NationStates Jolt Archive

Im sorry that this thread is for mainly United States citizens, but it came up in a congress debate tournament. A bill to mandate the taxing of native american. What does everyone think "around here?"

Technically they're autonomous and sovereign, so no, you can't tax them.

but a ton of them live on regular land and not on reservations, so why shouldn't they pay property tax? and they work at regular jobs, so why not income tax?
maybe if they live and work on a reservation they shouldn't have to, but other than that...

Im sorry that this thread is for mainly United States citizens, but it came up in a congress debate tournament. A bill to mandate the taxing of native american. What does everyone think "around here?"

Don't think they should be taxed involuntarily. Of course, I don't think anyone should be taxed involuntarily so that's not a shock.

Ok, but they do live within the United States, they drive on our roads, their children go to our schools, and they are protected by our armed forces. Why shouldnt they be taxed?

If by "tax," you mean "take their land and resources," then haven't we done enough of that?

If by "tax," you mean "take their land and resources," then haven't we done enough of that?
What he said. /\

Perhaps they should not be taxed because the US government made treaties with them -- and wouldn't it be great if they actually did continue to uphold their end of the bargain -- which rather gave the Native Americans the short end of the stick to begin with.

If by "tax," you mean "take their land and resources," then haven't we done enough of that?
that was quite a while ago and does that also mean that you stand for giveing African American reparations for us haveing them as slaves 150 years ago??

I am not an American, but I have an interest in taxation rulings.

Do the Native Americans receive the services and protection from the US government that other residents (citizens or not) of the USA receive. If so they should pay taxation. Not being citizens of the USA is irrelevant, as any other foreign national resident in the USA has to pay tax, why should the Native American be different.

The issue of living on reservations, is basically the same as above. Who provides the services?

that was quite a while ago and does that also mean that you stand for giveing African American reparations for us haveing them as slaves 150 years ago??
youre in their country. the least you can do is leave them alone

that was quite a while ago and does that also mean that you stand for giveing African American reparations for us haveing them as slaves 150 years ago??
The african americans are no longer slaves, whereas the native americans land that was stolen, has still not been returned.

That depends on whether a native american is a U.S. citizen. It has to be all one way or the other. If they are than yes they can be taxed. If not, then they cannot legally fill a job in our country without being given the green card. They are just like any other person. Im not saying all NA should be one way or the other, some may want to be citizens and others may not, im just saying it's an all or none type of thing.

Meh, just give them Utah... and maybe one of the Dakotas... let them take a vote to decide which one.

that was quite a while ago and does that also mean that you stand for giveing African American reparations for us haveing them as slaves 150 years ago??

Blah, blah, blah. Like this hasn't been said before. The difference is that reservations are sovereign nations. The difference is that Native Americans had documented terrains that they were systematically relocated away from (see "Trail of Tears").

What affords them extra rights? They deserve no special treatment. They deserve the same rights as the rest of us, and that right is paying your damned taxes, whether you like it or not!

but a ton of them live on regular land and not on reservations, so why shouldn't they pay property tax?
considering what's been done to their culture and ancestors, i think the least you can do is let them go without paying taxes.

considering what's been done to their culture and ancestors, i think the least you can do is let them go without paying taxes.
And that was how many years ago?

So there were mistakes made. Life goes on.

I don't see why I have to pay taxes as a broke student while these people get away with NOT having to!

Meh, just give them Utah... and maybe one of the Dakotas... let them take a vote to decide which one.
yes, and that makes up for an entire continent how?

Do the Native Americans receive the services and protection from the US government that other residents (citizens or not) of the USA receive.

Some of them.

Not being citizens of the USA is irrelevant, as any other foreign national resident in the USA has to pay tax, why should the Native American be different.

Well, should anyone who receives services or protection of the US government pay taxes? How about, say, the United Kingdom?

Yea what your all saying is great and all. But... The Native Americans that are around today are abviously not the ones that we "Took land from", they have grown up using the taxpayers money for everything and have had the same opportunities as everyone. Why should they be immune from paying taxes??? And for those of you who say that since it was vtheir land first they should not pay taxes, should countries all over the world whoes land that was not originally, force the people to pay taxes??? Should countries all over Europe not force anyone with any sort of Italian heredity to pay taxes because it was once the Roman Empire??

that was quite a while ago and does that also mean that you stand for giveing African American reparations for us haveing them as slaves 150 years ago??
Yeah, I support reparations in the form of affirmative action. I also support the American Indian's sovreignty. Why? Because they haven't yet recovered fully from slavery and segregation and from the Indian wars respectively. When they have socioeconomic equality we'll talk about repealing affirmative action and Indian sovereignty.

yes, and that makes up for an entire continent how?

Uh... I'll have it be known I was not for "making anything up" to anyone. That was simply a humble request for myself personally. We could pay them to take them if it makes you feel better.

Should countries all over Europe not force anyone with any sort of Italian heredity to pay taxes because it was once the Roman Empire??
congratulations on spectacluarly missing the point

Yea what your all saying is great and all. But... The Native Americans that are around today are abviously not the ones that we "Took land from", they have grown up using the taxpayers money for everything and have had the same opportunities as everyone. Why should they be immune from paying taxes??? And for those of you who say that since it was vtheir land first they should not pay taxes, should countries all over the world whoes land that was not originally, force the people to pay taxes??? Should countries all over Europe not force anyone with any sort of Italian heredity to pay taxes because it was once the Roman Empire??

First off, okay. We aren't the same guys who took the land. They ain't the guys who got their land taken. Granted, but this doesn't hold water. Why? Because it takes for granted that we respect one form of intergenerational transfer, but not another. Our great-great-granddaddies are permitted to pass land and wealth down between generations, but their debts and crimes are forgiven at the moment of their death? How does that figure?

Yeah, I support reparations in the form of affirmative action. I also support the American Indian's sovreignty. Why? Because they haven't yet recovered fully from slavery and segregation and from the Indian wars respectively. When they have socioeconomic equality we'll talk about repealing affirmative action and Indian sovereignty.
ok, well i cant even argue with you over that, probably cause your stubborn and i am and we will both never change our view points on the matter. But i cant see how some one can say that they are still suffering from what the horrible white man did to them.

Well, if they vote in federal elections and make use of federal services I guess so...

yes make them pay taxes.

Well, should anyone who receives services or protection of the US government pay taxes? How about, say, the United Kingdom?

The UK does not receive services nor protection from the USA, no matter what you would like to think. The UK and the USA are military Allies in NATO, which protects both mutually, in an agreement between sovereign nations. This does not mean that the UK is protected, from anything, by the USA.

If you want to argue that the UK was protected during WWII etc. then you really have to look at what happened to, say Coventry, in the UK and ask whether this was really any protection. We were, once again allies. Not master and slave (Little does Blair seem to reaise this.)

They adopted our lifestyle, so now they should be in our country, anyway.

They adopted our lifestyle, so now they should be in our country, anyway.

That's maybe the first time I've heard small pox referred to as a "lifestyle."

The UK does not receive services nor protection from the USA, no matter what you would like to think. The UK and the USA are military Allies in NATO, which protects both mutually, in an agreement between sovereign nations. This does not mean that the UK is protected, from anything, by the USA.

Alliance means by definition, mutual PROTECTION militarily. If the UK was not protected from anything by the USA, that would mean that if the UK got attacked, the USA would do nothing to help. Obviously that is not the case.

We were, once again allies. Not master and slave (Little does Blair seem to reaise this.)

Who said anything about master and slave..? One party protecting another is not automatically a situation of dominance, contrary to what HBO prison specials imply.

So. Should we tax the UK? Or how about any of the other of USA's allies and interests? Any place that benefits (in theory) from the US government?

Some of them.



Well, should anyone who receives services or protection of the US government pay taxes? How about, say, the United Kingdom?

Unless thats a nick name for someone you know who lives in the US, that isn't relevant. He sayed:

"Not being citizens of the USA is irrelevant, as any other foreign national resident in the USA has to pay tax, why should the Native American be different."

I believe that means anyone from another country who is living in the US. If I, from Canada, bought a house and got a job in the US, I would be paying property and income tax to the US government.

He implies single person, you say the UK, a country (not a person, see the difference?).

That's maybe the first time I've heard small pox referred to as a "lifestyle."

Whatever you have to do to keep these damn kids outta their gangs! err... tribes... well... hmm...

You guys are missing the point. In essence it is not reperations. We made an agreement. If we can decide to go back on our agreement, then we should have to pay a penalty. Sure, tax them, then give them back THEIR origional land and while you're at it why dont we pay rent for the past couple centuries. That should be fair.

On the other hand, if they own land in the US that is not on a reservation, they should have to pay property taxes.

congratulations on spectacluarly missing the point

His comment was not spectacularly unrelated (go a few orders of magnitude down), so why say he "spectacularly missed the point"?

In Europe, whenever new peoples took land from whoever were living there before, they would usually press the natives until whatever ethnical identity they possessed had been absorbed. Of course, if the US wishes to rise above moral standards of medieval Europe...

You guys are missing the point. In essence it is not reperations. We made an agreement. If we can decide to go back on our agreement, then we should have to pay a penalty. Sure, tax them, then give them back THEIR origional land and while you're at it why dont we pay rent for the past couple centuries. that should be fair.

Precisely. It's part of the agreement that the US government has made with all the various tribes. They don't have to pay taxes because we agreed to that. Of course, if it is so important that they be taxed like the "rest of us", then what's one more broken treaty?

His comment was not spectacularly unrelated (go a few orders of magnitude down), so why say he "spectacularly missed the point"?

i was referring to his comment about europeans now and the roman empire, which exited centuries ago

Alliance means by definition, mutual PROTECTION militarily. If the UK was not protected from anything by the USA, that would mean that if the UK got attacked, the USA would do nothing to help. Obviously that is not the case.

As it is Mutual, then let us tax one another, mutually. Rather a waste of time and effort, but if it makes you happy, then fine.


Who said anything about master and slave..? One party protecting another is not automatically a situation of dominance, contrary to what HBO prison specials imply.

Sorry, just a dig at Blair. (I never voted for him, I left the country as there was no worthwhile option offered)

So. Should we tax the UK? Or how about any of the other of USA's allies and interests? Any place that benefits (in theory) from the US government?
See above. Mutual protection would mean mutual taxation, pointless. If you choose to protect some other nation without their asking for protection, then any taxation would be better called extortion. If they have asked for protection, and this is not mutual, then yes, you should tax them.

Back to the Native Indians. Where they live in their own sovereign nations, subject to their own laws, using their own resources and are not directly bebefitting from US government spending, then taxation seems to be inappropriate. If they choose to use facilities provided with US public money, with choose being important in this, then they should be taxable as any other US resident is. The military protection that they receive by being wholly surrounded by continental USA is not optional. This is not something that they choose to receive, it is simply an accident of political geography.

Native Americans should most definately have the right to live the way their ancestors did (within limits, we're not gonna set the buffalo free and let them follow the buffalo between texas and north dakota) or live on tribe owned (reserve) land without paying taxes. But if they work and/or live outside of the reserve (on what is now American soil) they should pay taxes. I suppose I would even let them get away with special hunting rights and the ability to shop off reserve without paying taxes, but thats about it. While I agree that it royally sucked having their land stolen, it has come and gone.

Yes, its horrible and immoral to have stolen the land, but it is their's now. Thats what war is for! If one country takes over half of the land of another country, they don't say "see, we're better than you, I told you so. Now here's your land back."

Unless thats a nick name for someone you know who lives in the US, that isn't relevant. He sayed:

"Not being citizens of the USA is irrelevant, as any other foreign national resident in the USA has to pay tax, why should the Native American be different."

I believe that means anyone from another country who is living in the US. If I, from Canada, bought a house and got a job in the US, I would be paying property and income tax to the US government.

Alright, but what if your grandfather owned the land your house was built on, and it was stolen by the government? Would YOU be happy to pay taxes for what should have been yours in the first place?

Besides which, foreign residents shouldn't pay taxes either. Neither should any other residents!

He implies single person, you say the UK, a country (not a person, see the difference?).

His point wasn't that individuals get taxed, it was implied that taxation should fall on anyone who receives 'protection or services' supplied by the USG. I disagree and was pointing out that the USG does not tax based on that basis.

Yeah, I support reparations in the form of affirmative action. I also support the American Indian's sovreignty. Why? Because they haven't yet recovered fully from slavery and segregation and from the Indian wars respectively. When they have socioeconomic equality we'll talk about repealing affirmative action and Indian sovereignty.

Affirmative action.... isn't that racist legislation?

so we're supposed to end racism... yet we enact blatantly racist laws. Hmmm... quite a paradox.

I say:

Let everyone be judged as a person, not as a color. Color should have nothing to do with any decision regarding a person, including whether or not they are qualified for a job or for a college (etc.).

A person should be judged on his merits.

the sooner we do this, the sooner we can stop this racist bullshit and see each other as people and not colors.

i was referring to his comment about europeans now and the roman empire, which exited centuries ago

Yes, so was I. Just because it happened long ago doesn't make the point non-existant, after all, it was quite some time ago when native land was taken as well. The Romans left Europe because they could no longer hold it against the "barbarian" hords. I'm not sure how that is so much different? (not being mocking or anything, I really don't.)

Im sorry that this thread is for mainly United States citizens, but it came up in a congress debate tournament. A bill to mandate the taxing of native american. What does everyone think "around here?"

Honestly, even though many Native Americans have integrated into American society, what was done to them in the past qualifies them for a free lunch in my opinion. If anyone should get a freebie, it's Native Americans.

Yes, so was I. Just because it happened long ago doesn't make the point non-existant, after all, it was quite some time ago when native land was taken as well. The Romans left Europe because they could no longer hold it against the "barbarian" hords. I'm not sure how that is so much different? (not being mocking or anything, I really don't.)

well, from what i could tell, he was saying that should european countries force italians living in them to pay tax. his point was that as the roman empire had once been there, the italians shouldnt have to pay taxes.

which misses the point, the romans were the occupying force in europe, not the native people.

at least thats what i think he meant

Besides which, foreign residents shouldn't pay taxes either. Neither should any other residents!

The argument here is not about taxation, per se, but about the special status awarded to a specific group with respect to taxation. Foreign residents do get taxed, so do US citizens. If you do not like that, then leave the country, and move somewhere where taxation does not exist. Good luck.

His point wasn't that individuals get taxed, it was implied that taxation should fall on anyone who receives 'protection or services' supplied by the USG. I disagree and was pointing out that the USG does not tax based on that basis.

If the USG does not tax on that basis, what basis does it tax on. The provision of protection and services by a central authority, be it the local warlord, or a democratically elected government, is the bedrock of the legality of taxation. You chosse to live somewhere, as a consequence you receive the protection of the local head honcho's forces and whatever services the head honcho thinks are necessary for his dominion to work. he head honcho, however needs to pay for this, which means he takes money or valuables from you in return for providing these services.

How does the USG justify taxation then?

Alright, but what if your grandfather owned the land your house was built on, and it was stolen by the government? Would YOU be happy to pay taxes for what should have been yours in the first place?
Besides which, foreign residents shouldn't pay taxes either. Neither should any other residents!


I wasn't talking about that, I wasn't talking about that to you at all. I don't think anyone is happy to pay taxes in any form, even if they're grandfather didn't own the land before. So no, I wouldn't be happy (duh). But taxes are for services rendered, like if that guy wants water, heat, electricity and cable pumped into his house. Or if that guy votes, uses the roads or makes use of any government service. If I was in the governments position, I would let him keep his land and build a wall around his stupid log cabin and not allow him access to my country. Then, when the idiot cracked and tried to climb the wall I would have him shot for trying to illegally enter the country.


His point wasn't that individuals get taxed, it was implied that taxation should fall on anyone who receives 'protection or services' supplied by the USG. I disagree and was pointing out that the USG does not tax based on that basis.

I once again disagree, look again:
"Not being citizens of the USA is irrelevant, as any other foreign national resident in the USA has to pay tax, why should the Native American be different."
Notice the new bolded part? I would prefer if you had read the entire thing last time I quoted it, but hey. From how I interpret it, which doesn't seem hard to see to me, is that it says any "Foreign National Resident"; meaning someone who still has their nationality (french, say) who is a resident in the USA, meaning they live there. Before I go any further, do you accept that interpretation?

youre in their country. the least you can do is leave them alone

Their country? Their country??? Are you kidding me? When the Vikings first started travelling to North America at the begining of this past millenia, what they found was hardly a country.

Definition of country: a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

For the record, I will refer to them as Aboriginals because the term "native American" implies that they were the first Americans, when we all know that the first real Americans were men like our Founding Fathers.

The Aboriginals had none of these things. North America had little pockets of Aboriginal tribes who spoke their own language, had their own customs, etc. But, they had no sense how big the continent was, or even how many people were on it. They had no permanent structures, no form of government outside of each tribe, and no sense of unity.

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.

The Aboriginals signed "their land" over to us. If they did not understand English, they should not have signed them. Ignorance is not an excuse.

The Aboriginals admit to not having a sense of land "ownership" because they had lived off the land, taking only what they needed. Which makes the irony of their argument almost unbearable......how can they say we took their land when they didnt even acknowledge ownership of it in the first place? It wasnt until we explained the concept of land ownership to them that they felt cheated.

They should be grateful to us, for providing them with any land at all! We owe them nothing, thus, in accordance with this topic, it is my belief that they be taxed just like all the other non-Americans who live within our borders.

Their country? Their country??? Are you kidding me? When the Vikings first started travelling to North America at the begining of this past millenia, what they found was hardly a country.

Definition of country: a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

For the record, I will refer to them as Aboriginals because the term "native American" implies that they were the first Americans, when we all know that the first real Americans were men like our Founding Fathers.

The Aboriginals had none of these things. North America had little pockets of Aboriginal tribes who spoke their own language, had their own customs, etc. But, they had no sense how big the continent was, or even how many people were on it. They had no permanent structures, no form of government outside of each tribe, and no sense of unity.

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.

The Aboriginals signed "their land" over to us. If they did not understand English, they should not have signed them. Ignorance is not an excuse.

The Aboriginals admit to not having a sense of land "ownership" because they had lived off the land, taking only what they needed. Which makes the irony of their argument almost unbearable......how can they say we took their land when they didnt even acknowledge ownership of it in the first place? It wasnt until we explained the concept of land ownership to them that they felt cheated.

They should be grateful to us, for providing them with any land at all! We owe them nothing, thus, in accordance with this topic, it is my belief that they be taxed just like all the other non-Americans who live within our borders.Just because you don't agree with their definition of civilization doesn't mean it's any less valid.


And just because they didn't acknowledge the concept of land ownership doesn't validate your claim to the land they occupied first.

Foreign residents do get taxed, so do US citizens.

And I guess native americans don't.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]
If you do not like that, then leave the country, and move somewhere where taxation does not exist. Good luck.

Likewise! If you don't like it, leave the country and move where native americans are taxed.

If the USG does not tax on that basis, what basis does it tax on.

Obviously, some other kind of basis. Democracy, perhaps? Otherwise things would not be as they are.

The provision of protection and services by a central authority, be it the local warlord, or a democratically elected government, is the bedrock of the legality of taxation. You chosse to live somewhere, as a consequence you receive the protection of the local head honcho's forces and whatever services the head honcho thinks are necessary for his dominion to work. he head honcho, however needs to pay for this, which means he takes money or valuables from you in return for providing these services.


Well, what if you don't choose to live somewhere, you were born there? It'd be nice if we could just move the scraps of land we gave to a handful of native american tribes out of the country so they wouldn't "benefit" so much from the USG..

That's always a laugh since a particular native american I know, her memory of the USG is as an invading force that gave her people the choice to leave the land and family forever, or stay. Then it systematically stamped out her culture including beating children at the "beneficial" public school if and when they spoke their native language. Now one of the only consolidations her people have is those scraps of land (the least profitable and fertile land in the entire country, by the way) the USG so generously allows them semi-autonomy on. And you want to tax them too, pay money for what was freely given before? What good will that actually do?

Erase that 7 trillion dollar federal debt? Improve their own lands at all? I don't think so. Just another insult to a defeated people, all in the name of making sure you aren't unhappy because a handful of others pay less taxes than you.

Their country? Their country??? Are you kidding me? When the Vikings first started travelling to North America at the begining of this past millenia, what they found was hardly a country.

Definition of country: a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

For the record, I will refer to them as Aboriginals because the term "native American" implies that they were the first Americans, when we all know that the first real Americans were men like our Founding Fathers.

The Aboriginals had none of these things. North America had little pockets of Aboriginal tribes who spoke their own language, had their own customs, etc. But, they had no sense how big the continent was, or even how many people were on it. They had no permanent structures, no form of government outside of each tribe, and no sense of unity.

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.

The Aboriginals signed "their land" over to us. If they did not understand English, they should not have signed them. Ignorance is not an excuse.

The Aboriginals admit to not having a sense of land "ownership" because they had lived off the land, taking only what they needed. Which makes the irony of their argument almost unbearable......how can they say we took their land when they didnt even acknowledge ownership of it in the first place? It wasnt until we explained the concept of land ownership to them that they felt cheated.

They should be grateful to us, for providing them with any land at all! We owe them nothing, thus, in accordance with this topic, it is my belief that they be taxed just like all the other non-Americans who live within our borders.


Well... sadly enough I was leaning to agree with this arguement during his beginning, as its not only the to-be-US citizens who did this to the tribes of whatever land it is that they settled. But the arguement falls apart at "why did they bother to sign"... hmm, well if they didn't understand the principle of ownership, how in the world would they understand what a signature would mean? :rolleyes:

Human history is full of dark, dark things... but can everything be fixed? I mean, if it comes down to it, I guess England and every other country "we" emigrated from would have to take us back right? Not like I ever chose to kill someone in their hut or give them smallpox. Why isn't Mexico once again the Aztec Empire? Or Western South America once again Incan? Some things just aren't feasible or logical.

So... should we allow Mexicans in California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona go without paying taxes since we took the land from Mexico in 1846? (Well, the ones that do pay anyway... sorry, it's hard to go a day without SOME kind of stereotypical, hateful remark :p ) I mean, it's just not gonna happen. There would have to be something horrible happen to the reservations in modern times to conjour up the pity and sorrow for the average person to care... just the way things are with the conquerers and conquerees...

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.



Some of the Native Americans did indeed live in teepees, as they had to follow migrating herds.

However there are remains of a few cities in some parts of the south US that resemble less advanced versions of Middle and South American cities.

By the time Europeans reached that far into the now US it'd already been a century since European colonisation of the American continent had begun, which among other things unleashed smallpox and other diseases which typically killed 80-90% of the local populations. As these diseases spread, cities collapsed even before the conquistadores arrived at them.

The Spanish never made more than a few brief excursions into what is now the US, but their diseases will still have spread with them.

Hence by the time that the major influx of Europeans began, the Native American cities that existed had long since fallen and were on the way to mythical only status within their own communities.

Obviously, some other kind of basis. Democracy, perhaps? Otherwise things would not be as they are.

Are you actually saying that people vote to be taxed!? Think it through a little, please.

Well, what if you don't choose to live somewhere, you were born there? It'd be nice if we could just move the scraps of land we gave to a handful of native american tribes out of the country so they wouldn't "benefit" so much from the USG..

You do insist on confusing the individual with the Nation or land. The individual, in the Western democratic countries has the choice of where to live. If you are that strongly opposed to a policy instituted by the country where you are resident, sell your home, quit your job and leave. If you are not willing to do that, then quit saying it ain't fair, and wait until you can vote on the issue. (Representative democracy only works when there is actually an election going on, at other times it is simply dictatorship by the representatives.)

That's always a laugh since a particular native american I know, her memory of the USG is as an invading force that gave her people the choice to leave the land and family forever, or stay. Then it systematically stamped out her culture including beating children at the "beneficial" public school if and when they spoke their native language. Now one of the only consolidations her people have is those scraps of land (the least profitable and fertile land in the entire country, by the way) the USG so generously allows them semi-autonomy on. And you want to tax them too, pay money for what was freely given before? What good will that actually do?

I do not want to tax people for having services and protection imposed. If the Native American is living in a designated area, with autonomy of any type, then taxation would be wrong. I think we agree here.

Erase that 7 trillion dollar federal debt? Improve their own lands at all? I don't think so. Just another insult to a defeated people, all in the name of making sure you aren't unhappy because a handful of others pay less taxes than you.

As I said in my first post, I am not an American but I do have an interest in taxation rulings. This means I do not know the facts and pertenant details of whatever it is you are referring to, and will not give an opinion on something about which I am ignorant.

but a ton of them live on regular land and not on reservations, so why shouldn't they pay property tax? and they work at regular jobs, so why not income tax?
maybe if they live and work on a reservation they shouldn't have to, but other than that...Uh, if they live off the res, they do have to pay property tax, and yes they do pay income tax. I believe the issue is taxing tribal income and tribal lands.

Their country? Their country??? Are you kidding me? When the Vikings first started travelling to North America at the begining of this past millenia, what they found was hardly a country.

Definition of country: a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

For the record, I will refer to them as Aboriginals because the term "native American" implies that they were the first Americans, when we all know that the first real Americans were men like our Founding Fathers.

The Aboriginals had none of these things. North America had little pockets of Aboriginal tribes who spoke their own language, had their own customs, etc. But, they had no sense how big the continent was, or even how many people were on it. They had no permanent structures, no form of government outside of each tribe, and no sense of unity.

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.

The Aboriginals signed "their land" over to us. If they did not understand English, they should not have signed them. Ignorance is not an excuse.

The Aboriginals admit to not having a sense of land "ownership" because they had lived off the land, taking only what they needed. Which makes the irony of their argument almost unbearable......how can they say we took their land when they didnt even acknowledge ownership of it in the first place? It wasnt until we explained the concept of land ownership to them that they felt cheated.

They should be grateful to us, for providing them with any land at all! We owe them nothing, thus, in accordance with this topic, it is my belief that they be taxed just like all the other non-Americans who live within our borders.

We're taught that after the war the nazis vanished without a trace but battalions of fascists still dream of a master race...

I know this thread if primarily for Americans, but I have a question:

Are you sure that natives who live off of the reservation don't have to pay taxes?

I can only compare this scenario to the one in Canada, where 'status' natives, who live primarily on reservations, don't pay income taxes (or sales taxes on the rez, or off the rez if they can produce their status card). Non-status natives, who primarily live away from reservations, pay tax like anyone else in Canada.

Obviously different countries have different laws - I just wanted to find out if anyone knew for sure that natives who don't live on the reservations in the US don't pay taxes, or if it was just assumed that they didn't, because natives who live on the reservations don't.

(Did that question make any sense?)

Edit: Thanks to THE LOST PLANET for answering my question before I even got it posted.

Some 500 years later when men like Colombus and Cartier came to North America, they found the same thing. The Aboriginals hadnt advanced their technology in half a century. The Aboriginals were still living in makeshift teepees and taking their shits in the woods, just like the savages they are.You don't know how many years equal a half century and you have the nerve to call others savages?

Inbred racist white nationalists shouldn't be allowed acess to computers.

Are you actually saying that people vote to be taxed!? Think it through a little, please.

Well... I could be misunderstanding you, so correct me if so... but isn't the point of democracy the ability to vote on what taxes you pay and for what? (And no, this is no arguement for the efficiency or rightness of the current US :p )

The American colonies paid 1/15th the amount of the other dominions of the UK, and when the war came and went, it left in its wake exponentially higher taxes. But they had their "own" government. So besides the royalists that left to Canada, I think the people satisfied with the outcome and independence were generally voting to be taxed.

Hence the problems with the originally arguement of We the States of... vs. We the People of... They wanted local, township, appropriations.

I know this thread if primarily for Americans, but I have a question:

Are you sure that natives who live off of the reservation don't have to pay taxes?

I can only compare this scenario to the one in Canada, where 'status' natives, who live primarily on reservations, don't pay income taxes (or sales taxes on the rez, or off the rez if they can produce their status card). Non-status natives, who primarily live away from reservations, pay tax like anyone else in Canada.

Obviously different countries have different laws - I just wanted to find out if anyone knew for sure that natives who don't live on the reservations in the US don't pay taxes, or if it was just assumed that they didn't, because natives who live on the reservations don't.

(Did that question make any sense?)It made sense and the US system is basicly the same.

Sort of makes this whole thread lame, huh?

Are you actually saying that people vote to be taxed!? Think it through a little, please.

Yes they do. Sure, it's not a direct vote, it's indirect as with all republican democracies. But we elect the representatives, we know their tax policies, we vote them in.

You do insist on confusing the individual with the Nation or land. The individual, in the Western democratic countries has the choice of where to live. If you are that strongly opposed to a policy instituted by the country where you are resident, sell your home, quit your job and leave. If you are not willing to do that, then quit saying it ain't fair, and wait until you can vote on the issue. (Representative democracy only works when there is actually an election going on, at other times it is simply dictatorship by the representatives.)

The ones who are crying "it ain't fair" are the ones who think we should tax native americans just because the rest of us are already taxed, which I think is a little like saying "if I can't get laid, your wife ought to die!"


I do not want to tax people for having services and protection imposed. If the Native American is living in a designated area, with autonomy of any type, then taxation would be wrong. I think we agree here.

Yes..

As I said in my first post, I am not an American but I do have an interest in taxation rulings. This means I do not know the facts and pertenant details of whatever it is you are referring to, and will not give an opinion on something about which I am ignorant.

Alright, sorry for yelling at you. (And for calling you American. ;))

but a ton of them live on regular land and not on reservations, so why shouldn't they pay property tax? and they work at regular jobs, so why not income tax?
maybe if they live and work on a reservation they shouldn't have to, but other than that...

Give the land back we stole by breaking treaty after treaty and then tax them, that would be fair. Of course everybody would be paying rent to them, but think of the tax revenues.

Yes they do. Sure, it's not a direct vote, it's indirect as with all republican democracies. But we elect the representatives, we know their tax policies, we vote them in.


I am fairly sure, I may be wrong but I would be very surprised if I were, that people tend to vote for not being taxed. i.e. they vote for whoever promisses to tax them least. The legal basis for any taxation has to be that of contract, or it would simply have been declared illegal centuries ago. Now contract requires what is called consideration. This means it has to be of the form: I do something for you, you do something for me. Without this there is no legal contract. It can not be: You do something for me, I laugh.

It made sense and the US system is basicly the same.

Sort of makes this whole thread lame, huh?

Well, I kind of feel like the debate isn't asking the right questions. If the US government signed treaties that said status natives (or whatever the term is in the States) aren't required to pay taxes (or words to that effect), well, a contract is a contract. On the other hand, no one had considered native casinos at the time the treaties were signed, so one could argue that native corporate profits should be taxed like any corporation, but native individuals can't.

Anyway, native land claims, native rights, and sovereign rights are a big kettle of worms in Canada, the US, and Australia. There is definitely no easy answer. For example, here in BC, native land claims equal approximately 110% of BC's land mass. Many native groups have competing claims. And regardless of what territorial rights the native groups have, you still have to consider the rights of everyone else as well.

A mess, I tell you.

The Indians land should be returned to them. And the rest of the US citizens should be put in reservations. See how they like it.

The Indians land should be returned to them. And the rest of the US citizens should be put in reservations. See how they like it.

Hmm... well, I'm onboard if we get to have casinos and get drunk all day.

*sings the "I'm goin' ta hell" dance*

AMEN!!! Mr. The Hitler Jugend

I think that if they are not living on a reservation, and they own land, or a house or whatever, that they do pay taxes. Don't they? I could have sworn....

If not, I am sure they are at least paying sales tax. I can't think of any reservations off-hand that have malls.