It became the "war cry" igniting the spark that became America's revolution against Great Britain. The 1764 Sugar Act placing duties on sugar and molasses followed by the 1765 Stamp Act requiring official stamps on all printed materials, including newspapers began the conflict.

Finally, the 1767 Townshend Acts levying taxes on imported goods like glass, paper, paint, and . . . yes, the final abuse, tea, escalated resistance into revolt via the infamous 1773 "Boston Tea Party" when New Englanders threw the English shipload of imported tea overboard in physical opposition to the tax.

Before that, the colonists demonstrated against taxes, sent petitions to England, and even boycotted some products, but taxing their daily drink finalized the resentment.

Unfortunately, rather than relaxing some of the burden after that "party" the British responded with the punitive "Intolerable Acts," which tightened control rather than loosening it, so this united the Americans into one voice.

"Taxation without representation" captures the socio-political principle that citizens should not be taxed by any government in which they have no participation.

Until that domineering period Britain controlled trade and foreign policy, but colonies governed their own internal affairs through local assemblies.

So at heart, the phrase then and now is not about money but about legitimacy and consent. The core principle is that taxes are a form of political power, political power requires accountability, and accountability requires representation, and this principle became one of the philosophical foundations of American constitutional government and remains a recurring theme in debates about civic rights.

Which brings us up to today.

Americans vote for representation in federal and state governments, yet with the exception of only two states part-time property owners cannot vote in municipal governing affairs but are forced to pay local property taxes anyway.

Add to this the fact that in many cases part-time residents own more expensive homes than do local residents which means they pay the majority of local property taxes but have no say in how that money is spent.

This injustice is committed by all state government legislators because they constitutionally control taxation of their state in general.

Some states add further insult to injury by allowing non-American citizens to vote locally even if they are temporary residents.

The two states having statutes permitting non-full-time residents to vote in the municipality where their property is located are Connecticut and Delaware.

And even in these cases the taxpaying nonresident participation is limited to voting in the town meeting format, or selective local elections, or some such partial expression of opinion.

But to examine one state that not only denies American taxpaying part-time homeowners voting rights but also has allowed some towns to amend their charters so certain non-U.S. citizens, e.g. Green Card holders, may vote in municipal elections, Vermont becomes an outstanding example.

Because it is so rural Vermont is a tourist-dominated state in general (which also makes it prime for our subject because of its punishing sales, lodging, and other taxes for visitors), but it's attraction for and injustice toward part-time homeowners compares with many other states because its natural environment is desirable for recreational activities similar to Colorado, California, Montana, Utah, Florida, New Mexico, Michigan, etc., and in addition, one small cluster of Vermont towns near five ski areas in particular has overwhelming percentages of out-of-state-part-time homeowners with expensive homes or condos who pay huge property taxes but cannot participate in the governance of the towns collecting their money; therefore, these towns provide especially excellent illustrations of taxation without representation injustice.

Stratton, Bromley, Okemo, Mt. Snow, and Magic mountains are the draw, and the towns collecting out-of-state resident taxes are listed below. [Note: A large portion of taxation is for education, and, of course, part-time residents' children don’t attend any of the Vermont schools that their parents' taxes finance.]

Following is a town-to-town comparison breakdown according to U.S. Census, official assessor data, or out-of-state mailing addresses.

1. Stratton: About 93% of housing units are classified as seasonal, one of the highest rates in the entire state.

2. Dover and Winhall: Dover likewise has very high seasonal housing rates with about 76 % of housing units part-time, and nearby Winhall also rates strongly high at around 79 % seasonal.

3. Ludlow: This town’s publicly published figures bring seasonal homes in at 68%.

4. Wilmington: Around 60% of all housing units are classified as seasonal or occasional use.

5. Londonderry: Roughly 46% of property owners have out-of-state mailing addresses, but other stats put the number of seasonal homes at 60-plus%, so it’s probable that many second homeowners simply use a Vermont P.O. box and forward mail to their main residence.

This group of close-proximity-to-each other resort towns is glaringly emblematic of the larger issue of taxation without representation because the majority of homeowners who pay the highest property taxes cannot vote in the very town where they bear most of the tax burden, so it dramatically demonstrates the inequity rampant throughout Vermont and American multiple homeowners in other states as well.

Plus, this inequity is growing as state legislatures continue to pickpocket those deemed to be so-called "wealthy" who can afford the robbery but have no means to protest against it. In 2024-2025 Vermont taxed second homes at the purchase point with a higher property transfer tax of 3.62%, and lawmakers are currently considering more increases.

One proposal would create a new property-tax classification for part-time homes that would hit owners at rates entirely different from primary residents.

Some state legislative discussions suggest this could significantly increase (in some cases nearly double) taxes on second homes.

There's also a more aggressive concept being floated to expand the current system into an annual surcharge on seasonal homes.

The latter two proposed legislations are not yet law but are actively part of policy debate.

So Vermont is essentially pushing even higher taxes on nonresident owners without allowing any representation, and this most definitely creates a modern version of the American historical colonial tension that is comparably contentious because blatantly unfair.

And Vermont is only one example of this same inequity going on in the rest of the United States.

So! Another "tea party"? One not to throw out a beloved product but to throw out confiscatory legislators?

Alexandra York is an author and founding president of the American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century (ART) a New-York-City-based nonprofit educational arts and culture foundation. She has written for many publications, and is the author of "Crosspoints A Novel of Choice." Her most recent book is "Soul Celebrations and Spiritual Snacks." Read Alexandra York Insider articles — Click Here Now.