The Boston Tea Party happened in 1773 because some colonists objected to the import taxes being paid to the British Parliament on a tea shipment from the East India Trading Company because it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation". They felt that they should only have pay taxes levied by their directly elected representatives in the U.S.
In the democracy of the United States, States choose their elected representatives with voting so these people are the individual states directly elected officials making taxation without representation a moot point in the individual states which reflect the populace of the states. The congress of the country is made up of some of these elected representatives who get together and try to represent the people of the states who voted for them on a national level and pass bills which reflect the country as a whole. This isn't rocket science, it is democracy and takes voters to make it happen.
It seems that some democrats actually think that 'taxation without representation' means not paying taxes because they do not like the elected representatives and only want to pay taxes when they have leaders that they like but do not mind paying higher taxes even if there is a high degree of inefficiency and dysfunction with what is done with them. That is not what it means.
Republicans want to avoid having taxes raised and seek a more dynamic approach to revenue collection with more efficient and less wasteful spending. They do not necessarily think more taxes are better taxes and understand that states have a responsibility to balance their budgets.
Here is a link to an article from a heavily biased site for example where the writer suggests that the mere fact of having Republicans as their elected representatives is taxation without representation. But in a democratic country comprised of 50 separate states there can only be so many elected representatives.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...can-Revolution
D.T.'s admin was able to lower taxes across the board at the Fed level but that does not mean that states can't raise them.
It seems many Dems have a problem with the lowering at the Fed level. Why do they and why don't they care more about the states tax structures where they are from and/or live and if they are being fairly represented there?
Are taxes better represented in the dem-heavy states and how so?
For what good reason are dems mad about taxes being lowered at the Fed level?
If the needy dems can't be fairly represented on a the state level in their heavily taxed states as it would seems from the migration out of many of these states how do they expect more taxation at the Fed level will solve their seemingly chronic dilemma?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
