Hubbry Logo
Poll taxPoll taxMain
Open search
Poll tax
Community hub
Poll tax
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Poll tax
Poll tax
Poll tax
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies
Economics
General Theory
Distribution of Tax
Collection
Noncompliance
Legal tax avoidance
Illegal tax evasion
Locations
Major examples
Types
International
Trade
Research
Academic
Advocacy groups
Religious
By country
All Countries
Individual Countries

A poll tax, also known as head tax or capitation, is a tax levied as a fixed sum on every liable individual (typically every adult), without reference to income or resources.[1] Poll is an archaic term for "head" or "top of the head". The sense of "counting heads" is found in phrases like polling place and opinion poll.[2]

Head taxes were important sources of revenue for many governments from ancient times until the 19th century. In the United Kingdom, poll taxes were levied by the governments of John of Gaunt[where?] in the 14th century, Charles II in the 17th and Margaret Thatcher in the 20th century. In the United States, voting poll taxes (whose payment was a precondition to voting in an election) have been used to disenfranchise impoverished and minority voters (especially after Reconstruction).[3]

Poll taxes are regressive, meaning the higher someone's income is, the lower the tax is as a proportion of income: for example, a $100 tax on an income of $10,000 is a 1% tax rate, while $100 tax on a $500 income is 20%. Its acceptance or "neutrality" depends on the balance between the tax demanded and the resources of the population. Low amounts generally go unnoticed, while high amounts may generate tax revolts such as the 1381 Peasants' Revolt in England and the 1906 Bambatha Rebellion against colonial rule in South Africa.[4][5] However, both of those cases were additional taxation, and not a substitute for other taxes being lowered.

Religious law

[edit]

Mosaic law

[edit]

As prescribed in Exodus, Jewish law imposed a poll tax of a half-shekel, payable by every man above the age of twenty.

11And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

12When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.

13This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.

14Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

15The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

16And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

— Exodus 30:11–16[6]

The money was designated for the Tabernacle in the Exodus narrative and later for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem. Priests, women, slaves and minors were exempted, but could offer it voluntarily. Payment by Samaritans or Gentiles was rejected. It was collected yearly in the month of Adar at the Temple or provincial collection offices.

Islamic law

[edit]

Zakat al-Fitr is an obligatory charity that must be given by every Muslim (or their guardian) near the end of every Ramadan, except for those in dire poverty.[7] The amount is 2 kg (4.4 lb) of wheat or barley, or its cash equivalent, to be given to the poor.[8]

Jizya is a land or poll tax decreed by the Quran, paid annually by non-believers in Islam living under Islamic law (residents with dhimmi status). Jizya began during the reign of Muhammad (from 9 A.H.) in places like Yemen, Bahrain, and Jerash.[9] As a poll tax, the tax usually only applied to free, abled-bodied adult men. The jizya amount could also vary with the income of the individual. However, according to Shibli Nomani, the word jizya is an Arabicised version of the Persian kizyat, the war tax levied by the Persian empire, which served as a model for the conquering Arabs. The Sasanian Persian emperor Nawsherwan imposed a poll tax, termed jizya by Arab historians, varying between 12 and 2 dirhams, exempting officials, soldiers, and nobles.[10] During the Islamic rule of Muhammad, the magi of Iran and landowners of Bahrain paid jizya of 1 dinar or its equivalent in clothing, while the landless paid 4 dirham and a striped woolen cloak.[11] Elsewhere, the jizya was graded according to three classes, e.g. 48 dirhams for the rich, 24 for the middle class, and 12 for the poor.[12]

Although the jizya tax is interpreted by many as a financial humiliation on non-Muslims, others consider it a sign of due allegiance to the political authority of Islam: part of a social contract by which non-Muslims, especially the Jews of Medina, were granted equal social and political rights, and protection of their life, property, and religion. According to some scholars, the jizya paid by non-Muslims is parallel to the zakat charity obligation on Muslims.[13] However, Umar, the second Caliph, ordered a brand on the shoulder of jizya payers, as well as requiring a tonsure and sumptuary laws to distinguish them from Muslims. Uman distinguished between jizya and kharaj, where the former means the poll tax on non-Muslim individuals, and the latter means the land tax and sometimes the total sum of taxes paid by leaders of the non-Muslim community. Umar stressed that conversion to Islam provided exemption from jizya, though not from kharaj.[14]

Amr ibn al-As, after conquering Egypt, made a census for the jizya according to wealth classes, so that the rich paid more. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan reformed taxes in Mesopotamia based on a calculation of the income and expenses of a typical man, determining that each adult could pay jizya of 4 dinars, a 400% increase over the previous tax; however, this burden seemingly did not increase conversions to Islam.[15]

The Cairo Geniza records demonstrate the poll tax collection becoming very strict and burdensome for the Jewish community in Egypt during the 12th century. Evidence suggests that the guardian of a minor was responsible to pay the full poll tax on his behalf until the age of ten. Even the very sick and poor widows were subject to the tax. Shelomo Dov Goitein concluded that the intolerable burden of the jizya might have caused the mass conversion of Jews in Egypt to Islam, while more prominent Jews embraced Islam for the possibility of government positions.[16]

The treaty of 1535, known as the Franco-Ottoman alliance, revolutionised relations between the Christian and Islamic states, with the poll tax playing a significant role. Previously, a non-Muslim living in Muslim territory for more than a year became liable to the poll tax. Under the treaty, French Christians in the Ottoman Empire were exempted from all jizya.[17] In 1855, the Ottoman Empire abolished the jizya tax as part of reforms to equalize the status of Muslims and non-Muslims. It was replaced by a military-exemption tax on non-Muslims, the bedel-i askeri. It was once believed that the Islamic poll tax derived from a previous Byzantine poll tax, but evidence for this tax has been re-dated to Islamic times.[18]

Jizya reemerged in 2014 after the Islamic State conquered some parts of Iraq and Syria. Its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared that Christians would face the choice of conversion, jizya, or death. This ultimatum was read out in mosques.[19] Many Christians fled Mosul, home to the ancient Christian communities of Iraq, leading Louis Raphaël I Sako to say: "For the first time in the history of Iraq, Mosul is now empty of Christians." ISIS issued the same ultimatum in its capital of Raqqa, Syria, demanding 0.5 ounces (14 g) of pure gold from Christians in exchange for their safety.[20]

Canada

[edit]
Main article: Chinese head tax in Canada

The Chinese head tax was a fixed fee charged to each Chinese person entering Canada. The head tax was first levied after the Canadian parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 and was meant to discourage Chinese people from entering Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The tax was abolished by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped all Chinese immigration except for business people, clergy, educators, students, and other categories.[21] The 1923 act was repealed in 1947.[22]

Ceylon

[edit]

In Ceylon, a poll tax was levied by the British colonial government of Ceylon in 1920. The tax charged 2 rupees per year per male adult. Those who did not pay had to work on the roads for one day in lieu of the tax. The Young Lanka League protested the tax, led by A. Ekanayake Gunasinha, and it was repealed by the Legislative Council of Ceylon in 1925 following a motion submitted by C. H. Z. Fernando.[23]

Great Britain

[edit]

The poll tax was essentially a lay subsidy, a tax on the movable property of most of the population, to help fund war. It had first been levied in 1275 and continued under different names until the 17th century. People were taxed a percentage of the assessed value of their movable goods. That percentage varied from year to year and place to place, and which goods could be taxed differed between urban and rural locations. Churchmen were exempt, as were the poor, workers in the Royal Mint, inhabitants of the Cinque Ports, tin workers in Cornwall and Devon, and those who lived in the Palatinate counties of Cheshire and Durham.

14th century

[edit]
Main article: Poll Tax of 1379

The Hilary Parliament, held between January and March 1377, levied a poll tax in 1377 to finance the war against France at the request of John of Gaunt who, since King Edward III was mortally sick, was the de facto head of government at the time. This tax covered almost 60% of the population, far more than lay subsidies had earlier. It was levied two more times, in 1379 and 1381. Each time the taxation basis was slightly different. In 1377, every lay person over the age of 14 years who was not a beggar had to pay a groat (4d) to the Crown. By 1379 that had been graded by social class, with the lower age limit changed to 16, and to 15 two years later. The levy of 1381 operated under a combination of both flat rate and graduated assessments. The minimum amount payable was set at 4d, however tax collectors had to account for a 12d a head mean assessment. Payments were therefore variable; the poorest would theoretically pay the lowest rate, with the deficit being met by a higher payment from those able to afford it.[24] The 1381 tax has been credited as one of the main reasons behind the Peasants' Revolt in that year, due in part to attempts to restore feudal conditions in rural areas.

17th century

[edit]

The poll tax was resurrected during the 17th century, usually related to a military emergency. It was imposed by Charles I in 1641 to finance the raising of the army against the Scottish and Irish uprisings. With the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, the Convention Parliament of 1660 instituted a poll tax to finance the disbanding of the New Model Army (pay arrears, etc.) through the Poll Tax Act 1660 (12 Cha. 2. c. 9), as amended by the Poll Tax (Amendment) Act 1660 (12 Cha. 2. c. 10) and the Poll Tax (Amendment No. 2) Act 1660 (12 Cha. 2. c. 28).[25] The poll tax was assessed according to "rank", e.g. dukes paid £100, earls £60, knights £20, esquires £10. Eldest sons paid two-thirds of their father's rank, widows paid a third of their late husband's rank. The members of the livery companies paid according to company's rank (e.g. masters of first-tier guilds like the Mercers paid £10, whereas masters of fifth-tier guilds, like the Clerks, paid 5 shillings). Professionals also paid differing rates, e.g. physicians (£10), judges (£20), advocates (£5), attorneys (£3), and so on. Anyone with property (land, etc.) paid 40 shillings per £100 earned, anyone over the age of 16 and unmarried paid twelvepence and everyone else over 16 paid sixpence.

To finance the Nine Years' War, a poll tax was imposed again by William III and Mary II in 1689 with the Poll Tax Act 1688 (1 Will. & Mar. c. 13)[a], reassessed in 1690 adjusting rank for fortune with the Poll Tax Act 1689 (2 Will. & Mar. c. 2), and then again in 1691 back to rank irrespective of fortune with the Poll Tax Act 1691 (3 Will. & Mar. c. 6). The poll tax was imposed again in 1692 with the "Poll Tax Act 1694 (5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 14), and one final time in 1698 with the Poll Tax Act 1697 (9 Will. 3. c. 38), the last poll tax in England until the 20th century.

A poll tax ("polemoney") was simultaneously imposed in Scotland by the Edinburgh parliament in 1693, again in 1695, and two in 1698.

As the greater weight of the 17th century poll taxes fell primarily upon the wealthy and powerful, it was not too unpopular. There were grumblings within the taxed ranks about lack of differentiation by income within ranks. Ultimately, it was the inefficiency of their collection (what they brought in routinely fell far short of expected revenues) that prompted the government to abandon the poll tax after 1698.

Far more controversial was the hearth tax introduced by the Fire-Hearth and Stoves Taxation Act 1662 (14 Cha. 2. c. 10), which imposed a hefty two shillings on every hearth in a family dwelling, which was easier to count than persons. Heavier, more permanent and more regressive than the poll tax proper, the intrusive entry of tax inspectors into private homes to count hearths was a very sore point, and it was promptly repealed with the Glorious Revolution in 1689. It was replaced with a "window tax" in 1695 since inspectors could count windows from outside homes.

20th century

[edit]
Main article: Poll tax (Great Britain)

The Community Charge, popularly dubbed the "poll tax", was a tax to fund local government, instituted in 1989 by the government of Margaret Thatcher. It replaced the rates that were based on the notional rental value of a house. The abolition of rates was in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 1979 general election; the replacement was proposed in the Green Paper of 1986, Paying for Local Government based on ideas developed by Dr. Madsen Pirie and Douglas Mason of the Adam Smith Institute.[26] It was a fixed tax per adult resident, but there was a reduction for those with lower household income. Each person was to pay for the services provided in their community. This proposal was contained in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 1987 general election. The new tax replaced the rates in Scotland from the start of the 1988/89 financial year and in England and Wales from the start of the 1990/91 financial year.[27]

The system was very unpopular since many thought it shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor, as it was based on the number of occupants living in a house, rather than on the estimated market value of the house. Many tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predictions since the councils realized that not they, but the central government would be blamed for the tax, which led to resentment, even among some who had supported the introduction of it.[28] The tax in different boroughs differed because local taxes paid by businesses varied and grants by central government to local authorities sometimes varied capriciously.

Mass protests were called by the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation with which the vast majority of local Anti-Poll Tax Unions (APTUs) were affiliated. In Scotland, the APTUs called for mass nonpayment, which rapidly gathered widespread support and spread as far as England and Wales even though non-payment meant that people could be prosecuted. In some areas, 30% of former ratepayers defaulted. While owner-occupiers were easy to tax, nonpayers who regularly changed accommodation were almost impossible to trace. The cost of collecting the tax rose steeply, and its returns fell. Unrest grew and resulted in a number of poll tax riots. The most serious was in a protest at Trafalgar Square, London, on 31 March 1990, of more than 200,000 protesters. Terry Fields, Labour MP for Liverpool Broadgreen, was jailed for 60 days for his refusal to pay the poll tax.[29][30]

This unrest was a factor in the fall of Thatcher. Her successor, John Major, replaced the Community Charge with the Council Tax, similar to the rating system that preceded the Community Charge.[31] The main differences were that it was levied on capital value rather than notional rental value of a property, and that it had a 25% discount for single-occupancy dwellings.[32]

In 2015, Lord Waldegrave reflected in his memoirs that the Community Charge was all his own work and that it was a serious mistake. Although he felt the policy looked like it would work, it was implemented differently from his predictions "They went gung-ho and introduced it overnight in one go, which was never my plan and I thought they must know what they were doing – but they didn't."[33]

France

[edit]

In France, a poll tax, the capitation of 1695, was first imposed by King Louis XIV in 1695 as a temporary measure to finance the War of the League of Augsburg, and thus repealed in 1699. It was resumed during the War of Spanish Succession and in 1704 set on a permanent basis, remaining until the end of the Ancien regime.

Like the English poll tax, the French capitation tax was assessed on rank – for taxation persons, French society was divided in twenty-two "classes", with the Dauphin (a class by himself) paying 2,000 livres, princes of the blood paying 1,500 livres, and so on down to the lowest class, composed of day laborers and servants, who paid 1 livre each. The bulk of the common population was covered by four classes, paying 40, 30, 10 and 3 livres respectively. Unlike most other direct French taxes, nobles and clergy were not exempted from capitation taxes. It did, however, exempt the mendicant orders and the poor who contributed less than 40 sous.

The French clergy managed to temporarily escape capitation assessment by promising to pay a total sum of 4 million livres per annum in 1695, and then obtained permanent exemption in 1709 with a lump sum payment of 24 million livres. The Pays d'états (Brittany, Burgundy, etc.) and many towns also escaped assessment by promising annual fixed payments. The nobles did not escape assessment, but they obtained the right to appoint their own capitation tax assessors, which allowed them to escape most of the burden (in one calculation, they escaped 7⁄8 of it).

Compounding the burden, the assessment on the capitation did not remain stable. The pays de taille personelle (basically, pays d'élection, the bulk of France and Aquitaine) secured the ability to assess the capitation tax proportionally to the taille – which effectively meant adjusting the burden heavily against the lower classes. According to the estimates of Jacques Necker in 1788, the capitation tax was so riddled in practice, that the privileged classes (nobles and clergy and towns) were largely exempt, while the lower classes were heavily crushed: the lowest peasant class, originally assessed to pay 3 livres, were now paying 24, the second lowest, assessed at 10 livres, were now paying 60 and the third-lowest assessed at 30 were paying 180. The total collection from the capitation, according to Necker in 1788, was 41 million livres, well short of the 54 million estimate, and it was projected that the revenues could have doubled if the exemptions were revoked and the original 1695 assessment properly restored.

The old capitation tax was repealed with the French Revolution and replaced, on 13 January 1791,[34] with a new poll tax as part of the contribution personnelle mobilière, which lasted well into the late 19th century. It was fixed for every individual at "three days's labor" (assessed locally, but by statute, no less than 1 franc 50 centimes and no more than 4 francs 50 centimes, depending on the area). A dwelling tax (impôt sur les portes et fenêtres, similar to the English window-tax) was imposed in 1798.

New Zealand

[edit]
Main article: New Zealand head tax

New Zealand imposed a poll tax on Chinese immigrants during the 19th and early 20th centuries as part of their broader efforts to reduce the number of Chinese immigrants.[35] The poll tax was effectively lifted in the 1930s following the invasion of China by Japan, and was finally repealed in 1944. Prime Minister Helen Clark offered New Zealand's Chinese community an official apology for the poll tax on 12 February 2002.[36][37]

Poland–Lithuania

[edit]
Main article: Jewish poll tax

The Jewish poll tax was a poll tax imposed on the Jews in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was later absorbed into the hiberna tax.[38][39]

Roman Empire

[edit]
See also: List of Roman taxes

The ancient Romans imposed a tributum capitis (poll tax) as one of the principal direct taxes on the peoples of the Roman provinces (Digest 50, tit.15). In the Republican period, poll taxes were principally collected by private tax farmers (publicani), but from the time of Emperor Augustus, the collections were gradually transferred to magistrates and the senates of provincial cities. The Roman census was conducted periodically in the provinces to draw up and update the poll tax register.

The Roman poll tax fell principally on Roman subjects in the provinces, but not on Roman citizens. Towns in the provinces who possessed the Jus Italicum (enjoying the "privileges of Italy") were exempted from the poll tax. The 212 edict of Emperor Caracalla (which formally conferred Roman citizenship on all residents of Roman provinces) did not, however, exempt them from the poll tax.

The Roman poll tax was deeply resented—Tertullian bewailed the poll tax as a "badge of slavery"—and it provoked numerous revolts in the provinces.[40] Perhaps most famous is the Zealot revolt in Judaea of 66 AD. After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the Emperor Vespasian imposed an extra poll tax on Jews throughout the empire, the fiscus judaicus, of two denarii each.

Russia

[edit]

The Russian Empire imposed a poll tax in 1718.[41] Nikolay Bunge, Finance Minister from 1881 to 1886 under Emperor Alexander III, abolished it in 1886.[42] Poll taxes in Imperial Russia were determined by revision list enumerations.

United States

[edit]

Poll tax

[edit]
Main article: Poll taxes in the United States
Receipt for payment of poll tax, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 1917 (the $1 tax has the purchasing power of $25 today)

Prior to the mid 20th century, a poll tax was implemented in some U.S. state and local jurisdictions and paying it was a requirement before one could exercise one's right to vote. After this right was extended to all races by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, many Southern states enacted poll taxes as a means of excluding African-American voters, most of whom were poor and unable to pay a tax. So as not to disenfranchise many whites, such laws sometimes included a clause exempting any people who had voted prior to enactment of the laws.[43] The poll tax, along with literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[44] such as by the Ku Klux Klan, achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African Americans.

Generally, in the United States, the term "poll tax" is used to mean a tax that must be paid in order to vote, rather than a capitation tax simply. For example, a bill that passed the Florida House of Representatives in April 2019 has been compared to a poll tax because it requires former felons to pay all "financial obligations" related to their sentence, including court fines, fees, and judgments, before their voting rights will be restored as required by a referendum that passed with 64% of the vote in 2018.[45][46]

The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or any other type of tax. Poll taxes for State and local elections were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.

Capitation and federal taxation

[edit]
Main article: Taxation in the United States

The ninth section of Article One of the Constitution places several limits on Congress' powers. Among them: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken". Capitation here means a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per taxpayer.[47] Direct tax means a tax levied directly by the United States federal government on taxpayers, as opposed to a tax on events or transactions.[48] The United States government levied direct taxes from time to time during the 18th and early 19th centuries. It levied direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves and estates in the late 1790s but cancelled the taxes in 1802.[citation needed]

An income tax is neither a poll tax nor a capitation, as the amount of tax will vary from person to person, depending on each person's income. Until a United States Supreme Court decision in 1895, all income taxes were deemed to be excises (i.e., indirect taxes). The Revenue Act of 1861 established the first income tax in the United States, to pay for the cost of the American Civil War. This income tax was abolished after the war, in 1872. Another income tax statute in 1894 was overturned in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. in 1895, where the Supreme Court held that income taxes on income from property, such as rent income, interest income, and dividend income (however excepting income taxes on income from "occupations and labor" if only for the reason of not having been challenged in the case, "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property") were to be treated as direct taxes. Because the statute in question had not apportioned income taxes on income from property by population, the statute was ruled unconstitutional. Finally, ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913 made possible modern income taxes, by limiting the Sixteenth Amendment income tax to the class of indirect excises (i.e. excises, duties, and imposts) – thus requiring no apportionment,[49] [50] a practice that would remain unchanged into the 21st century.

Employment-based head taxes

[edit]

Various cities, including Chicago and Denver, have levied head taxes with a set rate per employee targeted at large employers.[51][52] After Cupertino postponed head tax proposals to 2020, Mountain View became the only city in Silicon Valley to continue to pursue such type of taxes.[53]

In 2018, the Seattle city council proposed a "head tax" of $500 per year per employee.[54][55][56] The proposed tax was lowered to $275 per year per employee, was passed, and became "the biggest head tax in U.S. history",[57] though it was repealed less than a month later.[58]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Poll tax

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A is a of a fixed amount imposed on each liable individual, typically every adult, irrespective of income or wealth. Often termed a head tax or capitation, it contrasts with progressive taxes by applying uniformly per person, making it inherently regressive as a proportion of earnings for lower-income households. Such levies date to medieval but gained notoriety in the American colonies and early , where they served as revenue sources alongside property taxes. In the United States, poll taxes became particularly controversial when adopted by Southern states after Reconstruction as a prerequisite for voting, accumulating over years and requiring payment of arrears to participate in elections. This mechanism, alongside literacy tests, reduced voter turnout among the poor, including both African Americans and impoverished whites, though its racial impact was pronounced due to disparities in wealth. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1964, prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, while the Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections extended the ban to state and local contests, citing violations of equal protection. In the , the term "poll tax" popularly referred to the Community Charge, a per-adult funding system introduced in in 1989 and in 1990 under to replace property-based rates and enhance fiscal accountability. Intended to align individual contributions with local spending decisions, it faced backlash for its regressivity despite rebates for low earners, sparking widespread non-payment campaigns, protests, and riots—most notably in in March 1990, where over 170,000 demonstrated and violence erupted. The policy's unpopularity contributed to Thatcher's in November 1990 and was repealed in 1993, supplanted by the banded . These episodes underscore poll taxes' tendency to provoke resistance when perceived as inequitable burdens on the less affluent, though proponents argued they promote responsibility by linking taxation directly to rather than assets.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

A poll tax, also known as a head tax or capitation tax, is a fixed monetary levy imposed on every liable individual, typically every adult resident within , regardless of income, property ownership, or wealth. This uniform per-person assessment contrasts with scaled to economic capacity, such as income or ad valorem levies, and has been applied historically for general revenue purposes across various societies. Economically, poll taxes are inherently regressive, as the same absolute amount represents a higher proportional burden on lower-income individuals compared to the wealthy, potentially exacerbating inequality without regard to fiscal capacity. In administrative terms, they are simple to collect due to their flat structure, often requiring payment via receipt or stamp, but enforcement has varied, sometimes linking payment to civic rights like in specific contexts. While poll taxes predate modern welfare states and were common in pre-industrial economies for funding public goods, their use has declined with the rise of progressive taxation systems prioritizing ability to pay. In the United States, for instance, constitutional provisions treated capitations as direct taxes subject to among states by population, underscoring their per-head nature.

Economic and Administrative Features

A poll levies a uniform fixed amount on every liable individual, usually adults, without regard to , wealth, or holdings, classifying it as a capitation or head . This flat-rate imposition results in a regressive incidence, where the effective declines as rises, imposing a heavier relative burden on lower- taxpayers; for example, the same absolute payment represents a larger share of for the poor than for the affluent. Economically, poll taxes generate minimal because the fixed levy does not significantly alter marginal incentives for work or consumption, unlike distortionary taxes on or . However, this administrative contrasts with inequities that can deepen among vulnerable populations unable to afford the , limiting its suitability for broad in modern contexts. From an administrative standpoint, poll taxes require straightforward of taxpayers via lists or registries, bypassing the complexities of assessing personal finances or assets, which lowers compliance and costs relative to progressive systems. Historical collection typically involved annual payments to local officials, often documented with receipts to verify compliance, as in U.S. states where was demanded for voting eligibility. Exemptions were common for groups like the elderly, disabled, or indigent, determined through basic affidavits rather than rigorous audits, further simplifying but inviting potential or evasion. In colonial settings, such taxes were frequently bundled with other levies for ease, funding local infrastructure with predictable per-capita yields despite occasional shortfalls from nonpayment.

Theoretical Foundations and Debates

Justifications for Poll Taxes

Proponents of poll taxes have historically emphasized their administrative simplicity, as the fixed per-person levy requires minimal assessment of varying levels or values, resulting in lower collection and compliance costs compared to progressive or ad valorem taxes. This uniformity treats all liable individuals equally, irrespective of wealth, which some argue embodies a of nominal fiscal equity where each adult bears an identical burden for shared public goods. In local government contexts, such as the United Kingdom's Community Charge implemented in Scotland on April 1, 1989, and England and Wales on April 1, 1990, advocates including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher contended that poll taxes better link payments to service benefits received by residents, rather than proxying via property ownership, thereby heightening voter awareness of local spending decisions and incentivizing fiscal restraint by councils. From an economic perspective, poll taxes function as lump-sum transfers that avoid behavioral distortions, producing no deadweight loss since they do not alter incentives for work, consumption, or investment as income or excise taxes might. When tied to suffrage, as in several U.S. states from the late 19th century until the 24th Amendment's ratification on January 23, 1964, supporters maintained that requiring tax payment ensured voters held a tangible stake in public finances, theoretically aligning electoral choices with prudent resource allocation rather than expansion of expenditures by non-contributors. These arguments, while rooted in efficiency and accountability rationales, have often overlooked the regressive incidence, where the tax constitutes a higher proportion of income for lower earners, though proponents counter that rebates or exemptions can mitigate hardship without undermining the core uniformity.

Criticisms and Oppositions

Critics argue that poll taxes are inherently regressive, imposing a fixed levy regardless of income or wealth, which disproportionately burdens lower-income individuals as a share of their earnings compared to the affluent. This structure violates principles of ability-to-pay taxation, exacerbating economic inequality without regard for varying fiscal capacities among taxpayers. Empirical analyses confirm that such flat per-capita taxes fail to align with progressive ideals of equity, often shifting the relative tax load onto those least able to bear it. In the United States, poll taxes faced vehement opposition for enabling voter disenfranchisement, particularly targeting impoverished and minority populations in the post-Reconstruction South. Historical data indicate that poll taxes, combined with cumulative requirements over election cycles, reduced black voter turnout by up to 50% in affected states absent other barriers like literacy tests. This mechanism effectively suppressed participation among those unable to afford annual fees ranging from $1 to $2 (equivalent to roughly $10–$20 in modern terms), prompting civil rights advocates to decry it as a modern form of economic servitude. Opposition culminated in the ratification of the 24th Amendment on January 23, 1964, prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections, followed by the Supreme Court's 1966 ruling in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections extending the ban to state contests on equal protection grounds. Quantitative estimates attribute poll taxes as the primary driver of disenfranchisement in Southern elections from 1870 to 1970, outpacing other formal restrictions. In the United Kingdom, the Community Charge—introduced as a poll tax in Scotland on April 1, 1989, and England/Wales on April 1, 1990—sparked widespread resistance due to its perceived unfairness in replacing property-based rates with a per-adult flat fee, ignoring household income disparities. Non-compliance rates soared, with over 17 million people refusing payment by mid-1991, fueled by organized campaigns like the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, which mobilized millions against administrative burdens and regressive impacts. Protests escalated into the March 31, 1990, London riot, where 200,000 demonstrators clashed with police, resulting in 340 arrests, 113 injuries, and damages exceeding £1 million, as economic grievances intertwined with broader discontent over local service funding. The unrest contributed to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's resignation on November 28, 1990, and the tax's abolition in favor of the Council Tax by 1993, validating critics' warnings of fiscal anarchy from mass evasion. Historically, poll taxes have provoked revolts when perceived as arbitrary impositions, as in England's 1381 Peasants' Revolt, where a levy of three groats per adult to fund wars ignited uprisings against royal overreach, leading to the burning of tax records and demands for abolition. Such episodes underscore causal links between uniform head taxes and social instability in agrarian or unequal societies lacking compensatory mechanisms. Modern economic modeling reinforces that poll taxes undermine compliance in heterogeneous populations, as evasion rises with perceived inequity, straining enforcement resources. Despite occasional defenses for simplicity, empirical outcomes consistently highlight their role in eroding public trust and fiscal stability.

Ancient and Classical Origins

Roman Empire

In the Roman Empire, the tributum capitis (head tax) emerged as a key component of provincial taxation, levied on individuals rather than property, distinguishing it from the tributum soli (land tax). Introduced systematically by Augustus following the annexation of Egypt in 30 BCE, it functioned as a capitation levy on adult inhabitants, often males aged 14 to 62, excluding Roman citizens who were generally exempt from direct tributum after 167 BCE. In Egypt, the laographia—a form of tributum capitis—was assessed at rates of 12 to 24 drachmae per person annually, based on status and sex, collected via periodic censuses to register taxable heads. This system prioritized administrative efficiency over wealth proportionality, reflecting imperial needs for steady revenue amid military expansions. The tax's application extended beyond Egypt to other provinces, where it was imposed on non-citizen provincials, typically at a flat rate per adult, contributing to the empire's fiscal base alongside customs and sales taxes. Provincial governors oversaw collection, often through local elites or publicani (tax farmers) until the early imperial shift toward direct imperial procurators reduced abuses. Rates varied by region—approximately 1-2% of assessed value equivalents in some areas—but the per-capita structure burdened lower classes disproportionately, as exemptions for elites or citizens were common. By the 2nd century CE, censuses like those in Roman Palestine documented household declarations for tributum capitis, linking it to broader administrative control. Criticisms of inequity arose in sources like , who noted burdens on provincials, though Roman policy justified it as reciprocal for protection and infrastructure. In backward or frontier areas, it remained a true poll tax without property adjustments, unlike in core provinces where wealth influenced liability. By the late Empire under (r. 284–305 CE), it evolved into the capitatio-iugatio system, combining head and land units for more rigid quotas, signaling fiscal strains from and invasions. This persistence underscored the tributum capitis as a tool of imperial extraction, yielding revenues essential for legions and administration, estimated at tens of millions of denarii annually across provinces.

Other Ancient Contexts

In ancient Athens, resident aliens known as metics were required to pay the metoikion, an annual poll tax of twelve drachmas for adult males and six drachmas for females, from which Athenian citizens were exempt. This fixed per capita levy, collected monthly, served to regulate the status of non-citizens who contributed economically to the polis but lacked full political rights, and failure to pay could result in enslavement or expulsion. The tax underscored the distinction between citizens and foreigners in classical Greek city-states, where direct taxation on citizens was rare and typically limited to extraordinary property-based levies like the eisphora. Under the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt (305–30 BCE), the salt tax (haliké) functioned as a capitation tax levied on most adult inhabitants, both men and women, payable in coin despite its nominal tie to salt rations. Early rates varied by region and status, often around 1–2 drachmas annually per person, collected via receipts and linked to periodic censuses that tracked taxable individuals from puberty onward. This levy, which persisted into the late Ptolemaic period alongside other per capita charges, generated revenue for the Hellenistic monarchy's administration and military, marking an innovation in monetizing personal liability over land-based assessments predominant in pharaonic Egypt. In ancient Israel, the half-shekel temple tax originated as a biblical mandate in Exodus 30:11–16, requiring a fixed contribution of half a shekel (approximately 0.2 ounces of silver) from each male Israelite aged twenty and above during censuses to fund tabernacle maintenance and avert divine plague. By the Second Temple period (c. 515 BCE–70 CE), this evolved into an annual poll tax collected from Jewish males worldwide, equivalent to two Tyrian drachmas, explicitly for temple upkeep including sacrifices and repairs. Exemptions applied to priests and the poor (who paid a third-shekel), but enforcement involved collectors in diaspora communities, yielding substantial revenue—estimated at hundreds of talents annually—until the temple's destruction in 70 CE. This tax exemplified a religious capitation levy, distinct from Roman impositions, as it symbolized communal atonement and equality before God regardless of wealth.

Medieval and Early Modern Applications

Religious Contexts

In Islamic governance, the jizya served as a per capita levy imposed on non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) in exchange for protection and exemption from military conscription, functioning in many periods as a form of poll tax collected annually from free adult males. Originating from Quranic injunctions (Surah At-Tawbah 9:29) and formalized under Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab around 637 CE following conquests, it was applied across medieval caliphates such as the Umayyad (661–750 CE) and Abbasid (750–1258 CE) eras, where rates were often tiered by economic status—typically one, two, or four dinars for the poor, middle, and wealthy, respectively—though enforcement varied and could approximate a flat head tax in practice. In early modern contexts like the Ottoman Empire (from the 16th century onward), jizya collection records from 1650 in Palestine document systematic per-head assessments on Christian communities, contributing to demographic shifts as burdensome rates prompted conversions or emigration. Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's 1679 reimposition fixed amounts by ability to pay but retained the poll-like structure, underscoring its role in marking non-Muslim subordination rather than equitable fiscal policy. Within medieval Christian Europe, Peter's Pence emerged as an ecclesiastical poll tax, entailing a fixed annual payment—initially one silver penny per household—remitted to the Holy See for the upkeep of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Instituted in Anglo-Saxon England around 757 CE by King Offa of Mercia as "Romescot" (Rome's gift), it spread to continental Europe by the 11th century under papal encouragement, with collections documented in charters from the 9th–10th centuries reflecting per capita or household-based levies amid Carolingian reforms. By the 12th century, enforcement involved local clergy assessing and forwarding sums, though yields fluctuated due to royal interferences, such as suspensions under Edward III in the 14th century when kings diverted funds for secular wars; records indicate English remittances peaked at around 300 pounds sterling annually in the high Middle Ages before declining amid Reformation-era resistances. This tax exemplified religious fiscal autonomy, distinct from secular poll levies, yet intertwined with state machinery for collection. These religious poll taxes reflected causal priorities of the era: jizya reinforced Islamic dar al-Islam's hierarchical protections, empirically correlating with sustained minority populations under stable rule but accelerating declines under fiscal pressures, while Peter's Pence embodied papal universalism, funding Vatican needs through grassroots tithings amid feudal fragmentation. Neither was purely voluntary; compliance was enforced via legal and social mechanisms, with exemptions for the indigent, clergy equivalents, or converts highlighting their role in maintaining confessional boundaries.

Great Britain

In medieval England, poll taxes emerged as a mechanism to fund military campaigns during the Hundred Years' War. The initial levy occurred in 1377 under King Richard II, imposing a flat rate of four pence on every adult over 14 years of age, irrespective of economic status, to generate revenue for continental expeditions. This per capita assessment marked a departure from traditional feudal subsidies based on land or income, aiming for administrative simplicity but placing disproportionate strain on lower classes amid post-Black Death labor shortages and wage controls. A modified poll tax followed in 1379, introducing graduated rates tied to social rank and wealth—ranging from four pence for laborers to higher sums for merchants and clergy—to mitigate inequities while still yielding approximately £22,000 for war efforts. Collection involved local assessors verifying exemptions for the infirm or paupers, though evasion through underreporting ages or statuses was widespread, particularly in rural areas. The third tax in 1380, reverting to a uniform shilling per adult, intensified grievances as it ignored prior gradations and coincided with economic hardship, collecting only £18,000 against expectations due to resistance and fraud. These levies fueled the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, where rebels targeted tax collectors and demanded abolition, citing the tax's regressive nature that equated peasant contributions to those of nobles despite vast wealth disparities. Parliament responded by suspending collection and later refining assessments, but the episode underscored the poll tax's volatility in feudal society, where enforcement relied on communal cooperation often undermined by class tensions. During the early modern period, poll taxes reappeared post-Restoration to address fiscal crises. In 1660, the Convention Parliament under Charles II enacted a graduated poll tax to disband the New Model Army, pay soldier arrears, and stabilize the regime, assessing rates from three shillings for laborers to over £4 for peers based on rank and estimated wealth. Nationwide collection, coordinated via county commissions, raised around £560,000 by early 1661, supplemented by assessments on real property, though urban evasion persisted as officials undervalued non-landed wealth. Subsequent impositions under Charles II in the 1660s and 1670s, alongside those during James II's reign, totaled multiple levies averaging £200,000–£400,000 annually at times, funding naval and continental commitments while varying rates to target gentry and merchants more heavily. By the late 17th century, under William III, poll taxes from 1694–1697 shifted toward occupational categories, exempting the poorest but yielding £500,000 in 1695 alone through quarterly payments and doubled rates for aliens, reflecting adaptations for wartime finance amid growing administrative capacity. These taxes declined after 1700 as excise and customs dominated revenue, highlighting their role as emergency measures prone to administrative burdens and public evasion without proportional yield gains.

Poland–Lithuania

In the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the pogłówne (capitation or poll tax) constituted a direct per capita levy imposed primarily on peasants, burghers, and other non-noble subjects to fund military campaigns and state obligations, with the szlachta (nobility) generally exempt due to their political privileges requiring sejm consent for any taxation. The tax was first systematically imposed by the sejm in 1563 as an extraordinary measure, though precursors existed, such as the 1514 levy of 1 grosz per head to raise funds for 7,000 troops amid the defense of Smolensk. Rates were not fixed but scaled by necessity; the base was often 1–2 grosze per person, doubled or tripled during wars, and collected through local estates or crown officials, yielding variable revenues tied to population estimates rather than cadastral surveys. The pogłówne gained regularity in the mid-17th century, formalized around 1662 as one of the Commonwealth's few direct taxes amid fiscal strains from conflicts like the Deluge, though enforcement remained inconsistent due to noble resistance and administrative weaknesses. It targeted taxable heads of households or individuals above certain ages, excluding clergy in many instances until 1717, and was apportioned by voivodeships, with totals debated and approved by the sejm. By the 18th century, periodic censuses, such as the 1789 state effort, facilitated assessments, though underreporting and exemptions eroded yields, contributing to the Commonwealth's chronic underfunding. Jews faced a distinct poll tax, evolving from 16th-century capitation levies of two florins per person, which councils like the Waad Arba Aracot apportioned among communities to meet fixed sejm quotas, such as 220,000 złoty for Crown Poland in the 18th century despite population growth. In 1764, following the abolition of Jewish councils, the Lithuanian sejm mandated a uniform two-zloty head tax per Jew, collected by kahals and remitted directly to the treasury, bypassing intermediary bodies. Disputes over apportionment were common, as seen in 1721 Lithuanian communities rejecting assessments and in 1730 local kahal conflicts. Reforms under Stanisław August Poniatowski in the 1760s–1770s audited Jewish poll taxes and customs, boosting crown revenues significantly through better enforcement and rate adjustments. This tax persisted until the Commonwealth's partitions in 1795, reflecting ethnic-specific fiscal burdens amid broader exemptions for Christian estates.

France

The capitation (head tax), a form of poll tax levied as a fixed sum per individual adjusted by social status and estimated wealth, was instituted in France on January 18, 1695, by Louis XIV to fund the War of the League of Augsburg (1688–1697). This direct tax applied in principle to all adult subjects, marking a departure from earlier exemptions for the nobility and clergy, though initial implementation spared many privileged groups through negotiated lower rates or waivers. Taxpayers were classified into 22 categories (and later refined into 569 subclasses) based on profession, rank, and income, with payments ranging from 1 livre for the poorest laborers to 2,000 livres for high nobility, aiming to distribute burden progressively yet retaining a per-capita structure. Initially temporary, the capitation was extended nationwide and made more systematic under Louis XV, becoming a permanent fixture by the mid-18th century alongside other direct levies like the taille and dixième. It generated variable revenue—peaking at around 13 million livres annually by the 1780s—but collection inefficiencies and widespread evasion among elites limited its yield, exacerbating fiscal strains from ongoing wars and court expenditures. The tax's regressive impact on the Third Estate, despite nominal graduation, fueled grievances, as commoners bore disproportionate administrative costs and lacked the legal loopholes available to higher orders. The capitation persisted into the early French Revolution but was abolished as part of the National Assembly's reforms in 1789–1790, which dismantled Ancien Régime fiscal privileges and feudal dues under the August Decrees and subsequent legislation establishing progressive land and property taxes. This elimination reflected revolutionary demands for equitable taxation, replacing per-capita levies with assessments tied to real property and income to address perceived inequities of the old system. No equivalent poll tax has been reinstated in France since, with modern direct taxation emphasizing progressive income and wealth-based models.

Russia

In the Russian Empire, the poll tax, known as podushnaya podat' (soul tax), was instituted by Peter the Great in 1718 as a capitation levy on adult males, primarily targeting peasants in state and private ownership while exempting nobility, clergy, and certain urban groups. This reform shifted from irregular household-based taxation to a per-person assessment, with the taxable "soul" defined as males aged 15–60 capable of labor, collected communally to streamline revenue for Peter's military campaigns and administrative modernization. Initial rates varied by region but averaged around 70–95 kopecks annually per soul by the mid-18th century, funding up to 40% of peacetime military expenses through periodic soul revisions—censuses that adjusted taxable populations amid evasion and mortality. Administration involved provincial colleges auditing commune records, fostering a system of collective responsibility (krugovaya poruka) where villages guaranteed payments, which incentivized internal surveillance but also bred resentment and flight to urban areas or monasteries for exemptions. Economically, the tax stabilized state finances during expansionist wars but imposed regressive burdens on rural households, correlating with increased serf unrest and demographic manipulations, as underreporting reduced liabilities yet risked punitive audits. By the 19th century, as industrialization strained agrarian bases, the tax's yield stagnated relative to indirect duties like salt levies, prompting fiscal critiques for inefficiency amid emancipation reforms post-1861. Debates intensified in 1870–1871 between central authorities and zemstvos (local assemblies), advocating replacement with progressive income-based taxation to align with post-serfdom realities, though inertia preserved the levy until Finance Minister Nikolay Bunge's reforms abolished it in 1886, substituting property and trade taxes for broader equity. This abolition marked a transition from feudal remnants to modern fiscal structures, though legacies of communal taxation persisted in Soviet-era collectives.

Imperial and Colonial Uses

British Empire and Commonwealth

In British colonial , poll taxes and analogous hut taxes were instituted as primary direct levies on indigenous adult males to finance administrative costs and incentivize participation in the wage economy by taxing traditional subsistence activities. These measures, rolled out from the 1890s onward across territories such as the Gold Coast, , , , and , typically ranged from 5 to 21 shillings annually per taxpayer or per , calibrated to approximate 20-50 days of migrant labor wages to compel able-bodied men toward in mines, plantations, and projects. Enforcement often involved exemptions for labor contract holders, underscoring the taxes' role in labor mobilization rather than pure revenue generation, though they yielded significant fiscal contributions—up to 40% of colonial budgets in some cases by the 1920s. A prominent instance occurred in the , where the Poll Tax Act of imposed a £1 levy on all males over age 18 without independent huts, effectively targeting unmarried youth to drive them into the labor market amid declining rural incomes and existing hut taxes of £1-£2 per . The , enacted on , , and collectible from , supplemented prior levies like dog taxes and aimed to for administration while addressing labor shortages in Natal's plantations and railways. Resistance manifested in petitions, tax strikes, and violent clashes, as collectors seized cattle and burned homesteads for non-payment, exacerbating grievances over land dispossession and chiefly authority erosion under British indirect rule. This discontent ignited the in early , led by Zulu chief Bambatha kaMancinza, who mobilized 1,000-2,000 followers against tax enforcers after refusing and killing two policemen in . Colonial forces, deploying over 7,000 troops including British regulars, suppressed the uprising by mid-year through aerial bombings—the first in African warfare—and scorched-earth tactics, resulting in approximately 4,000 African and the execution or of leaders. The event underscored the poll 's coercive but also prompted minor administrative adjustments, such as collection , without altering its fundamental until broader fiscal reforms post-. Similar patterns of and recurred elsewhere, as in Sierra Leone's and Kenya's early resistances, where taxes of 5-10 shillings per provoked opposition to perceived cultural impositions and economic burdens.

Ceylon

In British Ceylon, a poll tax—also known as a capitation or head tax—was imposed as a levy on individuals to fund colonial administration and , particularly and . An early form appeared in the 1840s, when Governor Lord Torrington enacted ordinances levying a poll on inhabitants of certain districts, requiring labor or payment equivalent to statute labor for road improvements, amid broader fiscal reforms following economic distress from coffee plantation failures and the 1848 rebellion. This measure drew criticism in British parliamentary debates for its burdensome impact on impoverished villagers, collected through local headmen like arachchis who faced quotas without regard for local capacity. By 1891, the colonial government formalized a annual poll tax of 2 rupees on every male adult over 21 years of age, applicable across the island and serving as a revenue source alongside plantation export duties. Non-payment enforced compulsory unpaid labor on public roads, effectively functioning as a coercive mechanism to extract both monetary contributions and physical work from the predominantly agrarian Sinhalese and Tamil populations, exacerbating rural poverty during a period of land revenue shortfalls and rising administrative costs. The tax's regressive nature—uniform regardless of income—disproportionately affected low-wage laborers and smallholders, while exemptions for Europeans and certain elites highlighted colonial hierarchies. Opposition intensified in the early 20th century, with nationalist leaders framing the tax as exploitative imperial policy. Victor Corea, a prominent reformer, publicly refused payment in the 1900s, organizing petitions and rallies that challenged enforcement and galvanized public sentiment against British fiscal overreach, leading to arrests and broader anti-colonial agitation. Groups like the Young Lanka League amplified demands for abolition, linking it to calls for economic relief and representative governance amid post-World War I unrest. The poll tax was repealed in 1922 following sustained protests and , which Prof. K. M. de Silva attributes to organized Ceylonese rather than spontaneous colonial concession, marking an early in pre-independence fiscal reforms. Its abolition eased immediate burdens but left a legacy of resentment toward head-based taxation, influencing later demands for equitable systems under the Donoughmore of 1931.

Modern Implementations

Canada

In the , poll taxes served as capitation levies in early Canadian jurisdictions to generate revenue amid fiscal pressures. Nova Scotia's legislature enacted poll tax acts in 1791, 1792, and 1793, imposing a fixed sum on all adult males to alleviate provincial debt following the ; these taxes were documented in and assessment records spanning 1767–1838 across various Atlantic colonies. From 1885 to 1923, applied a head tax—functioning as a per-person —to Chinese immigrants, initially set at $50 per individual under the Chinese Immigration Act, escalating to $100 in 1900 and $500 in 1903 to curb inflows after Chinese laborers completed the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1885. This policy affected roughly 82,000 payers, yielding about $23 million in revenue, before transitioning to the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which effectively banned most Chinese immigration until 1947. In the 20th century, poll taxes persisted in municipal taxation, particularly in Atlantic Canada, where they evolved into individual levies often scaled by income to support local services rather than as flat per-head charges. In Newfoundland and Labrador, numerous municipalities imposed such poll taxes into the 21st century; for example, rates varied by community, with exemptions or reductions for low-income residents, but critics argued they disproportionately burdened fixed-income households. The provincial government, in November 2023, introduced the Municipalities Act to phase out poll taxes, empowering local councils with greater flexibility in property taxation while aiming to eliminate personal assessments. Federally, Canada eschewed poll taxes as suffrage barriers, with voting rights from Confederation in 1867 tied to residency, property ownership, or any prior-year tax payment rather than a dedicated capitation fee; universal adult suffrage expanded progressively without such mechanisms, unlike contemporaneous U.S. practices. Municipally, however, poll tax payment intersected with eligibility in places like Halifax, where such levies continued until 1970, after which broader reforms decoupled local voting from fiscal contributions.

New Zealand

In 1881, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Chinese Immigrants Act, which imposed a poll tax of £10 per Chinese immigrant entering the country, equivalent to approximately $1,700 in contemporary terms. The legislation also limited ships to carrying one Chinese passenger per 10 tons of tonnage, aiming to curb immigration amid economic concerns and racial prejudices following the Otago gold rushes, where Chinese miners had arrived in significant numbers since the 1860s. This tax functioned as a financial barrier rather than a revenue measure, collecting modest sums—totaling around £100,000 over its duration—while primarily serving to deter arrivals. The poll tax escalated over time in response to ongoing anti-Chinese sentiment. In 1896, it was raised to £100 per head, a sum prohibitive for most prospective migrants, further tightening restrictions alongside adjustments to the tonnage rule. Exemptions applied narrowly, such as for merchants, students, or those with prior residency, but enforcement was rigorous, with certificates of exemption required and refunds rare. By the early 20th century, annual Chinese arrivals had plummeted to fewer than 100, reflecting the policy's effectiveness in limiting settlement, though it drew international criticism for its discriminatory nature. The tax persisted until the Second World War era, when geopolitical shifts prompted waivers. Following Japan's 1937 invasion of China, exemptions were granted to refugees, effectively suspending enforcement by the late 1930s. It was formally abolished on December 15, 1944, via the Finance Act (No. 3), with Finance Minister Walter Nash condemning it as a "blot on our legislation" during parliamentary debate. New Zealand was the last nation to repeal such a Chinese poll tax, having outlasted similar policies in Australia and Canada. Subsequent governments issued apologies in 2002 and 2021, acknowledging the policy's role in fostering exclusion and hardship for affected families.

United States

Poll taxes in the United States functioned as a fee required for voter registration or voting in several states, particularly in the post-Reconstruction South, where they served to restrict suffrage among African Americans and economically disadvantaged whites. Originating in some colonial-era practices, these taxes gained prominence after the Fifteenth Amendment's ratification in 1870, as Southern states sought mechanisms to undermine black voting rights without directly violating federal protections. Typically ranging from $1 to $2 per year, the taxes often accumulated over prior years if unpaid, creating barriers for those unable to afford repeated payments. By the early 20th century, eleven Southern states had implemented poll taxes as part of broader Jim Crow disenfranchisement strategies, including literacy tests and grandfather clauses. In , for instance, the requirement was enshrined in the state's constitution, which explicitly aimed to reduce the electorate by excluding the poor and illiterate, disproportionately affecting black voters. Similar provisions appeared in constitutions of (1901), Georgia (1908, later repealed), (1898), (1890), (1900), (1895), and (1902), among others. These measures reduced significantly; estimates suggest that by the 1940s, poll taxes had disenfranchised millions in the , with effects persisting into the 1950s when five states—, , , , and —still enforced them. The cumulative nature of the tax in states like and exacerbated exclusion, requiring payment of spanning several years before eligibility. While defended by some proponents as a means to ensure voter seriousness or generate revenue for schools and elections, indicates their primary causal role was racial and class-based suppression, as evidenced by contemporaneous exemptions for elderly whites and correlations with plummeting black registration rates post-enactment. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on January 23, 1964, explicitly prohibited poll taxes as a condition for voting in federal elections, marking a direct response to their discriminatory legacy. This left state and local elections in remaining poll tax states unaffected until the Supreme Court's decision in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections on March 24, 1966. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court invalidated Virginia's $1.50 annual poll tax under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, reasoning that "wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voter qualifications" and that the tax imposed an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote. This decision effectively eliminated poll taxes across all U.S. elections, though some states retained nominal caps or related fees that were later scrutinized.

Abolition, Legacy, and Modern Analogues

Abolition Efforts

In , efforts to abolish poll taxes as a barrier to voting gained during the of the mid-20th century, with proposing the Twenty-fourth Amendment on August 27, 1962, after decades of advocacy beginning as early as 1939. The amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, explicitly prohibited states from imposing poll taxes as a condition for voting in federal elections, addressing their use in five Southern states—, , , , and —to disproportionately disenfranchise poor and African American voters. The U.S. approved the measure by a vote of 295 to 86, reflecting broad bipartisan support amid growing national pressure from civil rights organizations. State-level poll taxes persisted until the Supreme Court ruled in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections on April 24, 1966, that such requirements violated the of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively extending abolition to all elections by deeming them an unconstitutional wealth-based qualification for suffrage. This decision followed intensified litigation and grassroots campaigns, including those led by the and other groups, which highlighted empirical data on voter suppression: for instance, in , poll taxes had reduced eligible black to under 3% in some counties by the . In the United Kingdom, opposition to the Charge—introduced as a flat-rate local in (1989) and / (1990)—escalated into widespread non-payment campaigns and protests, with over 6,000 anti-poll actions recorded nationwide by early 1990, culminating in riots in on March 31, 1990, that drew tens of thousands and resulted in over 100 injuries and 340 arrests. By mid-1990, surveys indicated one in five adults in had refused payment, contributing to fiscal strain and political backlash that pressured Thatcher's in 1990. Her successor, , announced the tax's abolition on March 21, 1991, replacing it with a banded system effective April 1993, following a mass resistance movement organized by groups like the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation. Elsewhere, New Zealand abolished its £10 poll tax on Chinese immigrants—imposed since 1881 to restrict migration—via the Finance Act (No. 3) on October 5, 1944, after parliamentary debate framed it as discriminatory legislation incompatible with wartime equity principles. These efforts underscore recurring patterns where poll taxes faced repeal through legislative reform, judicial intervention, or public mobilization against perceived inequities in burdening individuals irrespective of ability to pay.

Long-Term Impacts

The poll taxes imposed in Southern states following Reconstruction significantly curtailed political participation among African Americans and lower-income whites, with cumulative requirements in states like Virginia excluding an estimated 50% of white male voters and nearly all eligible Black voters by the early 20th century. This disenfranchisement entrenched one-party rule by Democratic political machines, such as Virginia's Byrd Organization, which prioritized fiscal conservatism and resistance to federal interventions, delaying infrastructure development, education funding, and social welfare programs that could have benefited broader populations. Economically, the absence of votes from tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and laborers reduced electoral pressure for redistributive policies, fostering a low-tax, low-regulation environment that attracted industry but suppressed wages and public goods provision, particularly in Black-majority counties. Historical analyses link this to persistent regional disparities, where disenfranchised areas allocated fewer resources to schools and , contributing to intergenerational and lower accumulation; for instance, Southern states lagged national averages in per-pupil spending by up to 50% during the poll tax , effects compounding through limited mobility and skill development. Politically, the legacy manifested in prolonged white supremacist governance, which reversed Reconstruction-era gains in Black representation and enabled Jim Crow enforcement until federal overrides via the Twenty-Fourth Amendment (ratified January 23, 1964) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Post-abolition, restored enfranchisement spurred partisan realignments, with increased Black turnout correlating to Democratic losses in the South and the rise of Republican dominance by the 1980s, though residual distrust and lower participation rates among descendants of disenfranchised groups endure, evidenced by turnout gaps of 10-15% in formerly poll tax-heavy states even in recent elections. These dynamics also influenced modern voter access debates, where felony disenfranchisement—disproportionately affecting minorities and echoing poll tax burdens through incarceration-linked fees—has been critiqued as a de facto successor, with over 5 million U.S. adults barred from voting as of 2020, perpetuating cycles of marginalization in policy outcomes like criminal justice and economic opportunity.

Contemporary Equivalents and Debates

In the United States, voting rights advocates have characterized certain post-1964 requirements as "modern poll taxes," arguing they impose financial burdens that disproportionately deter low-income and minority voters, echoing the disenfranchising effects of historical poll taxes. Examples include costs for obtaining required , such as fees for birth certificates or driver's licenses (estimated at $10–$75 in some states, plus travel), which critics claim violate the spirit of the 24th Amendment despite no explicit voting fee. Similarly, at least 10 states as of 2022 conditioned felons' voting restoration on full payment of court fines, fees, and restitution—totaling thousands of dollars in cases reviewed by the —prompting lawsuits alleging these create de facto taxes on . Empirical analyses, however, challenge claims of widespread suppression from these measures. A 2021 nationwide study of strict voter ID laws across U.S. states from 2008–2018 found no statistically significant decline in , including among low-income or minority groups, attributing minimal effects to high pre-existing ID possession rates (over 90% for eligible voters) and state-provided free alternatives. Complementary research from corroborated this, noting stability or increases in ID-implementing states, with barriers mitigated by provisional ballots and outreach. Proponents of such laws, emphasizing election security, contend the analogies overstate costs—often under $20 net after waivers—while addressing verified in-person risks, absent in historical poll taxes which explicitly barred voting without payment. Debates intensified around indirect voting costs during the 2020 election, where mail-in postage (45 cents per stamp) and notarization fees (up to $10 in some states) were cited by activists as barriers for 10–15% of voters lacking easy access, though federal covered many expenses and reached record highs (66.8%). In 2025, the U.S. House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, mandating documentary proof of for federal registration, which opponents from groups like labeled a "modern-day poll tax" due to potential $20–$50 costs for naturalization papers or passports, potentially affecting 9% of citizens without such documents. Supporters countered that existing affidavits suffice for most and free state verification options exist, framing the bill as fraud prevention rather than burden imposition, with no evidence of mass disenfranchisement projected. Globally, literal head taxes persist in limited forms unrelated to voting, such as per capita municipal levies in certain Swiss cantons (e.g., 100–300 CHF annually in some locales as of 2023, funding local services), but these are progressive in application via income exemptions and not tied to electoral participation. No major democracies impose voting-linked poll taxes today, following international norms against direct suffrage barriers, though analogous debates arise in contexts like India's nominal voter fees in some local elections (waived federally since 2010) or user fees for election materials in developing nations, critiqued by observers for accessibility impacts without empirical turnout data confirming suppression. These discussions often reflect partisan divides, with left-leaning sources emphasizing equity and right-leaning ones prioritizing integrity, underscoring causal tensions between access and verification in causal analyses of electoral systems.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitation
  2. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/ALDE_00013592/
  3. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-24-elimination-poll-taxes
  4. https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/37045
  5. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ico-40/poll-tax/
  6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/poll-tax
  7. https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/head-tax/
  8. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/c/capitation-tax
  9. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/poll-tax/
  10. https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les05/media/ws_ans_thm03_les05.pdf
  11. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/304/taxes/poll-tax/
  12. https://aitax.ca/poll-tax/
  13. https://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700
  14. https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/american-democracy/online/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/poll-taxes
  15. https://lytaxadvisors.com/blog/what-is-poll-tax/
  16. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3321244
  17. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3991/
  18. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/interpretations/the-twenty-fourth-amendment-by-deborah-archer-and-derek-muller
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2233562
  20. https://itep.org/creating-racially-and-economically-equitable-tax-policy-in-the-south/
  21. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18612/w18612.pdf
  22. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2956&context=klj
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/estimating-disenfranchisement-in-us-elections-18701970/B4B424CA6865BC95DEBCDD84ECB01E2A
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272796016258
  25. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/british-riot-over-poll-tax
  26. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/british-rebel-against-poll-tax-1987-1990
  27. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-16990-0_6
  28. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4346&context=law-review
  29. https://www.persee.fr/doc/ccgg_1016-9008_1993_num_4_1_1372
  30. https://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php
  31. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6557
  32. https://www.austaxpolicy.com/politics-taxation-roman-empire/
  33. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/327/oa_edited_volume/chapter/2607990/pdf
  34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12175
  35. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100154741
  36. https://www.ime.gr/chronos/05/en/society/metoikoi_intro.html
  37. https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/19/ancient-greece-class-metics-overlooked/
  38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44698389
  39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-the-ancient-greek-economy/taxation-and-tribute/F35F11416AFB6FB1948DC1698C222A18
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24520161
  41. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/basp/0599796.0051.001/159:14?page=root%3Brgn=full%2Btext%3Bsize=100%3Bview=text
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48632501
  43. https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?id=3206259&url=article
  44. https://www.academia.edu/18138646/Late_Ptolemaic_Capitation_Taxes_and_the_Poll_Tax_in_Roman_Egypt
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288072030_The_Salt-Tax_Rate_Once_Again
  46. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12244-poll-tax
  47. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/taxes-in-first-century-palestine/
  48. https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/02/temple-tax/
  49. https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-half-shekel-temple-tax/
  50. https://publicera.kb.se/sea/article/download/15373/12415
  51. https://biblehub.com/q/Half-shekel_tax_s_role_for_Israelites.htm
  52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20846971
  53. https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-answers-feeds/what-were-the-criteria-for-paying-jizya/
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275010329_The_Poll_Tax_and_the_Decline_of_the_Christian_Presence_in_the_Palestinian_Countryside_in_the_17th_Century
  55. https://www.historicmysteries.com/history/peters-pence/27597/
  56. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11774a.htm
  57. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/96582696/Origins_of_Peters_Pence_for_PURE.pdf
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271358403_Jizyah_A_Misunderstood_Levy
  59. https://www.pfandercenter.org/blog/articles/the-jizyah-tax-equality-and-dignity-under-islamic-law
  60. https://spartacus-educational.com/YALDtaxation.htm
  61. https://innovatetax.com/blog/the-black-death-poll-tax-and-the-peasant-revolt/
  62. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/taxation-before-1689/
  63. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Poll_Taxes_-_International_Institute
  64. https://www.1381.online/about/about_the_revolt/
  65. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zyb77yc
  66. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65df7835178a9d2b20f8d501/t/67571bd51811ab1da53d1e5d/1733762010059/archaeologia-cantiana_030-01_the_poll_tax_in_rochester_september_1660.pdf
  67. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0268117X.2013.823101
  68. https://www.londonlives.org/static/LSDSPOL.jsp
  69. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/caa6f037-deb8-40be-8353-37d9fc89efaa/9783653054910.pdf
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1081602X03000587
  71. https://academic.oup.com/book/32707/chapter/271974874
  72. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9788394914912-026/html
  73. https://www.litvaksig.org/research/grand-duchy-of-lithuania-gdl/
  74. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/councils-of-the-lands
  75. https://polishhistory.pl/the-polish-lithuanian-commonwealth-1733-1795-light-and-flame/
  76. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520940321-016/html
  77. https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/taxation/
  78. https://home.uncg.edu/~jwjones/moderneurope/readings/FrenchTaxation.htm
  79. https://academic.oup.com/book/6946/chapter/151209790
  80. https://www.macgregorishistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Taxes-in-France-before-the-Revolution.pdf
  81. https://history.as.uky.edu/reign-louis-xiv-1643-1715-overview
  82. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Russian_Empire_Taxation
  83. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/soul-tax
  84. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CP%5CO%5CPolltax.htm
  85. https://brewminate.com/the-empress-and-her-money-russian-poll-tax-revenues-in-the-eighteenth-century/
  86. https://publications.hse.ru/en/view/197981757
  87. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/ruhi/36/1/article-p16_3.xml
  88. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/estate-origins-of-democracy-in-russia/from-imperial-estates-to-estatist-society/151241F8FEE874D73595AC7FE03CC90F
  89. https://www.ewoutfrankema.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Colonial_Taxation_Br.Africa.EEH_.2011.pdf
  90. https://www.aehnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Abel-Gwaindepi-Taxation-in-colonial-Africa-2.pdf
  91. https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/2770-mass-taxation-and-state-society-relations-in-east.pdf
  92. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/african-studies-review/article/bloodstained-tax-poll-tax-and-the-bambatha-rebellion-in-south-africa/1064B75410EFA4C40E1DFE829CC34D5D
  93. https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/1668/chapter/179483/The-Poll-Tax-Protests-and-Rebellion-1905-1906
  94. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/1064B75410EFA4C40E1DFE829CC34D5D/S0002020600032364a.pdf/bloodstained_tax_poll_tax_and_the_bambatha_rebellion_in_south_africa.pdf
  95. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1849/feb/20/colonial-system-ceylon-and-british-guiana
  96. https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2023/08/22/kandyan-chieftains-under-the-british-part-iv/
  97. https://www.dailymirror.lk/amp/news-features/Historical-figure-and-national-leader/131-211010
  98. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/sri-lanka/ceylon-history/chapter-2.htm
  99. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/140608/plus/he-challenged-the-might-of-the-british-102414.html
  100. https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article74476
  101. https://archives.novascotia.ca/census/polltax/
  102. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/247bc486-9152-540a-218c-c26f8280b9ca/resource/8daaa1f0-395c-499f-bd24-42991e887255
  103. https://humanrights.ca/story/chinese-head-tax-and-chinese-exclusion-act
  104. https://www.gov.nl.ca/mpa/faq/faq-general/
  105. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/municipalities-act-changes-newfoundland-labrador-1.7015522
  106. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/poll-tax-burden-too-much-advocate-says-1.1360169
  107. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=his/chap1&document=index&lang=e
  108. https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/government/province-house/of-citizens-and-taxpayers/
  109. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/poll-tax-imposed-on-chinese
  110. https://natlib.govt.nz/schools/teaching-and-learning-resources/te-kupenga-stories-of-aotearoa-nz/a-taxing-imposition
  111. https://teara.govt.nz/en/chinese/page-3
  112. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/poll-tax-on-chinese-immigrants-abolished
  113. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/poll-tax-apology-marks-new-beginning-68
  114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1333998
  115. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/poll-taxes-united-statespoll-tax
  116. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/48
  117. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/663/
  118. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-24/overview-of-twenty-fourth-amendment-abolition-of-poll-tax
  119. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxiv
  120. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt24-2/ALDE_00001012/
  121. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/poll-taxes-are-outlawed
  122. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_2495000/2495911.stm
  123. https://www.epi.org/publication/rooted-racism-voter-suppression/
  124. https://www.hoover.org/research/long-shadows-slavery-and-jim-crow-uncovering-economic-impact-black-americans
  125. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/686631
  126. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/cant-pay-cant-vote-a-national-survey-on-the-modern-poll-tax/
  127. https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/voting-rights-in-the-era-of-mass-incarceration-a-primer/
  128. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/costs-to-vote-considered-modern-poll-taxes/
  129. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/in-print/volume-27-issue-iii-spring-2020/voting-while-poor-reviving-the-24th-amendment-and-eliminating-the-modern-day-poll-tax/
  130. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/modern-poll-tax-many-states-condition-right-vote-payment-court-debt/
  131. https://www.californialawreview.org/print/a-modern-poll-tax-using-the-twenty-fourth-amendment-to-challenge-legal-financial-obligations-as-a-condition-to-re-enfranchisement
  132. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522
  133. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/136/4/2615/6281042
  134. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-study-confirms-voter-id-laws-dont-hurt-election-turnout
  135. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/16/politics/poll-taxes-voting-2020-election
  136. https://www.commondreams.org/news/save-act-voting
  137. https://www.commoncause.org/press/house-passes-modern-day-poll-tax-in-save-act/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.