A Critical Analysis of How Formal and Informal Citizenships Influence Justice between Mobile Taxpayers

Abstract

Ongoing globalisation and increased taxpayer mobility illustrate a complex and highly present problem, as globally mobile individuals such as those working in several states, guest workers, immigrants and asylum seekers often find themselves excluded from voting privileges in the source state due to the lack of formal citizenship. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse how both formal and informal citizenships impact mobile taxpayers’ inclusion in communities other than the state in which they have formal citizenship. This is done through a study of three principal legal frameworks in Sweden: taxation; access to welfare benefits; and access to voting rights. These legal frameworks are all applicable to globally mobile workers and are pivotal when discussing justice between taxpayers in a democratic setting. This paper underlines that there are differing levels of inclusion in a community depending on what group of citizenship one belongs to. One could, rather harshly, claim that those individuals who are both residing and participating in a community, through either social or fiscal citizenship, are still at best mere guests, or at worst mere subjects, compared to citizens of the state as long as they are excluded from the right to democratically influence, through political citizenship, their own situation and the community in which they participate in and contribute to. In contrast, those non-citizens who are accepted as political citizens due to eithertheir EU citizenship or the fulfilment of territorial affi liation, combined with the fulfilment of the time-based threshold, will be placed in a more equal situation compared to citizens of the state. This results in a hierarchy where political citizens are placed on the top and political citizenship takes precedence over both social and fiscal citizenship. This is mainly because it is voting rights within a state that influences the terms of which all the residents in said state can pursue their lives. Interestingly enough, the findings of this paper illustrate that political membership in a state is a highly exclusive club in which citizens (not only formal citizens but also EU citizens) are given preferential treatment compared to those who originate from outside of the state, or the EU, regardless of whether these individuals reside in its territory and/or contribute financially through taxation. Participation in a community through social or fiscal inclusion alone does therefore not matter when put to the test. It is therefore possible to conclude that there is an apparent need for a reformation at state level and/or international level when allocating political rights and benefits in order for there to be political equity between globally mobile taxpayers.