The problem wasn’t the 1% tax. Firstly, income tax and sales tax and such didn’t exist as we know them today. Taxes were paid mostly via tariff and excise. In simple terms, the people who made, sold, and resold (like importers and wholesalers) goods paid taxes on doing business. Of course to make profit most goods prices were influenced by the taxes- so if a tariff was raised on bananas for example, the price of bananas would likely go up to protect the merchants profits. The big difference was that citizens mostly only paid taxes if they were doing business, if you didn’t buy or sell or make goods, you didn’t pay taxes. While to many a system where the people making the money are taxed might sound great, a fundamental problem with that system is that those people who are doing the least for the economy, the people who aren’t buying or selling or making things, don’t really contribute but still..
.. benefit. It also generally causes the price of goods to be high, and unlike things like I come tax which traditionally relate to wealth, goods prices are generally fixed- meaning that wether you make $1 an hour or $100 an hour a banana costs the same, so a 5% tariff increase on bananas has a disproportionate impact on people with less money whereas a tax hike based on income doesn’t effect people below a certain income threshold. Meaning that income tax can be set in such ways to help mitigate the odds of taxing people out of the ability to eat or afford basic expenses etc. an income tax also doesn’t inherently penalize people for being productive- it requires those who benefit the most from a system to pay the most (in theory) so that someone making gloves to sell for $1 in profit per pair and selling 10 pair a month doesn’t pay the same excise tax as someone making jewelry to sell at $300 in profit per item and selling 10 items a month.
So here’s the big one- colonist had no real problem with taxes. Most sensible modern people don’t. On a civic level sensible people understand that infrastructure and security and all the things a country does to provide benefit cost money. If the citizens who benefit from and use these things aren’t supposed to pay, who is? Just eat and loot other countries to pay to run your own? That’s not long term sustainable even if you always win- it takes time for a looted nation to generate more wealth right? You run out of stuff to steal eventually.
The problem was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. now- arguably there was political pretense there, many historians don’t favor a view that taxes were anything but a rallying cry for a rebellion that served other interests. But let’s ignore that and just for argument say it was legitimate.
The REPRESENTATION was the big thing. See, America was a colony. It was ruled by the crown and British government. Thousands of miles away people made decisions and colonists just had to deal with it. Now, colonists coming to America included British citizens. Citizens who didn’t get a say in how things were done at home or back in Britain- basically, citizens of the colonies largely felt like citizens in name only, they paid tariffs on things they made and bought and sold and exported or imported, tariffs that went to the crown largely, but they didn’t perceive that money so much going back into the colonies as much as to those living in Britain. They didn’t have any say in how the money was spent or what was paid.
This is an oversimplification, but in the view that the revolution really was related to taxation, in essence Britain had racked up some bills at war and needed to raise taxes to pay for the costs of that war. The 7 years war to be precise. Europe was big on colonies and North America was hot colonial real estate. Most of modern day Canada and the USA were claimed by France, Spain, and England. When England started to expand into French territory a war was started. This period was known at least in the USA as the “French and Indian wars.” The war devastated Frances holdings in North America with the Louisiana territories going to Spain and the parts of modern Canada and the USA going to England. So all in all it was a new win for England in terms of territory and control- but the problem was they now owed a bunch of money.
Now, on the one hand, new territories and less French and native control benefited the colonies, and regardless of France and England go to war the English colonists gave potential danger from French colonies since their countries are hostile. On the other hand, Colonists in the Americas fought and died and colonists would carry part of the burden for a war that ended up giving the long distance government that didn’t allow colonist representation a bunch of territory and long term wealth and power potential. So colonists at large weren’t thrilled to foot the bill for the glory of England when while colonists did too benefit, they felt that England wasn’t really looking out for them, it was a side effect of self interest back in Europe.
Much as through a good chunk of US history, the distance of America from Europe basically had many Americans asking- “why do we care what Europe does and why should we have to have problems because some people thousands of miles away made some choices that ended in problems for them?” In short- the general sentiment was that even if the colonies saw benefits from English rule the benefits didn’t seem proportional to the benefits England got from the colonies. America knew what it was doing for England, but what was England really doing for America…?
So “no taxation without representation” didn’t mean “you can’t tax us without a good reason…” it meant “if we have to pay taxes we want to have a voice in government and the way decisions are made.”
It was not only problematic due to distance etc. for there to be American representation of a meaningful sort in Europe, but it also was also essentially politically untenable.
It would mean elevating colonists to a status to sit among titled persons in government and it would mean a major disruption to the traditions and fabric of English society but even more importantly- if American colonies got representation… that sets a precedent that other colonies of the crown would get local representation. That would put Indians and Caribbean peoples and Africans and some Asians even into power and recognition in England. A notion that at the time would be almost unthinkable.
It also meant problema back home for the limeys. In the same vein Americans had certain thoughts due to distance and such- in England life wasn’t all sunshine and roses. So for citizens dealing with economic and social issues in England, having trouble making wages or getting food or upset at education or other conditions etc… how do you think many felt knowing that money was going over to the colonies? The same that many colonists were upset that money and goods made in the colonies was flowing back to Europe where they had no stake, The average English citizen had no direct stake in the Americas. Resources and trickle down wealth and such were nice, but those are abstract. They don’t generally make you feel great when you can’t afford bread or your friends keep dying of diseases from filth or such.
And of course, after England went heavy into debt and many English didn’t come home because of a war thousands of miles away in the colonies, the average Brit who’d never seen and likely never would see the colonies didn’t feel too great about that either. So now we have some bad blood on both side of the pond, the lower classes working and suffering and dying and feeling like someone thousands of miles away was benefiting from it, and the upper classes feeling slighted. “Who do they think they are?” “Who do they think they are dealing with?” It would seem to take a lot of gall to many, for a colony to basically be demanding a seat amongst the elite rulers and a voice in how an entire empire was run, but to many Americans it seemed disrespectful to treat citizens like they were not even equals. So… Americans demanded representation and when they weren’t satisfied they revolted.
They basically said- “if we aren’t good enough to be English then we will be American, but we are finished with being neither. Take us as equal or lose us as equal.” The rest is history- well- from that point it becomes US history, because of course there was a mass revolt and the colonists started their own government and won independence. And wouldn’t you know that war cost a bit- so what did they do? They levied taces to help pay off the debt and to fund the new government, but this time- Americans got to vote and have a say. This time, America was paying for an American war. And people were happy to pay taxes? Not really no. First of all, people generally would rather not pay for anything. Sane and reasonable people generally understand that even if we don’t like it, we generally do have to pay for at least some things we need. Secondly, how do you think the lives of the average person changed thanks to revolution? I’ll give you a clue- revolution seldom is good for the average..
.. citizen. Guess what happens when a baker bakes bread under one government for 10 years and then there is a war and a new government? Usually, after the war if they survived and they still have a shop to work from, they go back to baking. Because it is baked goods, there’s generally a range of profit there. Generally during war it is hard to make profit doing most everyday jobs if you can do them at all. That usually means it is hard to save and hard to build up your life and retirement. That usually means that for most average people a sort of soft mute comes over their “real” lives when war comes. They usually come out of the war a little worse off at least before things level out or they benefit from any potential post wars booms of one occurs.
But for most people- things largely stay the same after revolution. The laws often don’t change much, the dreams people have and their routines go back to normal mostly. The new government is usually not so much different than the old one. The people in power change but most average folks don’t see a lot of benefit historically beyond getting to return to their lives which wouldn’t need returned to if war hadn’t interrupted them. So Americans gained independice but they also gained a lot of problems and a lot of debt. People had to set to working hard to straighten things out and get stability and legitimacy for their new country. But many did see benefits. New territories and new opportunities, and with Americans now able to self govern America could start having legitimate dealings with other nations. We could buy or conquer territory and such on our own authority. We could shape the way our country grew and by effect the way people lived.
So- if we take a traditional view of the war and see it as relating ideology- what really happened was people were upset about REPRESENTATION ideologically and in a material sense people were upset that they were basically serving the interests of what had already become a foreign government and people, prices were going up and colonists largely felt England didn’t give a crap about them.
The problem was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. now- arguably there was political pretense there, many historians don’t favor a view that taxes were anything but a rallying cry for a rebellion that served other interests. But let’s ignore that and just for argument say it was legitimate.
It was not only problematic due to distance etc. for there to be American representation of a meaningful sort in Europe, but it also was also essentially politically untenable.
It would mean elevating colonists to a status to sit among titled persons in government and it would mean a major disruption to the traditions and fabric of English society but even more importantly- if American colonies got representation… that sets a precedent that other colonies of the crown would get local representation. That would put Indians and Caribbean peoples and Africans and some Asians even into power and recognition in England. A notion that at the time would be almost unthinkable.