Taxes in the American Revolution and modern politics: the Tea Party

American Revolution and Taxes

There has always been an uneven and uncomfortable relationship among politicians, taxation, and the American people. The old saying, that death and taxes are the only certainties in life, remains nevertheless true. Taxation is as inevitable as the government's duty to provide its people with services. Sometimes, however, when it becomes necessary to raise taxes, people tend to view this in an extremely negative light. From government's point-of-view, taxes are seen as playing a vital role in the delivery of goods and services, as well as infrastructure, in a country. What particularly interests me about this topic is the apparent divide between what taxpayers pour into the IRS and how little they receive in return. Perhaps the conservative argument, to lower taxes and let people create their own wealth rather than wealth for the government, is not the worst possible idea.

From the conservative viewpoint, taxes should be lower and government smaller with limited power (Student News Daily, 2010). People who pay lower taxes, according to this viewpoint, would then be encouraged to work, save, invest, and create entrepreneurial opportunities for themselves and others. The basic premise behind this is that the best spending is done by those who earn money rather than by the government. Hence, rather than government programs, which could create a platform for laziness and dependency, this viewpoint holds that work and independence would be encouraged with lower taxes and less government involvement in public life.

The American government's incentive to lower taxes or at least keep them constant is also fueled by the tendency among the country's citizens to resist higher taxes. In reality, according to Sachs (2009), this has created a dangerous level of budget deficits and government debt.

Following the Conservative convention, Obama made certain promises regarding taxes prior to the 2008 election. He promised to maintain taxes at the same level for households with an income of less than $250,000 per year. This is part of what has created the economic difficulties in the country. In reality, less taxes means less ability by the government to provide essential services. Higher taxes only for the rich is also not sufficient, according to Sachs (2009), to cover the expensive of the essential services that have fallen by the wayside because of lower taxes. The author suggests that a lot of tax dollars can be saved if the United States were to withdraw its war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, there could be a better balance between taxation and government services, as well as providing incentives for people to work hard and independently for their own income and goods.

Recently, according to Gleckman (2012), the IRS has overstepped its bounds by singling out conservative groups to scrutinize their tax-exempt status. This has created somewhat of a scandal, since it is generally accepted that no political bias should enter into the IRS and its taxation duties.

The author suggests that the best way to handle scandals like these is to not grant tax-exempt status for certain political groups in the first place. Being exempt from taxes allow these groups to operate outside of a law that has been created for the protection of American citizens.

Although the groups in question are identified as "civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees," and their earnings are to be used in contributions to charity, education, or recreational endeavors, some have found ways to apply their funding in other, more personally gainful ways. This is what prompted some IRS employees to do some investigations of their own (Gleckman, 2012).

While both parties involved were in the wrong, American citizens should at all times be protected against tax fraud that could further impede the ability of the country to right its economic status.

One of the main reasons for the American Revolution during the 18th century was a number of laws passed by British Parliament to regulate trade and taxes. Already existing tensions between colonists and imperial officials were exacerbated, especially after the former group was informed that their concerns and complaints regarding the laws would not be addressed. Increasing dissatisfaction led to the colonial declaration of independence, which would lead to further incidents of violence and war (Office of the Historian, 2013).

From the British viewpoint, the Seven Years' War left the Empire burdened by a large amount of debts along with a post-war recession that would make matters worse before they became better. This is then what led to many of the increases in tax laws and trade regulations that occurred in America. Indeed, the national debt had almost doubled from 1754, when it was at £75 million to £133 million in 1763 (Tax Analysts, 2013). The British therefore found themselves in dire straits to repay the debts they took to fund the war effort.

After a great number of protests, Parliament rescinded the Townshend duties on almost all the commodities they had taxed on 5 March 1770, with the exclusion of tea, for which the duty remained in place. Perhaps the most famous of effects of perceived unfair taxes occurred in the form of the Boston Tea Party. It start with an unsuccessful attempt by patriots to boycott tea by trying to encourage both merchants not to import it and consumers not to use it, they did not meet great success, since tea was a popular commodity (Massachusetts Historical Society, 2013).

Despite the popularity of tea among the citizenry, the East India Company found itself with a large surplus of the drink in the spring of 1773. Parliament saw its opportunity not only to assist the failing company, but also to thwart smuggling and reassert its own authority regarding taxes on the colonies, and authorized the Tea Act on 10 May 1773. This mean that no sales duty would be levied for tea sold in America for the East India Company. However, tea would be taxed where it entered the country at the colonial ports. Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston were provided with special agents to receive the tea at the ports and to sell it.

After increasingly violent protests and danger to the special agents, a meeting was called at Faneuil Hall in Boston, which was open to all citizens in Boston and in neighboring towns. This meeting was held on 28 November, on the same day that the Dartmouth carried 114 chests of tea in Boston Harbor. The crowd was swept up into its emotion and fervor to protest. All ships coming to American harbors with tea are warned that they would not be met in peace. And they were not. On 16 December, refusing to pay taxes for the tea and also refusing to send it back to England, the crowd streamed into the streets of Boston to Griffin's Wharf, where 342 chests of tea were dumped into the sea.