By: Ava LaGressa
Edited by: Andrew Bongiovanni
Graphic by: Arsh Naseer
Originating in the text of the Magna Carta, the political slogan No Taxation Without Representation echoes principles of American freedom that trace back to the country’s inception.[1] Rooted in the grievances of the American colonies against the tyrannical reign of King George III, this foundational concept continues to manifest in contemporary American society. Surprisingly – almost 250 years later – it persists, casting a shadow over the taxation system amongst working children.
At the heart of this issue lies the scenario wherein employed children under the age of eighteen, are subject to taxation but lack the fundamental right to vote in American elections. This raises questions about the principles of representation and fairness of the taxation system. The main issue is the incongruity between taxation and political enfranchisement. While children are expected to fulfill their civic duty by paying taxes, they are systematically excluded from participating in the democratic process. This is especially disheartening because voting shapes the allocation and utilization of tax revenues. The exclusion of working children not only undermines the principles of democracy but also perpetuates disenfranchisement that contradicts the ideals expressed by the United States.
Two complementary solutions to address this issue are to grant children aged sixteen and older the right to vote and exempt children aged fifteen and under from taxation on their earnings. Granting children the right to vote would align taxation and representation, therefore ensuring that all contributing taxpayers have a voice in determining how taxes are levied and spent. It is important to note that this approach raises practical and ethical challenges regarding the capacity of children to make informed political decisions. Further, there is potential for undue influence by parents or guardians. Exempting children aged fifteen and under from taxation, while not as financially beneficial for the state, presents itself as a favorable alternative to the current situation.
According to the Pew Research Center, 81% of teens with Republican parents and 89% of teens with Democrat parents share the same political beliefs.[2] This most likely stems from children receiving political information from their parents; be it by mouth, television news, or radio. Therefore, the solution that naturally emerges is the role of parents in proxy voting on behalf of their children. If a large percent of children share politics with their parents, then this presents itself as an alluring alternative.
However, allowing children to vote, even if their political beliefs align with their parents, is important for several reasons. Granting children the right to vote acknowledges their status as individuals with their own perspectives, experiences, and interests. Regardless of alignment with their parents, children who contribute to the tax base should have the opportunity to express their views and engage in the democratic process. Further, while most children under the age of eighteen may share their political beliefs with their parents, a combined 31% of teens who characterize themselves as Republican, Democrat, or some other affiliation have diverging views,[3] views that are shaped by individual experiences, education, and personal values. In these cases, the child’s views are not represented via their parents’ vote. Moreover, the exclusion of children with no parents presents an additional problem with this solution. The Census Bureau estimates that around 3.2 million American children are paternal, maternal, or double orphans.[4] Therefore, presenting the question: who votes on their behalf? This number includes all children aged 0-17. However, through a rough calculation one can assume that 2/17 of this number or ~376,470 individuals are of the population that would be affected by the absence of parent proxy voting.
At its core, democracy is founded on the principle of equal participation and representation. While parents may act as proxies for their children’s political interests, this arrangement raises questions about the override of children’s autonomy. Moreover, excluding children from the electoral process perpetuates a form of indirect representation that contradicts the principles of democracy and advances a form of disenfranchisement that undermines fairness and equality.
Lowering the voting age will be a great benefit to young adults as it can encourage greater civic engagement among young people. Involving teens in the electoral process at an early age makes it more likely for them to develop lifelong habits of political participation and awareness. Further, sixteen-year-olds have a significant stake in the decisions made by the government, particularly on issues such as education, climate change, and economic policies such as college loan forgiveness that can directly impact their future lives.[5] Moreover, at sixteen, individuals are often already considered responsible enough to drive as well as work and pay taxes. Allowing them to vote provides consistency in rights and responsibilities, aligning with the principle of “No Taxation Without Representation.”
Critics may argue lowering the voting age is too bold of a proposal. There are a number of counterarguments, which upon closer examination, reveal themselves to be futile. The first myth suggests that 16-year-olds lack the cognitive abilities to vote, yet research indicates they possess superior independent-choice decision making capabilities than older adults.[6] The second argument suggests that lowering the voting age is a partisan power grab, yet the goal is to foster a more engaged and diverse citizenry, transcending party lines and strengthening democracy. Lastly, as discussed, there is a notion that younger voters would simply mimic their parents’ choices.[7] This is mostly – but not entirely – true, as there is evidence showing a divergence in voting intentions.
All of these arguments can be evaded by ensuring that 16-year-olds are well equipped to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. This is possible by implementing mandatory non-partisan voter education classes throughout American high school curricula. These classes would serve several important purposes including the promotion of civic education, critical thinking, participation, and inclusivity. Mandatory voter education classes would provide sixteen-year-olds with a foundational understanding of democracy, government structures, and the electoral process – therefore, leading teens to be more informed and confident when it comes to voting.
The proposition of lowering the voting age to sixteen presents a new challenge that the second half of this paper will address. Exempting children aged fifteen and under from being taxed eliminates the problem of taxation without representation and ensures fairness and equity in the democratic process. Children aged fifteen and under lack the legal capacity to vote and therefore do not have a voice in the democratic process. Taxing these children may place an undue financial burden on them and their families.
An argument against removing taxation is to eliminate the ability for children fifteen and under to work altogether. However, this directly impacts vulnerable populations, including low-income families and individuals facing economic hardship. Cutting off access to work for these children exacerbates inequality and economic hardship in economically disadvantaged households.[8]
According to The Nation the number of American children at work increased by 37% between 2015 and 2022. From 2021 to 2023, fourteen states have introduced or enacted legislation rolling back child labor regulations.[9] At least five pieces of legislation were enacted that included provisions lowering restrictions on both dangerous work and legalized subminimum wages for youth. [10] The rollback of crucial child labor laws further exacerbates the exploitation of minors. Exempting children aged fifteen and under from taxation will be economically beneficial to the individual as it allows them to maximize their take home pay, at a time in one’s life when their marginal utility from each additional dollar is extremely high. Further, tax policies should be designed to promote social justice and an equitable distribution of resources. Exempting children aged fifteen and under from taxation aligns with these principles by recognizing their unique status as dependents and ensuring that they are not burdened by tax obligations for which they have no representation.
Children, as well as their families, can utilize the extra money gained from the elimination of taxation in various ways including investing in education and enrichment experiences, improving health, and saving for the future. Should these teens choose to allocate the extra funds towards investing in their education, this could include purchasing educational and extracurricular materials or saving for related expenses. Secondly, the additional financial resources can be used to enhance children’s health and well-being through investment in nutritious food, healthcare services, recreational activities, and mental health support. The additional money can also be saved for future needs and aspirations, which may include opening savings accounts, investment plans, or college funds – ensuring financial security and an open door of opportunity for children as they grow older. Further, the extra funds can enable children to participate in enriching experiences such as workshops, cultural events, summer camps, or travel which can foster personal growth.[11]
A final way these additional, and rightfully deserved, funds can be used is for familial economic prosperity. As stated earlier, some families that include children working under the age of eighteen may not be financially secure. These funds can be used to support families that lean on these paychecks.[12] Overall, the additional financial resources gained from the elimination of taxation for children under fifteen provide teens with greater financial stability and flexibility. Thus, this policy change could prove instrumental in creating a more supportive and nurturing environment for children to thrive and succeed.
The persistence of “Taxation Without Representation” in modern America underscores contradictions within its democratic principles. Addressing this issue requires an understanding of the complexities surrounding taxation, representation, and the rights of teens within society. By granting teens aged sixteen and up the right to vote and revising taxation policies, policymakers can make great advances toward upholding – and realizing – the democratic ideals upon which the nation was founded. Ultimately, this would ensure that all individuals, regardless of age, have a voice in shaping their collective future.
Works Cited
[1] Volo, Dorothy, and James Volo. 2003. “Taxation without Representation.” Daily Life During the American Revolution, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400636714.ch-003.
[2] Cooperman, Alan. 2023. “Most U.S. Parents Pass along Their Religion and Politics to Their Children.” Pew Research Center, May 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/10/most-us-parents-pass-along-their-religion-and-politics-to-their-children/.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Xinhua, Joel. 2023. “Number of Orphaned Children in U.S. Grows Rapidly in Recent Years.” English News, May 14. https://english.news.cn/20230414/744cd5c95f044f37bf64c70811467552/c.html.
[5] Yglesias, Matthew. 2015. “The Case for Letting Children Vote.” Vox, November 28. https://www.vox.com/2015/11/28/9770928/voting-rights-for-kids.
[6] Worthy, Darrell A., Marissa A. Gorlick, Jennifer L. Pacheco, David M. Schnyer, and W. Todd Maddox. 2011. “With Age Comes Wisdom: Decision Making in Younger and Older Adults.” Psychological Science, November. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212636/.
[7] Vote16USA. 2018. “Busting the Myths about Lowering the Voting Age.” Vote16 USA, June 25. https://vote16usa.org/busting-the-myths-about-lowering-the-voting-age/.
[8] Lino, Mark. 2017. “The Cost of Raising a Child.” USDA, January 13. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child#:~:text=Where%20does%20the%20 money%20 go,the%20age%20of%20the%20child.
[9] Fraser, Steve. 2023. “Child Labor in America Is Back-and It’s as Chilling as Ever.” The Nation, October 6.
[10] Mast, Nina. 2024. “Child Labor Remains a Key State Legislative Issue in 2024: State Lawmakers Must Seize Opportunities to Strengthen Standards, Resist Ongoing Attacks on Child Labor Laws.” Economic Policy Institute, February 7. https://www.epi.org/blog/child-labor-remains-a-key-state-legislative-issue-in-2024-state-lawmakers-must-seize-opportunities-to-strengthen-standards-resist-ongoing-attacks-on-child-labor-laws/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20at%20least%20five,particularly%20dangerous%20for%20young%20workers
[11] Lino. 2017. “Cost of Raising a Child.”
[12] Ibid.
