* founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests
* that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure
* 200+ years have passed since, and we've gone past horse-drawn carriages
* founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests
* that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure
* 200+ years have passed since, and we've gone past horse-drawn carriages
This is incorrect as England was providing military services to the American colony. Adam smith implies that the cost of the military was actually higher than the taxes collected.
This meme needs to die.
Nobody was sitting around saying "You know what will make me richer, a decade of war with England and if we win followed up with several decades of poor trade relations". The wealthy landowners who founded this country were very much going all in on a bet where the possible outcomes were lose everything or break even. They didn't do it for the money, not that there was any money in it to do it for.
Edit: Is my statement factually incorrect or ideologically inconvenient?
Of course, actually taking that into context takes away some of the dopamine hit from trying to spread the elite hatred that is currently in vogue.
I'm not even saying there is anything wrong with disliking the elite now; just keep in mind then is then, and now is now. The issues are of course going to be different, even if there may be a shred of commonality to them.
Also if you're going to talk about context, the US tax system at the time of its founding isn't relevant at all. I know you didn't bring it up, but you are still defending something largely irrelevant. It'd be like a candidate for President of the United States defending a tithe system because it's mentioned in the Bible.
Yea, that'd be silly, instead it was "You know what, the crown isn't listening to us and we're ineligible to be lords like those fat cats in england proper, let's throw a big to-do and get invited back in at a proper rank with representation."