A place to share history memes!
Rules:
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
Explanation: The US's reason for rebelling against the Brits - that we were taxed without being represented in parliament - was legitimate... but the offense does ring a little mild in comparison to the treatment many other holdings of the British Empire suffered under.
Still, I must point out there was a considerable war. It wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows when the US rebelled against the Brits. Tens of thousands were killed in a time when the US was less than half the size of Oregon's population, which amounted to 1% KIA, not included wounded. The fighting was brutal, and infections typically resulted in amputation. Captured Americans were viewed as traitors and were starved onboard exceedingly unhygienic prison ships. Smallpox ravaged people in camps and on ships.
It would be equivalent to us losing 3,500,000 people during a war today.
I wonder how the permanent residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia feel about paying federal taxes without a having a voting representative in Congress.
DC is upset about it. Puerto Rico has been asked several times and can't seem to make up their minds.
Most people in US territories don't pay federal income tax.
But they pay other federal taxes... Social Security, Medicare, and less common taxes like customs and commodity taxes... and D.C. residents do pay federal income tax.
And they get Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Everyone pays customs and "commodity taxes" regardless of citizenship, those have nothing to do with government representation.
DC is the exception and absolutely should have tax exemption or representation. I mean, they should all have representation but there are reasons why they don't.
And they get Social Security and Medicare benefits.
I didn't think the issue of "taxation without representation" hinged on whether or not the citizens benefitted from how the taxes were spent.
It's not like the Stamp Act of 1765 was an income tax, either.
There was no income taxes. There were tariffs and property taxes imposed by state governments. The Stamp Act first introduced taxes that went directly to the crown and funded British troops in the colonies.
But don't you see? Those taxes are not relevant to the idea of 'taxation without representation' because those taxes have no association with representation.
I don't see. Not trying to be obstinate, but I must be missing the nuance. What does it mean for a tax to have "association with representation?" Elected representatives passed the laws that implemented these taxes, right?
Especially when you learn Americans were taxed 10% the amount that the British had to pay.
Also amusing is that Mel there was born in New York State.