It's your money... or is it?
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes," wrote one of America's great philosophers, Benjamin Franklin, in 1789. In our time, conservative populists have often tried to prove him wrong.
It's an easy way to get votes: tell people their government is stealing from them and needs to be replaced. "It's your money" is a popular way of referring to people's gross, not net, income. "You can spend it better than the government can," the masses are told.
This subject came up again, as it does most years, in small protests across the country on April 15, the date when federal income tax is due. This time, the anger was directed at President Obama for, as the protesters said, using tax money to pay for bankers' bonuses. The protesters, numbering between a few hundred and a few thousand in each city, brought boxes of tea, which they publicly destroyed. (See photos.)
This was supposed to recall the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when protesters climbed aboard ships in Boston Harbor and threw their cargo of tea into the ocean as a way of rejecting a new tax on tea. The British parliament, in which the colonists were not represented, had introduced the tax; so the slogan at the time was "No taxation without representation!"
Today's Republicans, of course, are well represented in government. Some of the protesters held signs or wore shirts saying "Don't blame me: I voted for Sarah [Palin]" (no mention of the actual candidate, John McCain). The logic behind the protest, however, sounds much more like the libertarian position held by another candidate, Ron Paul, whose supporters may have been there as well.
According to Paul's interpretation of the constitution, the U.S. federal government has no right to tax individuals. Until the 20th century, in fact, the government funded itself by selling land to individuals and corporations, and by taxing imported goods. It kept control over the money supply by regulating the mining of gold and silver.
By today's standards, it didn't have very much money to work with. Without enough federal agents, the government failed to prevent prospectors and settlers from violating agreements with Native American tribes. Time and again, it had to send in soldiers to protect the settlers, which usually led to war with the Indians.
Regulations could barely be enforced. Entrepreneurship flourished, but so did risk. The 19th century saw lots of technological progress, but also lots of bankruptcies. Speculation and bank failures plunged the national economy into chaos at almost regular intervals .
The 19th century was a time when land was cheap and when one good idea could earn you a fortune — but you could also lose everything. That's what happens if "it's your money".
The media have tried hard to portray the 2009 "tea party" as a grassroots movement that is sending a message to the government. But it turns out the media itself — the Fox News television network in particular — had actually organized the demonstrations.
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart had the last word on this. He was happy to note that, in order to protest wasteful spending, the demonstrators had actually bought a million tea bags.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Tempest in a Tea Party | ||||
| ||||
- ‹ previous
- 12 of 154
- next ›













COMMENTS
I HATE taxes. I hate income taxes and Value Added Taxes in particular, because this means one gets taxed twice.
What I hate the most is that when you make a bargain in any store in the US, the sales taxes will be added when you are about to pay which is kind of deceptive to me and I am glad the German retailers have not discovered this kind of a scam yet.
Besides, the concept of flat taxes appeals to me since we all know that the tax systems fits on a beer coaster.
Under "tea party" I understand something different, but that is why I am German and not British American. Where are milk and cookies? :-)
Women are supposed to be better in politics, what I cannot confirm for Germany right now, but well, who knows whether we are still lucky or just the citizens of a country of someone's Napoleon complex.
One advantage of the sales tax system in the U.S. is that the net price of the goods stays the same when you travel from one state to another, where the sales tax can be anywhere between zero and 11 percent.
As for the milk and cookies, those are left out for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Tea consumption in what's now the U.S. went way down in 1773, since it all came through England, and never recovered.
Taxes are as superfluous as a pain in the neck. I know there are better systems, but our politicians are to much of cowards to change. If once introduced, is there a chance of doing away with that particular tax?
First, most fire fighters are not employed, they are volunteers. The paid ones only prevent metropolis from going down in flames.
Second, police is not necessary if a society abides by mutual rules.
Third, most of the taxes are wasted anyway. I do not want to allude to the bridge to nowhere in Wassila, Alaska.:-)
What is the advantage of having sales taxes between 0 to 11 per cent besides not having to pay 19%? Is this not unjust in itself? One country, different taxes, I mean how worse can it get?
Abandoning sales taxes will jump start economies more than any stimulus package.
As long as pop is cheaper and sweeter than camomile tea, consumption continues to stagnate.