''no Taxation without representation?

"No taxation without representation" argument Patriot vs Loyalist?

  • So the loyalist argues and says "No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor and had only been paying one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection. They only used to excuse because they wanted to be independent" How could a patriot argue against this? :/

  • Answer:

    they were also making considerably less then their British counterparts and they had limited ability to elect those in charge of them and no ability to say how the money was being spent.

yo at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

"We're paying a tax to someone who isn't our leader. We should be paying taxes to our own government. We're not British subjects and we get no benefit for what we pay. So we're not paying this racket anymore. Out, redcoats, move it."

The governors were appointed by the British, not elected. Also, they didn't receive many of the protections and benefits of representation that British citizens enjoyed - the tax went to the British government, and did not necessarily benefit the Americans beyond what little the British government chose to do for them.

With representation one can have a say as to what that tax money goes towards instead of it lining king Georges pockets.

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.