NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/5537

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-27 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5537 alt.censorship:7197 rec.audio:11868
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!bu.edu!nntp-read!michael
From: [e-mail] (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,rec.audio
Subject: Re: The Stamp Act and the DAT tax
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:56:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 61
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 25 Aug 92 19:53:47 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
 =Actually, the Stamp Act was imposed as a means of having the colonists
 =pay for the expense that the British government went through in defending
 =them during the French and Indian War.  Such an excise tax, while new in
 =the Colonies, had existed for years in England.  It was not an unfair tax
 =under English law.  The secessionist movements in the Colonies siezed upon it
 =as a useful political and propaganda tool for whipping up opposition to
 =British rule.  Their legal arguments were relly pretty bogus.

You are correct in stating that the stamp tax was not unfair under
English Law. The English had their interests represented in the
British Parliament. The Colonists, however, had no direct
representation in the Parliament, nor could it be feasible,
given the distances involved. The beef of the Colonists was that
there be no taxation without representation. This would place
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that power then with the Colonial governments. As for the
secessionists, well I believe it interesting to note that for
a good period of time before the Revolutionary War, most of the
Colonists viewed the Parliament as the source of their troubles,
(as it rivaled and overrided the Colonial Legislatures)
not George III. It was not secession from the British Empire
that was held as the main goal (at the very earliest), but rather
the removal of Parliament from the affairs of the colonies.
Only the pig-headedness of the British at the time ensured that
the situation escalated into a full revolution.(Note that I'm not
treating the effects of commerce, etc., since the focus here is
on taxes.)

Aside from this history (just what *was* bogus about the reasoning
of the revolutionaries?) what can be said about the DAT tax?

 =The big reason why one should opposed the proposed tax on blank DATs is the
 =purpose behind the tax.  The two main reasons for having a tax on something are
  =(1) to collect revenue to pay for general government services (e.g., federal
  =income tax) or (2) to pay for a specific service related to the item being
  =taxed (e.g., federal and state taxes on gasoline).  This proposed DAT tax is
  =neither.  Rather, it is a use of the government's taxing powers to collect
  =royalty fees for private individuals and organizations.  That is not what taxes
   are supposed to be for.

  =--PSW

Amen to that! Royalty fees for blank tapes?
As Matt Groening said,
"Instead of making millions and millions of dollars,
the music industry would only be making millions of dollars."

Chaplin.

"Bush? Clinton? Hmmmm.
Is it too late to ask the British to take us back?"

--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
[e-mail]                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project,
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.