I found my School House Rock! Rocks" CD, and I was listening to the “No More Kings” song by Pavement and it says something on the lines of, “we were being taxed without representation and that’s why we fought to become indepenedent.”
Then I started thinking, are we better off now than when we were under British rule financially speaking? I’m currently paying around 45%(ish) of my wages to local, property, state and Federal Income tax.
What was the rate that the British were charging us? Was it less? If so, would we have been better off not rebelling? If it was more, how much more was it?
I think the main reason for the rebellion was not just having to pay taxes, but not having any kind of representation in the Parliament. Taxation without representation. The colonists didn’t have a voting member in Parliament to persuade others to vote for or against the taxes (and other issues concerning the colonies).
In contrast, you as a US citizen have the opportunity to vote in local, state, and federal elections and choose the people that will represent you in Congress (or state legislature or city hall comission).
U.K. top marginal tax rates are slightly higher than U.S. rates (although it varies a bit by state), but come into play at MUCH lower income levels. In short, if you were a UK resident and tax-payer, you would be paying more than whatever you’re paying in the U.S.
Not only were the colonists being taxed without representatin but the money (which was much, much less than today’s rates, both in the US and in Briton) was going back across the sea. Very little was being spent to the benefit of the colonists.
There were a lot of other issues also: billiting soldiers in your home, due process was iffy at best, the idea of being a colony, etc. Read the Decleration of Independence, it lists all the reasons.
The tax burden we face today is almost certainly far higher than that faced by the colonists of 1776. This has zero bearing on whether we’d be better off if we had remained a colony, because the world has changed since 1776, and taxes are higher everywhere.
The overall tax burden that a society faces is calculated by dividing total tax revenue (of all levels of government) by gross domestic product. We can calculate tax revenue–assuming that the relevant British and colonial records have survived–but we have NO reliable information on GDP. How could it even be measured in an era of widespread barter and self-sufficiency?
The only reason I’m confident that the burden was lower in 1776 is because we CAN measure with reasonable accuracy at least as far back as 1900, and the trend from 1900 until about 1980 was up, up, up, all over the world. See http://taxfoundation.org/images/sr112.pdf The world of 1776, one has to think, was more like that of 1900 than 2002. But it’s impossible to be any more quantitative than that.
For those that are unaware, the half million residents in the District of Columbia pay federal taxes and have NO full voting representative in congress. Check out the DC Vote website for more information.
It is well worth the fight that has lasted 227 years and counting.
Whilst we (UK) pay slightly higher taxes there are things that we don’t pay which should be included.
Eg Private heath insurance is pretty rare (although quite a few people get it as an employment perk) so you would have to add on the premiums for that, ditto University fees (although this may be about to change).
Other advantages to having stayed woith us is our rather spiffy flag, decent beer, and you would play cricket and football rather than the freak shows you do.
jklann - that pdf is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks so much for your response.
Do you know where I could find a comparable chart for Austrailia and/or New Zeland?
owlstretchingtime - you may have decent beer (warm beer, hurl!), your food is overcooked and gross, the weather sucks, and you still worship a queen. I’d go on, but I don’t want the thread moved to GD…
I was more than slightly gobsmacked when somebody last year posted US income tax rates, and I discovered that I would be paying more in income tax in America than I am here. (Even figuring in my National Insurance contributions).
(Mind you, I’ve always said my salary is pathetic.)
Whenever I’ve seen figures, the total tax load (including income tax and an average of indirect taxation) on an average earner shows pretty much the same for both countries - maybe 1% higher in the UK than the US. I must see if I can dig up a source for this, because it is, frankly, surprising.
(Corporate taxation, on the other hand, is notably higher in the UK, as far as I can tell. You could argue that the higher cost of doing business has a knock-on effect, which is why I have a pathetic salary.)
Here are a couple of ghastly PDF files comparing income tax and corporation taxes across the main economies. I’m bound to find something more digestible out there if I keep looking.
Oh, and the Revolutionary War … umm … you guys do know about the repeal of the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts, don’t you? That by the time of the Boston Tea Party, tea was the only thing subject to special taxation? Handy time line thingy here. As SandyHook points out, by the time war broke out, there were other issues at stake.
Of course, there were all the costs the crown incurred to set up and administrate the colonies in the first place, as well as the phenomenal costs of protecting the colonists from the French and the Indians.
Of course, being an American, I’m now rather glad that we decided not to pay them back.
It really isn’t the food you can buy that I was referring to but the way it is prepared.
As to cheese in a can, I’m not sure what you are talking about except maybe “cheese dip” that can be bought in a can. However, having shopped for food in Britain the first chore is to find the store since they are camouflaged (perhaps to keep them from being bombed), but once you find the grocery the variety is very limited (to say the least). What Britain needs is for Wal-Mart to invade. I’m not a fan of Wal-Mart, but when it comes to invading and conquering, they have no peers.
kniz - owlstitchintime, I think, is talking about cheese whiz.
Somehow, owl is infering that English food is better than American food cause they don’t have cheese whiz.
Owl is hoping to make the logical argument that any country that has cheese whiz available to it’s consumers must have no taste, and therefore no valid opinion on what is good food. Or something like that. However, his logical argument is flawed when Owl is looking at one small and insignificant food item instead of the daily or average food items consumed by a majority of the population.
I, as a faithful American and former grocery store employee, feel certain that owl is talking about Kraft Easy Cheese (commonly referred to as “spray cheese”):
I’m not sure that income tax rate is the complete story. At least in my field (several years back), average salaries for comparable work were much higher in the US. Consumer prices seemed either the same or somewhat higher in Britain. So at the end of the day, the average US citizen probably has a bit extra to piss away on Cheese Whiz and cold beer.
According to various sources I’ve read (and am too lazy to look up and cite), the taxes that the colonists were rebelling against were not particularly onerous when compared to what the British public was paying and the services that the American colonists were getting from the Crown.
