The original idea was to have a very low tax burden to allow rapid economic growth in the Colonies to allow expansion. It worked. But in demanding that the colonials "pay their fair share", the British were already unconsciously treating the Americans as a nation, in spite of themselves. Ireland by this time already had a parliament of their own (of sorts), but no such body was ever considered for the American Colonies, and representation in Parliament, suggested by prominent Americans of the day (Benjamin Franklin, IIRC), were rejected by British politicians in London out-of-hand.
Which brings us to taxation without representation. Even in an era of rotten boroughs, no universal suffrage, property qualifications for voting rights, and a powerful House of Lords, it was still possible for people to make their voices heard, provided they had access. But in the years between 1763 and 1773 (after which things were pretty much on automatic) even gentlemen as august as Dr. Benjamin Franklin (who was seen in Europe as a great man even by this time) couldn't so much as get a hearing from any British official in a Tory Government.
I believe, but don't quote me until I hunt down my copy of Tuchman (
The March of Folly), that the "virtual representation" idea also covers the idea - that is, having an American Parliament or American Representatives is not necessary in how the British understood things.
Doesn't mean it was entirely justified, but it wasn't deliberately denial of representation, either.
That is, if I'm remembering my reading correctly. And I'm not saying "virtual representation" means a whole lot, but complaining that the British system was broken in general and that it was abusing the Thirteen in particular are two different issues and should be addressed separately rather than the former proving the latter.
The Whigs were willing to listen to him, but in the face of George III's personal animus for Americans (and Irish, and French, and Hanoverians, and etc. etc. etc...

) there was little Franklin, or the Whigs, could do. Except to abolish the Stamp Act. Which led to the passing of the Townshend Acts, the Intolerable Acts, the blockading of Boston, etc. Is it possible George III was a secret meber of the Sons of Liberty?

That would be hilariously fun to write. Have something where George III is visited by someone who tells him that for Britain's long term good, he must manipulate the colonies into rebellion.
...if and when you have time, do you want to help me come up with ideas for that? Not so much alt-history as pure fantasy, but still.
If you look at the enormous drainage of $$$ FROM the Colonies TO Britain in just two years of strict anti-smuggling law enforcement, the levels of $$$ involved in THAT easily compensated the British for ANY conceivable "war debt" owed by Americans to the Empire. But on paper, His Majesties' Government had yet to receive a brass farthing, as all that $$$ was pouring into the greedy mitts of British commercial interests. The same interests pushing for the enforcement of those anti-smuggling laws.
The problem is that it isn't to compensate "the British" its to compensate "the government". Its government debt that has to be paid off, with the colonies paying their due instead of paying very little if anything in terms of
perfectly normal customs and so forth.
If not for the strangulating of American trade solely for British commercial interests, if only the anti-smuggling laws had continued to be ignored (or better yet, abolished), I would agree with you completely that the Americans WERE getting a better deal. But AS things were, the British were getting the better deal. The British people, and especially the British Government. At least for the short term. I'd bet the debts from the Seven Years War were only a fraction of what Britain earned from the American Revolutionary War. Lost wars tend to be expensive.
The British were not getting a better deal when it came to supporting the costs of Empire in exchange for the benefits of the same (and I am emphatically including the Royal Navy and Army as "benefits" for both colonies and Britain).
And since you asked, here are some figures.
1756-1763: 160,573,366 expended, income of 100,555,123
Balance raised by loans: 60,018,243. Percentage of expenditure covered by loans: 37.4%.
1776-1783: 235,462,689, income of 141, 902, 620. Balance raised by loans 94,560,079. Percentage of expenditure covered by loans: 39.9%.
Rather interesting how closely those figures (as a percentage) compare considering a slightly longer war and no American revenue as opposed to support ranging from ineffective to uncooperative.
BTW, can you imagine the explosion in Britain if they were told that they could only trade with America?

Or with France?
I am honestly not convinced that's the same thing, and not as a loyalist.
America is a lot less of a market/source for goods for Britain than "Britain/the other colonies" is for the Thirteen (since "The colonies" would include Canada etc really.).
How did we get on an issue involving British government debt a century earlier in a thread regarding how Lee is the most overrated general in American history?
Edit: Found my copy.
"The English had contrived a convenient theory of 'virtual representation' to cover the masses who lacked votes or members to represent them. Every member of the House, it was maintained, represented the whole body politic, not a particular constituency, and if Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham had no seats and London had only six while Devon and Cornwall had seventy, the former could take comfort in being 'virtually represented' by the bluff gentlemen from the country."
So the Thirteen are being treated as part of this system. Not as less-represented-than-Ireland.
There's a lot that can be said about this and the general mishandling by Parliament in such a way as to encourage and inspire a conviction the British government was out to be tyrannical, and it was not exactly unselfish, but too much can and was made of this by supporters of the protest side.