If you were a DC resident, would you choose representation or no taxation?

[Mr. Ukucasha]

The American Revolution was waged by the colonists, in part, due to the fact that they had to pay taxes but had no representation in the British government.

Washington DC residents, however, are subject to the EXACT SAME "taxation without representation" that the country was founded to combat: DC residents pay federal income taxes but receive no representation in the US Congress.

Let's say the US government finally acknowledges this injustice, and a referendum is held where DC residents have the choice of "taxation and representation" or "no taxation and no representation." The former option would mean DC residents would still be taxed, but would finally receive two senators and one representative in the US Congress. A win for the latter option would result in DC residents being exempt from federal income taxes, but they would continue to lack representation in Congress. To be clear, DC residents would continue to pay local taxes along with other types of taxes except the federal income tax. Which option would you choose?

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Obviously taxation and representation (not an antisocial freak)

[Vosem]

The latter, but kind of cynically so (because DC is not likely to vote in a way I would appreciate). I also think making it a tax haven would radically improve the local culture, such that after a while it could demand voting rights with much more positive consequences for the US as a whole.

[Sopranos Republican]

Not paying taxes would be pretty based, so option 2 considering congress does literally nothing of value anyways.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 4 is very tempting but the congressional representation is too good to pass up.

[Voice of low info America]

No taxation, no representation (literally sane)

This isn't complicated - under which scenario do you think DC's population would increase more? Taxation with more representation (compared to almost every state), or no taxation with no representation? People vote with their feet.

[AGA]

No taxation and no representation for sure. Think of all the money you'd save on federal taxes. The representation that DC would get is small anyway.

[CentristRepublican]

No taxation and no representation for sure. Think of all the money you'd save on federal taxes. The representation that DC would get is small anyway.

This. Let's be fr, DC would have no political power beyond 1 rep, 2 senators, 3 electoral votes. It's not a whole lot and it's not very likely to sway an election one way or another. I'd rather not pay taxes and see a tangible return on investment (or in this case, not have to invest in something where the return is quite debatable).

[Mr. Smith]

Ask a Wyoming or Alaska resident if they'd trade representation for no taxes first.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Ask a Wyoming or Alaska resident if they'd trade representation for no taxes first.

lmao, now that you mention it, maybe it's worth doing for the sake of disenfranchising GOP states

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Representation for the realpolitik reason that I'd swallow paying federal income taxes if it increases Democratic power in the federal government.

Also people are acting like "no taxation" implies no taxes when it implies no federal income tax. You're still paying other local taxes in this scenario.