Boston Tea Party
-
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties when contrasted with the Boston Tea Party, which apparently is the model? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to. Now, how is this relevant to the current movement? When conservatives have continually requested further tax cuts for corporations. Reagan gave many while increasing taxes on working people. Something smells a little funny, I think it might be the tea.
This statement is false
-
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties when contrasted with the Boston Tea Party, which apparently is the model? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to. Now, how is this relevant to the current movement? When conservatives have continually requested further tax cuts for corporations. Reagan gave many while increasing taxes on working people. Something smells a little funny, I think it might be the tea.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay.
Citation, please? I am under the impression that the Tea Party was held by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty to protest a tax which had been levied without representation. (The tax was only on the colonies.) An earlier protest on the same grounds had resulted in the repeal of an act which taxed every document that required an official givernment stamp to be legal, but George and Lord North insisted on proving that parliament had the right to tax the colonies by continuing the levy on tea. I believe you are right that the East India Company was able to sell their tea, even with the tax, more cheaply than the smuggled Dutch tea that the colonials turned to in their boycott of the British stuff. Occasionally, at least back then, Americans put principle before price. When the Royal Governor of Massachusetts (whose sons were tea importers) refused to allow three ships filled with East Indian Company (an extremely powerful corporation) to return to England without unloading their tea, the Sons of Liberty went aboard three British ships and dumped almost 100,000 lbs of tea into the harbor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties when contrasted with the Boston Tea Party, which apparently is the model? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to. Now, how is this relevant to the current movement? When conservatives have continually requested further tax cuts for corporations. Reagan gave many while increasing taxes on working people. Something smells a little funny, I think it might be the tea.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties
nope, but the left is shitting in their pants because Americans are coming out of their socialist stupor.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay.
Citation, please? I am under the impression that the Tea Party was held by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty to protest a tax which had been levied without representation. (The tax was only on the colonies.) An earlier protest on the same grounds had resulted in the repeal of an act which taxed every document that required an official givernment stamp to be legal, but George and Lord North insisted on proving that parliament had the right to tax the colonies by continuing the levy on tea. I believe you are right that the East India Company was able to sell their tea, even with the tax, more cheaply than the smuggled Dutch tea that the colonials turned to in their boycott of the British stuff. Occasionally, at least back then, Americans put principle before price. When the Royal Governor of Massachusetts (whose sons were tea importers) refused to allow three ships filled with East Indian Company (an extremely powerful corporation) to return to England without unloading their tea, the Sons of Liberty went aboard three British ships and dumped almost 100,000 lbs of tea into the harbor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
From Wikipedia:[^] Tea trade to 1767 As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from the East Indies.[2] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[3] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[4] The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[5] Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain.[6] Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices.[7] The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[8]—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.[9] In order to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies.[10] To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies.[11] Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies. [edit] its the last paragraph, and my original numbers were a little off, but the precept is the same.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties
nope, but the left is shitting in their pants because Americans are coming out of their socialist stupor.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
nope, but the left is shitting in their pants because Americans are coming out of their socialist stupor.
Maybe.. but that sounds like projection. And you talk about buzzwords. Tis modus operandi for conservatives.
This statement is false
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
nope, but the left is shitting in their pants because Americans are coming out of their socialist stupor.
Maybe.. but that sounds like projection. And you talk about buzzwords. Tis modus operandi for conservatives.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
And you talk about buzzwords.
well, no I don't.
Synaptrik wrote:
Tis modus operandi for conservatives.
typical progressive (like that better?) approach - can't contradict the statement, criticize the deliverer of said statement.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
From Wikipedia:[^] Tea trade to 1767 As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from the East Indies.[2] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[3] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[4] The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[5] Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain.[6] Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices.[7] The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[8]—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.[9] In order to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies.[10] To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies.[11] Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies. [edit] its the last paragraph, and my original numbers were a little off, but the precept is the same.
This statement is false
In your OP you said: "The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. "So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to." Nothing in your citation supports these claims that local companies and individuals were required to pay the Townshend tax which was levied only on goods, later Tea, imported into the colonies. Nor, as your citation makes clear, was the Boston Tea Party a demonstration against corporate tax cuts of any kind, but against taxation without representation. In other words, you were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Synaptrik wrote:
And you talk about buzzwords.
well, no I don't.
Synaptrik wrote:
Tis modus operandi for conservatives.
typical progressive (like that better?) approach - can't contradict the statement, criticize the deliverer of said statement.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
In your OP you said: "The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. "So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to." Nothing in your citation supports these claims that local companies and individuals were required to pay the Townshend tax which was levied only on goods, later Tea, imported into the colonies. Nor, as your citation makes clear, was the Boston Tea Party a demonstration against corporate tax cuts of any kind, but against taxation without representation. In other words, you were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, touche to criticizing the wording of my post. You are correct. in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, My core point is still valid. It is however coupled with your point. Both are valid and to ignore some of the actions leading to the revolt could be interpreted as disengenious. But, go for it. You win this one. No need to engage in the possibility that my point had validity in spite of its ill wording. "The back room - where folks gather to generate a homogeneous view of reality" ~toungue in cheek kindof.
This statement is false
-
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties when contrasted with the Boston Tea Party, which apparently is the model? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to. Now, how is this relevant to the current movement? When conservatives have continually requested further tax cuts for corporations. Reagan gave many while increasing taxes on working people. Something smells a little funny, I think it might be the tea.
This statement is false
I think most of us understand the Boston tea party to have been a protest of the Townsend Act, which was a tax levied exclusively on the colonies, rather than the Tea act, which was (as you point out) a tax break for the East India company. No colonist cared if the East India Company benefited, as long as the tax break was passed along equally to all. The Townsend Act made the colonies pay a duty not required elsewhere, and was the "taxation w/o representation" part. I am considering participating in demonstrations near me, not as a protest of the cancellation of the Bush tax cuts, but to protest plans to tax the company provided part of my health care benefits, which would have a far more personal impact as a t tax increase than restoring the 30% rate above $250k, or returning to the pre-Bush death tax rates (though I'm not particularly fond of those plans either), but also to protest the much more damaging impact of all the money supply increase: inflation is the cruelest tax of all, and is a tax which will burden my grandchildren even more than me.
-
Nope, your right. It was Rob that asked if I could fit any more buzzwords into my post. My mistake.
This statement is false
'Scuse please? Don't recall that. Perhaps I didn't say it quite that way...
-
Does anyone else find cognitive dissonance with the recent conservative Tea parties when contrasted with the Boston Tea Party, which apparently is the model? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a Corporate tax cut. Essentially the India Tea Company received a tax cut where they paid 0% instead of 30 which the local smaller companies and individuals were required to pay. So the protest was against this corporation receiving tax cuts that individual citizens weren't entitled to. Now, how is this relevant to the current movement? When conservatives have continually requested further tax cuts for corporations. Reagan gave many while increasing taxes on working people. Something smells a little funny, I think it might be the tea.
This statement is false
Wow. Thats the most amazingly stupid historic revisionism I've ever encountered. Is that what the left has been reduced to? The most mercatile society on the planet in 1776 (New England) was fighting against a corporation? Amazing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Nope, your right. It was Rob that asked if I could fit any more buzzwords into my post. My mistake.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
It was Rob that asked if I could fit any more buzzwords into my post
Wrong again. You should be able to tell the difference between Rob and I by now - I'm the good looking one. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
'Scuse please? Don't recall that. Perhaps I didn't say it quite that way...
-
Synaptrik wrote:
It was Rob that asked if I could fit any more buzzwords into my post
Wrong again. You should be able to tell the difference between Rob and I by now - I'm the good looking one. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Too bad my correction appeared before your cap. Look, I'll admit to shooting from the hip here. I'm not a democrat nor a republican. I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush. I'm merely struggling through the haze of propaganda on this board and ask questions and posit scenarios in the hopes of learning more. But it does appear that this is completely futile. So I think I'm just moving on. Enjoy, you all had a true opportunity to teach someone without a party of your viewpoints, but everyone seems to be more interested in those same buzzwords you accused me of. So, enjoy, this fish is wriggling off the hook. I tangle with the contradictions and propaganda elsewhere. But hey, slowly but surely you'll all be left with those who agree with you and you can slap each other on the back all you want.
This statement is false
-
Too bad my correction appeared before your cap. Look, I'll admit to shooting from the hip here. I'm not a democrat nor a republican. I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush. I'm merely struggling through the haze of propaganda on this board and ask questions and posit scenarios in the hopes of learning more. But it does appear that this is completely futile. So I think I'm just moving on. Enjoy, you all had a true opportunity to teach someone without a party of your viewpoints, but everyone seems to be more interested in those same buzzwords you accused me of. So, enjoy, this fish is wriggling off the hook. I tangle with the contradictions and propaganda elsewhere. But hey, slowly but surely you'll all be left with those who agree with you and you can slap each other on the back all you want.
This statement is false
-
Memory failure, I just went back and searched and actually it was Oak. Oh well. I'm not going to post for a while since I'm not getting anything right. Enjoy your conservative forum. I think I'm done.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Enjoy your conservative forum.
I don't think Stan & Mike would regard me or Jon as proper conservatives. Not full fledged pinko liberals perhaps, but at least mislead libertarians...
-
Good luck to you in all your endevors. Maybe, once you know what you are talking about, you'll come back and actually be able to learn something.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Nice to see you stick to form and offer a poke in the ribs as a parting gesture. I did learn one thing. Sharp pokes to the ribs by cantakerous old sores like yourself don't teach anything but "keep your distance". Wanna go for another cheap pathetic insult?
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Enjoy your conservative forum.
I don't think Stan & Mike would regard me or Jon as proper conservatives. Not full fledged pinko liberals perhaps, but at least mislead libertarians...
-
Nice to see you stick to form and offer a poke in the ribs as a parting gesture. I did learn one thing. Sharp pokes to the ribs by cantakerous old sores like yourself don't teach anything but "keep your distance". Wanna go for another cheap pathetic insult?
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Sharp pokes to the ribs by cantakerous old sores like yourself don't teach anything but "keep your distance".
You keep telling us that we are going to be denied the chance to teach you something, as if that should make us sad. It's been my experience in life that I am much more likely to be saddened by a lost opportunity to learn, than to teach. I was willing to give you a couple of history lessons, of course, because I am a bit of a showoff, but ultimately, I'll enjoy myself far more matching wits with Stan or Christian or any of the other regs, than simply doing a quick brain dump to bring you up to speed on a subject you started posting about. By the way, you keep mentioning my age as if that should hurt my feelings. Just to set the record straight, I'm quite proud of surviving this long and I am quite sure that it beats the alternative. Every time you call me old, it reminds me how clever I am to have gotten this way. ;) To quote the darling of the far left, Ms. Streisand: "Go or stay/I don't care/very much"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface