
The argument that suburbanites leech off the cities is null and void, and not really 100% relative in any case. What matters mainly is taxation without representation. If you're taxing a class of people than they should be represented. Democrats will fight any attempts to allow non plantation dwellers from having a say in their fiefdoms, they'd lose most of their control if that were the case. Most Democrats would be voted out of office in a heart beat, and the congressional seats flipped - faghettaboutit !