Lesson 9

After reading Chapter 6, answer, as a group:

What is 'taxation without representation'? Answer it contrasting the US with another country (or within the US but highlighting political groups holding clearly contrasting positions).

Engage in independent research while structuring and approaching this question thoughtfully. Ensure the sources used in this response are authoritative. Cite the sources in a reference list and refer back to these references as in-text citations.

PS. Be ready to share briefly early in class what you have learned from your research and your classmates' research, being specific of how much you knew before the assignment, what you know now, and what you need to know more going forward. You will also be expected to position yourself assertively in this short individual debrief. You will use this knowledge to debate against your peers in class but you do not know which side you will end up, so be ready to argue for or against both sides.

PS. Follow the answer guidelines of the last lesson. Aim for a substance improvement in the group response relatively to what the group has produced so far. You can collectively do better! If you individually need to do more to help the group, do so.

Taxation refers to the process through which the government collects money from individuals and businesses to finance public expenditures and government activity, and political representation means that citizens have representatives who participate in government decision-making and lawmaking on their behalf. Therefore, taxation without representation refers to a situation in which people are required to pay taxes to a government but lack political representation in the institutions that make decisions about taxation and government policy. This phrase comes from colonial America, where colonists paid British taxes but had no representation in Parliament. For example, in 1765, the British parliament passed the Stamp Act which placed taxes on published paper and legal documents. The colonies opposed the Act because they did not have direct representatives in Parliament, even thought they had own colonial conference. In 1765, Stamp Act Congress was also hold and colonies argued that taxes were should be placed by agreement of people or its representatives. Because of this opposition, the British Parliament eventually paused Stamp Act on March in 1766(https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta/legacy.html, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/explore-by-topic/democracy-and-protest/causes-of-the-american-revolution/). However, representation works differently in the U.S. and China, raising questions about who has a voice in tax decisions. In China, citizens have a constitutional duty to pay taxes. Article 56 of the Chinese Constitution states that citizens must pay in accordance with the law. Major tax matters, including tax categories and tax rates, are governed by law as enacted by the National People's Congress (NPC) or its Standing Committee (https://british-association-comparative-law.org/2026/07/29/tax-legality-in-china-constitutional-principle-or-governance-technique/ ). China's political representation works through the People's Congress system; NPC delegates are indirectly elected every five years by provincial-level people's congresses. This means that Chinese taxpayers are represented in tax lawmaking indirectly rather than by directly electing national lawmakers (https://npcobserver.com/2022/03/29/explainer-how-seats-in-chinas-national-peoples-congress-are-allocated/)

While in the U.S. the protest allowed for the citizen's to get representation in the government, even now particular U.S. citizens pay taxes, yet they do not have access to the level of representation as the 50 states. For instance, the residents of territories like Puerto Rico, and the federal district of Washington, D.C., lack the voting representation in the Congress ((David J. McGuire et al., 2021), as cited by Kagan, 2007, updated 2026)). Showcasing, how despite being an important movement, the change is still slow. There was a similar state in some British Overseas territories, like Gibraltar, Bermuda, and such, had to pay taxes to the British government, where they did not have any voting right. Now, instead of receiving voting rights, they have received local taxation autonomy ((Loft, 2022)).

While the person above mentioned and I can agree with Puerto Rico, their mention of DC is irrelevant to that context because the reason DC does not have representation is because it was never meant to be a residency. The ONLY reason the District of Columbia exists as its own area is because there was a massive conflict in the early years of the U.S. in having the federal government in a location that has to adhere to and be subject to state laws, which would then lead to whatever state the federal government being located in having inordinate amounts of power and control over the federal government. At that time, Virginia was the recognized home of the federal government. If you were to compare it to anything, it's like if you were to say that the national diet of Japan or the emperor's palace is declared separate from Tokyo so that Tokyo ward politicians had no sway over the federal government, but then you said that all the people who choose to move to Chiyoda city should have a separate set of representatives and render the entire purpose redundant anyway.

In the case of Japan, citizens have a constitutional duty to pay taxes, and tax laws are decided by elected members of the Diet. This means that Japanese citizens have a voice in tax decisions through their elected representatives in the Diet. This is defined in the Japanese constitution, where article 15 states "The people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them." and article 30 states "The people shall be liable to taxation as provided by law." It is important to note that "the people" here means the Japanese nationals (https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_english.nsf/html/statics/english/constitution_e.htm). Therefore, the relationship between taxation and political representation is different between colonial America and Japan. In Japan, taxes are imposed on income, assets, and spending. The process of deciding taxation is that the government and the Ministry of Finance consider changes to the tax system and discuss the details of bills. When a bill is passed by the Diet, the tax system or tax rates are changed. Since the oil shock, the Japanese tax system and tax rates have changed with the times (https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00013/the-political-history-of-japan%E2%80%99s-consumption-tax.html). However, some foreign residents may pay taxes in Japan but cannot vote in national elections because they are not Japanese citizens. In the Japanese tax system, individuals are classified as residents or non-residents. Non-permanent residents are a special category of residents. This classification is based on each person's living situation. Non-residents who earn income from Japan generally need to pay tax on their Japan-source income. For non-residents, if they earn income from overseas, they generally do not need to pay Japanese income tax on that income. On the other hand, residents generally need to pay tax on both income earned in Japan and income earned from foreign sources (https://www.jetro.go.jp/en/invest/setting_up/section3/page7.html). This situation is similar to that of the United States to a certain extent, where the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits noncitizens from voting. However, they do face the obligation to pay taxes, no different from the other U.S. residents. (https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/) From an accounting perspective, taxes are financial flows because they reduce the income available to individuals and businesses while providing government revenue for public expenditures. This means that taxation affects both the financial position of taxpayers and the resources available to the government. This comparison shows that taxation without representation is fundamentally about the relationship among taxation, political authority, representation, and accountability, rather than simply whether someone pays taxes.

As for Mongolia, citizens are required to pay taxes but they also have the right to elect members of Mongolia's parliament that are responsible for making laws and approving state taxation policies. Constitution of Mongolia. (1992). Constitution of Mongolia. https://legalinfo.mn/en/edtl/16532180497951. Mongolia also shows that taxation and representation can be more complicated. Mongolian tax law applies not only to Mongolian citizens but also to foreign citizens and stateless people who have taxable income or tax obligations in Mongolia. This means that someone can have a tax obligation in Mongolia without necessarily having the same political rights as a Mongolian citizen. This raises the question foreign residents who pay taxes but cannot vote should be considered an example of taxation without representation. According to BBC News in 2023, 40% of the workforce is Nomadic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15460525). A portion of those people live almost completely self sufficient with their animals, selling animal products such as dairy, cashmere, etc... The government imposed a change in taxation on livestock keeping in 2002, following high inflation rates and an imbalance in the goat population. This changed the goat value to the same as 1.5 sheep, thought to be an attempt at lowering the population of sheep (Japan Wildlife Research Center, Mongolia Country Profile 2012). Despite minimal taxes being paid by these nomadic pastoralists, they still receive support from Mongolia's government.

In the UK, citizens are represented by MPs (Member of Parliament) through elections, which means citizens have opportunity to express their opinions on taxation through representatives. Tax rates are set by Parliament, and HMRC(His Majesty's Revenue and Customs) collects revenue (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/tax-and-devolution). In terms of eligibility for voting, the government allows British citizen, Irish citizen, and qualifying Commonwealth citizen to vote for UK Parliament. Compared to Japan and Mongolia, people are eligible for voting even if they do not necessarily hold a British citizenship(https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/who-can-vote-uk-elections).

In France, citizens are required to pay taxes, which are used to finance public services and government spending. According to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article 13, “taxes must be equally distributed among all citizens, in proportion to their ability to pay.” Moreover, the principle of taxation is enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, meaning that rules concerning the basis, rates, and methods of collecting taxes of all types are set by Parliament (French Tax Law, 2024). Therefore, French citizens have political representation in taxation because they elect representatives to Parliament, and the tax rules can change depending on the political representatives they elect. However, the situation is different when it comes to foreigners. If they live in France, they can be taxable on their income, including income from French or foreign sources (Service-Public.fr). Regardless of the amount of taxes they pay, if they do not have French citizenship, they generally cannot vote in French national elections for members of the National Assembly or for the President. This means that they can have tax obligations without having the same political rights as French citizens to choose the representatives who make decisions about taxation. The distinction between taxation and political representation demonstrates that paying taxes does not necessarily mean that an individual has the same political rights as citizens.

I would like to contribute an example from India for the discussion. According to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, “no tax shall be levied or collected, except by authority of law,” which implies that taxes should only be levied and collected on a legal basis (Government of India, 1950). India is a parliamentary democracy, where the citizens elect members of the Lok Sabha, who, in turn, are responsible for creating laws related to taxation policies. This implies that there is a connection between taxpayers, representatives, and taxation laws. Consequently, it is possible to say that this situation is completely different from the case described in Chapter 6, where the colonial Americans objected to being taxed by the British Parliament. However, I would like to note that considering the cases of non-citizens, who pay taxes in a country but do not have representation, raises more questions than answers. For instance, there are various categories of taxpayers in India, including residents, non-residents, and persons with unlimited or limited liability, who are subject to different taxation policies (Income Tax Department, n.d.). This makes me question whether “taxation without representation” should only refer to people who have absolutely no representation, or whether it can also describe situations where someone contributes financially to a country but has fewer political rights than citizens. From my perspective, it is essential to analyze the concepts raised in Chapter 6. For instance, it is mentioned that in cases of representation, the issue of “taxation without representation” is not relevant since everyone pays taxes to fund government operations and public services. In return, for the amount of taxes paid, citizens receive a specific level of services funded by the taxes. However, in my opinion, even though taxes are essential for funding government operations, they should be justified both by the government and acceptable for the taxpayers. To summarise, reflecting on the cases of the United States and India provide an opportunity to consider “taxation without representation” from different perspectives. Whereas in the case of the U.S. history, the phrase “taxation without representation” shows that people are less likely to accept paying taxes, funds spent on public services, and the issues of citizenship, in the case of India, it shows how the relationship between representation and taxes can be different.