|
|
|
|
|
by dvdhnt
3220 days ago
|
|
Generally, I would agree, and in the broadest sense of the terms, they are not equal. You can call anything whatever you want; you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. England used taxation as a way to maintain control over its colonies regardless of how it turned out. Eventually, and most famously, the U.S. realized the taxation was a form of oppression and not for the common good. People who didn't pay the "taxes" were evicted and their possessions given to loyalists; sounds a lot like renting. |
|
The core of the issue really was that Britain defended the American colonies from French invasion during the Seven Year's War and the British taxpayer bore the brunt of the taxation (I can't remember exact figures, but Britons were taxed much, much heavier than Americans, even after the stamp duties and tea taxes). After the war, Parliament came looking for payback, understandably. So Britain wasn't using taxation to control the colonies, it was looking to recoup the costs of defending them.
On a sidenote, this is actually quite interesting in today's context over NATO military spending, where now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.