undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgroby_b6y ago0 comments

If only you could appreciate that it was

* 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

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

dsfyu404ed6y ago· 3 in thread

> founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests

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?

munk-a6y ago

> "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"

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."

salawat6y ago

I second this. Also, read the Declaration of Independence. It is quite succinctly stated the long list of grievances that led to the founding.

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.

TheBranca186y ago

It's not hatred to ask people that are hoarding almost all the wealth in a country to spend more in taxes. That's just a progressive tax system. There isn't anything controversial about it even if not everyone thinks it's the right thing to do.

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.

conanbatt6y ago· 2 in thread

> that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure

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.

groby_bOP6y ago

That's... an interesting definition of infrastructure.

conanbatt6y ago

What a specific part of the government budget to focus on to justify faxes. Its not even 4% of the expenditures of the federal government.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse