Talk:No taxation without representation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.


The source is from the Orlando Sentinel, October 21, 2005. |}


Something is clearly missing in the first paragraph: "...without the consent of the colonists, which violated" (terminates there)

The article states that it was the exclusive cause for grievance against England, while fiscal matters only occupied one of over twenty grievances of the Declaration of Independence. I have edited it to read "a primary grievance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Is it accurate to say that teenagers, resident aliens, and felons are taxed without representation? They don't get to vote for their representatives, but they do have representatives. Representatives represent all of their constituents, not only those who vote, nor only those who pay taxes. At the least, I think that sentence should be modified to explain how those groups might and might not be considered to be taxed without representation. Triskaideka 20:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is misleading and rather POV. olderwiser 21:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. Representation is only after age of 18 or 21 or whatever the constitution of the country says. So, teenagers are cannot be represneted directly - neither are they taxed - because they do not (should not) earn. However, I completely agree that resident aliens who pay all taxes and more, pay more for education than citizens should have good representation or they should not be taxed at all. doles 15:53, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
Err, that's not POV, that's pretty much the definition of taxation without representation. The phrase is talking about being taxed without having voting rights, not whether someone in an abstract sense might be representing your best interests. If illegal immigrants pay taxes without being able to vote, it's tax without representation.


The link, "Taxation" License Plates (links to, at the bottom of the page doesn't work for me. Could someone else try it and see if it is a browser issue (I have Firefox) or if the link is really broken? Thanks. - Square pear 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It dosen't work for me ether (I have Internet Explorer) 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are references listed at the bottom of the article, but it's unclear as to which quotes and facts come from which sources. Also, "No taxation without representation!" continued to be a rallying cry of the period is not very encyclopedic or relevant, so I deleted it. Brjaga 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I inserted that origin bit (accidentally signed out). The reference I gave specifically said the phrase probably originated from Otis', and it is cited for that proposition by many other sources (do a lexis search). I think the sentence should be either reverted to what I had it at or the reference change, because the source isn't a reference for what's there currently. Psychobabble 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Otis is still mentioned. Seems nobody has a solid source for Otis--it's only "attributed to him" Rjensen 23:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement[edit]

"...and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on tea at the Boston Tea Party. ". The Tea Act, which was what was being protested at the Boston Tea Party, was not a tax on tea, it was a tax cut for the East India Company. Neil916 (Talk) 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

the tea act had a small tax on tea--the point was that it was a symbolic line in the sand that London dared Americans to cross. Rjensen 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the Tea Act article should be clarified to reflect that, since I had heard (and I am by no means a historian) that the Tea Act only served to attempt to give the East India Company a tax cut in order to increase their competitiveness against the colonial merchants and smugglers in the colonies, which is what angered the colonists and led to the Boston Tea Party. When I looked at the Tea Act article, and the Boston Tea Party article, it confirmed this, but then I came across this article which said the statement that I referred to above.
This can be a fine line and potentially contentious point. My curiosity in the subject originated after hearing a discussion in which it was pointed out that a majority of Americans hold the mistaken view that the BTP was a result of a tax increase, whereas it really was a protest against tax favoritism (it was a political discussion that went on to draw analogies to tax favoritism the current American government shows large multinational corporations like Wal-Mart, etc., but that part isn't relevant). Thought I'd bring up the problem here. Neil916 (Talk) 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue was NO taxation without representation. The Brits were smart enough to grasp that point. Rjensen 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is wrong from the start the cry of no taxation without representation was actually first raised in the Bahamas in the late 1600's, and was actually borrowed by the American founding fathers from them. This whole article needs to be rewritten, but of course the American significance needs to stay in, but over half of the article is unusable because it is false information. Justinmcl Justinmcl 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is correct however, and the link between taxation and representation dates back to the treaty of Magna Carta in 1215 (generally helding to be the first plank in Britain's 'unwritten constitution'), then the article's overwhelming focus on it's US usage might be in need of revision. Why concentrate on 12 years of an 800 year history? 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Thought this image might be good for this article. Might fall under public domain - requires a little research on publication or copyright renewal. Morphh (talk) 0:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for revolting...[edit]

One of the books I have here, "National Geographic Almanac of American History", says that the revolts were never OFFICIALLY over tax rates, although they were somewhat high. It does however say that rates were part of the reason, although never stated in any documents at the time. I have changed this to fix this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I know the taxes were not high at all. This is juxtaposed to what has been stated. 07:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Some work needs to be done to explain why the colonists believed British law prohibited taxation without representation. The Magna Carta did not prohibit taxation without representation. Many colonists did not believe the imposition of custom duties on the colonies was illegal under British law. BradMajors (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does need to be explained. Hopefully someone will do a rewrite of the American Revolution section of the article, since there's little worth saving in it right now. I will redo it, eventually, unless someone beats me to it.
The short answer: The concept of "no taxation without representation" has roots in Article 12 of Magna Carta: "Neither scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom...." Colonists generally did not oppose custom duties that were levied for purpose of regulating trade, but they objected to taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue. There was little question, on either side of the Atlantic, that "taxation without representation" was a violation of British law in Britain (see John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority to Tax, p. 112). The real question was: did American colonists enjoy the same constitutional rights as Britons? The rest, as they say, is history. —Kevin Myers 10:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog's breakfast[edit]

The intro few paragraphs is a nonsense. "Unconstitutional" in a British Empire which never had had a constitution or any form of constitutional law? "Illegal" on what grounds? It reads like the founding fathers were complete idiots. You cannot re-write history based on concepts which appeared much later. "Unfair" seems a much more accurate word. --BozMo talk 08:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)