You are here
The Ethics of Representation Without Taxation
Saturday, March 28th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
We are told in school that one of the reasons the American Revolution
happened is that colonists faced taxation without representation. This
is just about as bad as it gets. But there is also such a thing as
representation without taxation. How bad is that? What effect does it
have on government and, more particularly, on government ethics?
This idea originates not with me, but with the woman who filed the recent ethics complaint against Alaska's Gov. Palin, which I discussed in a recent blog entry. I dealt with one piece of this problem in a blog entry last year: the fact that Sen. Stevens brought Alaska more federal money per capita than any other state. I questioned the ethics of using one's seniority to help one's constituents to funds they don't deserve.
But when I learned that Alaskans don't pay income taxes, I realized there's something more going on here. The money their state representatives are spending is not their constituents' money. They have obligations with respect to spending the money, but none with respect to raising it. Effectively, they conspire with their constituents to take enormous bribes from oil companies and to accept an undue amount of federal money in return for the gift of not having to pay for any of it. How can this situation not corrupt government officials? And how can representatives of people willing to make this bargain, or being sold on it by their representatives and other community leaders, be responsible on the spending side?
It would appear that representation without taxation is central to Alaska's corruption. Yes, many states with taxation are corrupt, as well. But Alaska is a special case.
What would happen if Alaskans decided to end representation without taxation? How could this even be discussed? What representative or person seeking to become a representative of the Alaskan community could raise the issue that distinguishes Alaskans from the rest of us? And if you can't raise an issue so central to a community's identity, how can you ethically represent it?
Alaska is hardly alone. Look at Nigeria and Russia, for example.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This idea originates not with me, but with the woman who filed the recent ethics complaint against Alaska's Gov. Palin, which I discussed in a recent blog entry. I dealt with one piece of this problem in a blog entry last year: the fact that Sen. Stevens brought Alaska more federal money per capita than any other state. I questioned the ethics of using one's seniority to help one's constituents to funds they don't deserve.
But when I learned that Alaskans don't pay income taxes, I realized there's something more going on here. The money their state representatives are spending is not their constituents' money. They have obligations with respect to spending the money, but none with respect to raising it. Effectively, they conspire with their constituents to take enormous bribes from oil companies and to accept an undue amount of federal money in return for the gift of not having to pay for any of it. How can this situation not corrupt government officials? And how can representatives of people willing to make this bargain, or being sold on it by their representatives and other community leaders, be responsible on the spending side?
It would appear that representation without taxation is central to Alaska's corruption. Yes, many states with taxation are corrupt, as well. But Alaska is a special case.
What would happen if Alaskans decided to end representation without taxation? How could this even be discussed? What representative or person seeking to become a representative of the Alaskan community could raise the issue that distinguishes Alaskans from the rest of us? And if you can't raise an issue so central to a community's identity, how can you ethically represent it?
Alaska is hardly alone. Look at Nigeria and Russia, for example.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Linda Kellen Biegel (not verified) says:
Sat, 2009-03-28 21:17
Permalink
I just have a couple of clarifications:
1) According to the Alaska Constitution, the tax money paid by the oil companies to the State of Alaska belongs to the people of Alaska. So in essence, the money the legislature spends is "the people's money."
However, the fact that Alaskans don't get to see or touch the money before it goes to the State makes Alaskans apathetic about it.
2) Alaskans are anything BUT apathetic about their yearly AK Permanent Fund Dividend money! I've long believed it has the same purpose as a child's "binky."
3) If I could get a Legislator to go along with me, I'd be in the forefront of the battle to reinstate the State Income Tax.