- Days left

Tea Party movement confused about taxes and the Boston Tea Party

Tea Party members misunderstand the real Boston Tea PartyFor most of us, the stress of filing our income tax return is subsiding and we can get on with the usual business of figuring out how to pay our regular monthly bills. But what will surely continue beyond tax day is the strange co-opting of the Boston Tea Party by the anti-tax Tea Party movement.

I hasten to preface this with the fact that I don't begrudge anyone the right to organize and protest against perceived injustices. This isn't another hit piece about how the Tea Party movement is awful or driven by race or controlled by corporate lobbyists. However, the notion of an anti-tax Tea Party movement that borrows its name from the Boston Tea Party seems bizarre and contradictory.

After all, the Boston Tea Party was ultimately a protest against a corporate tax cut, whereas the modern Tea Party movement is in favor of tax cuts.

I run a small media company with a staff of one. Me. But the services I provide happen to also be services that are offered by much larger companies. Some of them are international conglomerates with staffs of thousands. One of the reasons why I'm able to compete (in a relative sense) is that American business taxation is, at the end of the day, reasonably progressive. I pay taxes in an amount relative to the net revenue of my business, as does, say, Viacom.

But imagine how screwed I'd be if the government swooped in and said that Viacom didn't have to pay any taxes at all. Competing against a company paying a 0% effective tax rate would be extraordinarily difficult to say the least, since every dollar in net revenue I earned would be obviously accompanied by a significantly higher tax rate than, you know, zero.

A very similar slap in the face occurred in 1773 with the passage of the Tea Act. It was the passage of this law which ultimately sparked the famous Boston Tea Party.

The East India Company, the Monsanto or the Microsoft of its era, was in serious financial trouble, and being so closely tied to the economy of Great Britain, it was, to use the parlance of our times, too big to fail.

But rather than bailing out the corporation, King George and Lord North decided that if they just cut the taxes of the corporation to zero, the East India Company would be able to sell tea to the colonists at a discount -- boosting sales and rescuing the near-bankrupt mega-corporation. Plus, they reasoned, the colonists would embrace them for the cheaper tea, and tensions between the empire and the colonies would be ameliorated, at least temporarily.

So in May, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act. The long-form sub-title of the act read as follows: "An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the East India Company's sales; and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free."

Several months later, the East India Company attained the proper clearances and set off to various colonial sea ports with its duty-free tea.

It goes without saying that the smaller colonial tea distributors weren't happy. Their retail prices would be severely undercut by the tax-free tea, shoving the smaller importers out of business. Not only that, but they would continue to pay taxes without representation in Parliament.

"No taxation without representation," by the way, didn't mean, "No taxation -- period." Colonial tax payers would gladly have paid taxes if they were afforded political representation, and a level playing field in terms of the East India Company's special duty-free advantage.

The Tea Act was British oppression at its most insidious (until the war, that is). So, in retaliation, the Sons of Liberty proceeded to intimidate and raid -- with orders to tar and feather the pilots -- any East India tea ship landing at various ports from Philadelphia to Sandy Hook near New York to, naturally, Boston.

On December 16, 1773 colonial insurgents disguised as Mohawks boarded several British ships, including the Dartmouth, at Griffin's Wharf and dumped hundreds of crates of tea into Boston Harbor.

Now, fast forward 237 years. I'm not sure what Samuel Adams would say about the modern tea parties. I'm positive, however, he'd have problems with all of the corporate tea bags being purchased in stores and used as props -- as opposed to the Sons of Liberty deliberately hijacking ships and vandalizing corporate tea.

The colonists simply wanted a fair deal from King George and were willing to pay taxes as long as they could elect members of Parliament to represent their input in the laws governing their lives. The colonial patriots weren't opposed to taxation, as the anti-tax Tea Party appears to be.

Although, there seems to be some confusion here, too. Evidently Tea Party activists are angry that some 47% of American households didn't pay any income taxes in 2009 due to tax cuts and, predictably, the negative economic impact of the recession. In fact, Glenn Beck, last week on his radio show, went so far as to recommend to a caller that she return to the IRS. a "Making Work Pay" tax credit she received from the stimulus, amounting to an additional $800 in her refund check.

Boiled down, it appears as though the Tea Party movement is all at once in favor of taxes and against taxes. They appear to be in favor of lower taxes for upper income workers and corporations, and higher taxes for lower income workers and corporations. Unless I've totally misunderstood the Tea Party reaction, it seems as though, once again, it's exactly the opposite of the original intent of Boston Tea Party which, to repeat, was against tax cuts for wealthy corporations at the expense of the little guy.

Again, this isn't necessarily an indictment of the Tea Party. But it seems as though they're a little confused in terms of their position on taxes, and especially how that position conflicts with the original intent of their namesake Boston Tea Party. Maybe a name change is in order -- then again, it might be too late. Either way, it's really a shame. Not only is it an embarrassment for the Tea Party movement, but it's presenting a misinterpreted view of a significant event in American history.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Economics 101

Intro to economics. But fun.

View Course »

Introduction to Preferred Shares

Learn the difference between preferred and common shares.

View Course »

TurboTax Articles

What is Schedule F: Profit or Loss from Farming

If you earn a living as a self-employed farmer, you may need to include a Schedule F attachment with your tax return to report your profit or loss for the year. The Internal Revenue Service defines ?farmer? in a very broad sense?whether you grow crops, raise livestock, breed fish or operate a ranch.

5 Tax Tips for Single Parents

Filing taxes as a single parent requires coordination between you and your ex-spouse or partner. Usually the custodial parent claims the child as a dependent, but there are exceptions. A single parent is allowed to claim applicable deductions and exemptions for each qualifying child. Even though you claim your child as a dependent, she may still have to file her own tax return if she has income, such as from an after-school job.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

3 Comments

Filter by:
gold2b

To those of the Tea Party that think they know what they’re doing…..

For a few years now, the common mistake of thought on the original cause of the American War for Independence was about not wanting to pay taxes. This is another incorrect interpretation of facts within our revolutionary history. There are political organizations with media attention and certain authors who have distorted the image of today’s taxing by any Administration. While attempting to link that circumstance with that of the past the public perception towards an attitude of any type of tax is not from our patriotic past. The attitude is nothing close to the tri-corner hat wearing tea tossing patriot at Boston Harbor. In truth, the colonial citizens had no such thought of not wanting to pay taxes, but rather they did not want to lose their rights and liberty to be a part of the decision to tax. When the times were changing to take-up arms against the Crown, many citizens in all the colonies were supportive of the crown, up to a single point. The King is the king but we have the right to voice our opinion in Parliament. It wasn’t until the fateful morning of 19, April 1775 that their opinions changes radically.

So what happened to the loyal Englishmen? Foremost was the fact that all the colonies were chartered establishments from England for Englishmen. Other immigrants were, of course, welcome but the law of the land was the Charter and the English Constitution. These Charters were signed by the reigning king of the day and acknowledged by the new king upon his ascension to the throne. The inhabitants of these thirteen colonies were English and thus received the Rights and Laws of that inheritance. Basic law was established and utilized for over a hundred years and during the French and Indian War over thirty- thousand militiamen served with British troops to secure their northern and western boundaries and their British rule. They were Englishmen and served their country with distinction and thus guaranteed their rights.

Corruption within the Crown authorities, as well as the King’s own finances, was bankrupting the government. Parliament blamed the deficit on the war and the lack of the colonies to repay. Parliament claimed the government was owed for defending the colonies from France and these wilderness savages. Thus began a new idea: these colonial people are not Englishmen and thus have little attachment to the Common Rights of a Free Englishmen. The series of Acts to increase revenue collections for the Crown was established with the new concept that the colonist’s part in the dominion was no longer as a citizen but a subject. They would not have voice in Parliament or at home. Commerce was monopolized by a crown backed merchant (East India Company) that had extended credit to the King and took jobs and income away from the colonists. Those two policies only lead to suppression and oppression and it led to rebellion and revolution. Thus the expression w

July 05 2012 at 11:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
gl9876

It appears you have no idea what the "Tea Party" is or stands for, believe their opponents mis-characterizations, or are simply an opponent and chooe to twist things on your own.

Please review your history. While on the face of it, the Boston TP targeted a corporation given a tax cut, The Tea Act was only part of the problem. While favoring their too-big-to-fail tea company the loss of that revenue to the kingdom were to be offset by taxes imposed by the Townsend Duties, levied upon the colonists without their consent in direct violation of the British constitution, such as it was.

Characterizing the Boston TP as "a protest against a corporate tax cut" is a really big stretch. I'd call it a protest against Gobernment unfairly meddling in commerce. Favoring one corporation over another. I, and everyone I know of that supports the ideals of the "Tea Part", that government has no place in favoring or punishing companies and individuals un-equally. The present tax code gives the federal government far too much power and power corrupts. If the current tax structure were equitable and not subject to corruption, I'd be happy to pay taxes. But when the tax code is so complex and contorted as to make half the nation dependant on government by not taxing them and even augmenting the income of a significant proportion, and when mega-corporations can buy favor in the form of incentives or tax breaks, I oppose that tax system.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to generate the revenue the government needs to fullfill the obligations it has under the Constitution, where the poor would pay no tax, the wealthy would pay the most tax, where favorable tax manipulations could not be bought, where productivity would not be punished, and where U.S. businesses could be competative internationally? But alas, what kind of tax would do that? Oh! Perhaps a consumption tax, like the tax on tea in the 1700's! If only there were a Fair Tax.

September 28 2011 at 3:32 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rhea Cherrith

LOL, THE TEA PARTY HAVE HISTORY BACKWARDS, AT BOSTON TEA PARTY THE PEOPLE REFUSED CORPERATIONS COMMING IN AND TAKING OVER AND OVER TAXING THE PEOPLE FOR TRADE ON TEAS.

August 14 2011 at 6:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply