Novo

Townshend Revenue Act [1767] - História

Townshend Revenue Act [1767] - História


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

CONSIDERANDO que é conveniente que uma receita seja levantada, nos domínios de Vossa Majestade na América, para fazer uma provisão mais certa e adequada para custear a carga da administração da justiça, e o apoio do governo civil, em tais províncias. considerado necessário; e para continuar a custear as despesas de defesa, proteção e segurança dos ditos domínios; . seja ele promulgado. ., Isso de e depois. [20 de novembro de 1767]. deve ser levantado, cobrado, recolhido e pago, a sua Majestade, seus herdeiros e sucessores, para e sobre os respectivos Bens aqui mencionados, que serão importados da Grã-Bretanha para qualquer colônia ou plantação na América que agora é, ou daqui em diante pode estar, sob o domínio de sua majestade. ., as diversas Taxas e Deveres a seguir; quer dizer,
Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de coroa, placa, sílex e vidro branco, quatro xelins e oito pence.
Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de vidro verde, um xelim e dois pence.
Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de chumbo vermelho, dois xelins.
Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de chumbo branco, dois xelins.
Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de cores de pintores, dois xelins.
Para cada libra de peso avoirdupois de chá, três pence.
Para cada resma de papel, geralmente chamada ou conhecida pelo nome de Atlas, multa, doze xelins.
[Em seguida, siga as especificações de funções em sessenta e seis séries ou classes de papel.]

IV ... e que serão aplicados todos os valores que surgirem com os referidos tributos (exceto os necessários encargos de arrecadação, cobrança, cobrança, cobrança, resposta, pagamento e contabilização); em primeiro lugar, da maneira que é mencionada neste documento, em fazer uma provisão mais certa e adequada para o encargo da administração da justiça, e o
apoio do governo civil, nas ditas colônias e plantações onde for considerado necessário; e que o restante de tais taxas deve ser pago ao recibo do tesouro de sua Majestade, e deve ser lançado separadamente e à parte de todas as outras quantias pagas ou pagáveis ​​a Sua Majestade. .; e lá estarão reservados, para serem de tempos em tempos dispostos pelo parlamento para custear as despesas necessárias de defesa, proteção e segurança das colônias e plantações britânicas na América.

VI. E considerando que permitir a redução de todos os direitos aduaneiros sobre a exportação, deste reino, de café e cacau, o crescimento dos domínios britânicos na América, pode ser um meio de estimular o crescimento do café e do cacau no referido domínios; seja, portanto, promulgada. [20 de novembro de I767]. ., mediante a exportação de qualquer café ou cacau, do cultivo ou produto de qualquer colônia ou plantação britânica na América, deste reino como mercadoria, todos os direitos aduaneiros, devidos na importação de tal café ou cacau, deverão ser retirado e reembolsado; de tal maneira, e sob tais regras, regulamentos, penalidades e confiscos, como qualquer reembolso ou subsídio, pagável fora dos direitos aduaneiros. Após a exportação de tal café ou cacau, foi, poderia ou poderia ser paga, antes a passagem deste ato. .
VII. E é mais adiante promulgado. ., Que nenhuma desvantagem será permitida para qualquer porcelana de barro vendida, após a aprovação deste ato, na venda da empresa unida de mercadores da Inglaterra que negociam com as Índias Orientais, que será inscrita para exportação da Grã-Bretanha para qualquer parte da América ....

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

X. E enquanto por. [a explicativa Lei de Navegação de I662]. e vários outros atos agora em vigor, é lícito para qualquer oficial dos costumes de sua Majestade, autorizado por mandado de assistência sob o selo do tribunal do tesouro de sua Majestade, levar um condestável, headborough ou outro oficial público que more perto do local , e durante o dia para entrar e entrar em qualquer casa, loja, adega, armazém ou cômodo ou outro lugar, e, em caso de resistência, para quebrar portas abertas, baús, baús e outros pacotes ali, para apreender, e de lá trazer qualquer tipo de mercadoria ou mercadoria proibida ou Habituada, e colocá-la e acondicioná-la no armazém de Sua Majestade, próximo ao local onde a apreensão será feita: e por. [a Lei de Navegação de I696]. é, entre outras coisas, decretado que os oficiais para coletar e administrar a receita de Sua Majestade, e inspecionar o comércio de plantação, na América, terão os mesmos poderes e autoridades para entrar em casas ou armazéns, para procurar e apreender bens proibidos para ser importado ou exportado de ou para qualquer uma das ditas plantações, ou para a qual quaisquer direitos sejam devidos ou deveriam ter sido pagos; e que a mesma assistência deve ser dada aos referidos oficiais na execução de seus cargos, como, pelo referido ato recitado do décimo quarto ano do Rei Carlos II, é fornecido para os oficiais na Inglaterra: mas, nenhuma autoridade sendo expressamente dado pelo referido ato. do Rei Guilherme terceiro, a qualquer tribunal específico para conceder tais mandados de assistência aos oficiais da alfândega nas ditas plantações, duvida-se que tais oficiais possam legalmente entrar em casas e outros lugares em terra, para procurar e apreender bens, na forma dirigida pelos ditos atos recitados: Para eliminar quais dúvidas para o futuro, e a fim de levar a intenção dos ditos atos recitados em execução efetiva, seja ela promulgada. [20 de novembro de I767]. tais mandados de assistência, para autorizar e imputar os oficiais da alfândega de sua Majestade a entrar e entrar em qualquer casa. ou outro lugar, nas colônias britânicas ou plantações na América, para pesquisar e apreender produtos proibidos ou não usados. ., devem e podem ser concedidos pelo referido tribunal superior ou supremo de justiça com jurisdição dentro de tal colônia ou plantação, respectivamente.


Townshend Revenue Act [1767] - História

Uma série de medidas introduzidas no Parlamento inglês pelo Chanceler do Tesouro Charles Townshend em 1767, as Leis de Townshend impuseram taxas sobre vidro, chumbo, tintas, papel e chá importados para as colônias. Townshend esperava que os atos custeassem as despesas imperiais nas colônias, mas muitos americanos viam a taxação como um abuso de poder, resultando na aprovação de acordos para limitar as importações da Grã-Bretanha. Em 1770, o Parlamento revogou todas as taxas de Townshend, exceto o imposto sobre o chá, levando a uma trégua temporária entre os dois lados nos anos anteriores à Revolução Americana.

Benjamin Franklin e outros americanos na Grã-Bretanha argumentaram contra o poder do Parlamento de impor a Lei do Selo com o fundamento de que era um imposto direto. Os líderes britânicos se convenceram de que os colonos aceitariam os chamados impostos indiretos, como direitos de importação, um mal-entendido desejoso de opinião colonial.

Muitos americanos influentes acreditavam que o Parlamento não tinha o direito de impor quaisquer impostos aos colonos, vendo os impostos como um abuso da relação constitucional da Grã-Bretanha com as colônias. Como Samuel Adams, falando pela legislatura de Massachusetts, colocou: “Em todos os estados livres, a constituição é fixada, é daí que a legislatura obtém sua autoridade, portanto, não pode mudar a constituição sem destruir seus próprios alicerces.” Governador Francis Bernard. de Massachusetts dissolveu a legislatura quando emitiu uma Carta Circular descrevendo as medidas tomadas contra as Leis de Townshend. A Carta Circular levou a uma série de Acordos de Não Importação, que reduziram as importações coloniais da Grã-Bretanha em 1768-1769 pela metade.

Em abril de 1770, o Parlamento revogou todos os impostos de Townshend, exceto o imposto sobre o chá, que retinha para fazer valer seu direito de tributar as colônias. Isso levou a uma espécie de trégua, que durou até a queima do barco patrulha britânico Gaspee em 1772. Nos anos anteriores à Revolução, a resistência ao imposto do chá tornou-se um símbolo do patriotismo americano
.


TOWNSHEND REVENUE ACT (29 de junho de 1767)

Um dos quatro estatutos legislativos convocados em homenagem ao Chanceler do Tesouro da Coroa, Charles Townshend (1725-1767) e destinada a ajudar a cobrir as despesas crescentes da colonização norte-americana, o Townshend Revenue Act impôs taxas de importação sobre bens materiais como chumbo, chá, papel e tinta. As outras Leis de Townshend sancionaram mandados de busca abrangentes chamados de Mandados de Assistência, estabeleceram tribunais sem júris, criaram um conselho de comissários alfandegários em Boston e suspenderam a assembleia de Nova York quando contestou publicamente a Lei de Quartering de 1765. A reação colonial indignada incluiu mais petições para o rei, boicotes a produtos britânicos e aumento da violência de grupos como os radicais Sons of Liberty. Repreendido, o Parlamento revogou os direitos em 1770, exceto, desastrosamente para a Coroa, o do chá.

Laura M.Moleiro,
Universidade Vanderbilt

Um ato de concessão de certas funções no britânico colônias e plantações em América por permitir um draubaque dos direitos aduaneiros sobre a exportação deste reino, de café e cacau da produção das referidas colônias ou plantações para descontinuar os draubaques devidos em porcelana de barro exportada para a América e para prevenir mais eficazmente a corrida clandestina de bens nas referidas colônias e plantações.

Enquanto que é conveniente que uma receita seja levantada, nos domínios de Vossa Majestade em América, para fazer uma provisão mais certa e adequada para custear o encargo da administração da justiça, e o apoio do governo civil, nas províncias que forem consideradas necessárias e para continuar a custear as despesas de defesa, proteção e garantia dos ditos domínios ... seja promulgado. ... Que a partir do vigésimo dia de novembro, mil setecentos e sessenta e sete, serão levantados, arrecadados, recolhidos e pagos, a sua Majestade, seus herdeiros e sucessores, por sobre e os respectivos Bens aqui mencionados, que serão importados de Grã Bretanha em qualquer colônia ou plantação em América que agora está ou no futuro pode estar, sob o domínio de sua Majestade, seus herdeiros ou sucessores, as várias Taxas e Deveres seguintes, ou seja,

Para cada centavo avoirdupois de coroa, placa, sílex e vidro branco, quatro xelins e oito pence.

Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de chumbo vermelho, dois xelins.

Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de vidro verde, um xelim e dois pence.

Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de chumbo branco, dois xelins.

Para cada cem pesos avoirdupois de cores de pintores, dois xelins.

Para cada libra de peso avoirdupois de chá, três pence.

Para cada resma de papel, geralmente chamada ou conhecida pelo nome de Atlas bem, doze xelins. ...


Revogação britânica odiada pela Lei de Townshend nas Colônias

Em 12 de abril de 1770, o governo britânico se move para apaziguar os colonos indignados, revogando a maioria das cláusulas da odiada Lei de Townshend. Aprovado inicialmente em 29 de junho de 1767, o Townshend Act constituiu uma tentativa do governo britânico de consolidar o poder fiscal e político sobre as colônias americanas, impondo impostos de importação sobre muitos dos produtos britânicos comprados pelos americanos, incluindo chumbo, papel, tinta, vidro e chá.

A medida levava o nome de seu patrocinador, Charles Townshend, o chanceler do Tesouro, que era notoriamente conservador em seu entendimento dos direitos coloniais. A lei de receita anual de Townshend & # x2019s arrecadou um pacote polêmico de impostos sobre os colonos, incluindo impostos sobre chumbo, pintores & # x2019 cores, papel e chá. O chanceler também minou o judiciário colonial ao aumentar o poder dos tribunais do vice-almirantado da Marinha britânica sobre os colonos americanos e iniciar um Conselho Americano de Comissários Aduaneiros encarregado de fazer cumprir seus novos impostos de importação. Esses impostos foram usados, pelo menos em parte, para financiar os salários dos governadores e juízes coloniais, a fim de garantir sua independência financeira e, portanto, política das assembléias coloniais. Townshend também transferiu as tropas britânicas da fronteira oeste para a costa leste, onde eram menos caros de fornecer e mais problemáticos para os colonos, que temiam que estivessem sendo solicitados a cobrir as despesas de sua própria opressão militar.

Protestos tumultuosos contra as Leis de Townshend nas colônias frequentemente invocavam a frase sem tributação sem representação. Os colonos eventualmente decidiram não importar mercadorias britânicas até que a lei fosse revogada e boicotar quaisquer mercadorias importadas em violação ao seu acordo de não importação. A raiva colonial culminou no massacre mortal de Boston em 5 de março de 1770.

Também em 5 de março, o sucessor de Townshend & # x2019s (ele havia morrido logo após propor o ato odiado), Lord Frederick North, pediu ao Parlamento que revogasse as Leis de Townshend, exceto para o imposto sobre o chá, ele considerava todos os deveres ruins para o comércio e, portanto, caro para o império britânico. No entanto, ele desejava evitar a aparência de fraqueza em face do protesto colonial e, assim, deixou o imposto sobre o chá em vigor. Essa estratégia dividiu com sucesso os mercadores coloniais, ansiosos por seu próprio enriquecimento, por retomar o comércio de todos os produtos britânicos exceto o chá, de artesãos coloniais, que lucravam com acordos de não importação e desejavam mantê-los enquanto o imposto sobre o chá permaneceu em vigor.


The Townshend Revenue Act

ENQUANTO QUE é conveniente que uma receita seja levantada, nos domínios de Vossa Majestade em América, para fazer uma provisão mais certa e adequada para custear a carga da administração da justiça, e para o apoio do governo civil, nas províncias onde for considerado necessário e para pagar ainda mais as despesas de defesa, proteção e garantia, o disse domínios ... seja promulgado ... Que a partir do vigésimo dia de novembrode Grã Bretanha em qualquer colônia ou plantação em América que agora está, ou no futuro pode estar, sob o domínio de sua Majestade, seus herdeiros ou sucessores, as várias taxas e deveres que se seguem ... [sobre vidro, chumbo vermelho, chumbo branco, cores do pintor & # 8217s, chá e papel.]

4. E é ainda decretado pela autoridade acima mencionada, que as referidas taxas e direitos, cobrados por este ato sobre as mercadorias importadas em qualquer Americano britânico colônia ou plantação, será considerada, e declarada como sendo, dinheiro em libras esterlinas de Grã Bretanha e deve ser recolhido, recuperado e pago, ao montante do valor que tais somas nominais representam em Grã Bretanha e que tais quantias possam ser recebidas e tomadas, de acordo com a proporção e valor de cinco xelins e seis pence a onça em prata ... e que todas as quantias que surgirem pelos referidos direitos ... serão aplicadas, em primeiro lugar, da maneira aqui mencionada, em fazer uma provisão mais certa e adequada para o encargo da administração da justiça, e o apoio do governo civil, em tais colônias e plantações onde for considerado necessário e que o o resíduo de tais taxas será pago no recibo do tesouro de sua Majestade & # 8217s, e será lançado separadamente e à parte de todas as outras quantias pagas ou pagáveis ​​a sua Majestade, seus herdeiros ou sucessores e deve ser reservado, para ser ao tempo disponibilizado pelo parlamento para custear as despesas necessárias de defesa, proteção e garantia, o britânico colônias e plantações em América.

V. E seja ainda promulgado pela autoridade acima mencionada, Que sua Majestade e seus sucessores serão, e por meio deste, imputados, de tempos em tempos, por quaisquer mandados ou mandados sob seu manual de sinais reais ou manuais de sinais, rubricados por o alto tesoureiro, ou quaisquer três ou mais dos comissários da tesouraria por enquanto, para fazer com que tais verbas sejam aplicadas, a partir do produto dos deveres concedidos por este ato, como sua Majestade ou seus sucessores pensarão próprio ou necessário, para custear a administração da justiça e o apoio do governo civil, em todas ou qualquer uma das ditas colônias ou plantações ...

X. E considerando que por uma lei do parlamento feita no décimo quarto ano do reinado do rei Charles o segundo, intitulado, Um ato para prevenir fraudes e regulamentar abusos, nos costumes de Sua Majestade & # 8217s, e vários outros atos agora em vigor, é lícito a qualquer oficial dos costumes de sua Majestade & # 8217s, autorizado por mandado de assistência sob o selo do tribunal do tesouro de sua Majestade & # 8217s, levar um condestável, chefe do distrito ou outro público oficial que habite próximo ao local, e durante o dia para entrar e entrar em qualquer casa, loja, adega, depósito ou cômodo ou outro lugar, e, em caso de resistência, para quebrar portas, baús, baús e outro pacote ali, para apreender, e de lá trazer, qualquer tipo de mercadoria ou mercadoria proibida ou não utilizada, e para colocar e proteger o sasme no depósito de sua Majestade & # 8217s próximo ao local onde tal apreensão será feita: e considerando que por um ato feito no sétimo e oitavo anos do reinado de Rei Guilherme o terceiro, intitulado, Um ato para prevenir fraudes e regulamentar abusos, no comércio de plantações, ou seja, entre outras coisas, decretou que os oficiais para coletar e gerenciar as receitas de Sua Majestade e inspecionar o comércio de plantações, em América, terá os mesmos poderes e autoridades para entrar em casas ou armazéns, para procurar e apreender bens proibidos de serem importados ou exportados para ou de qualquer uma das ditas plantações, ou para os quais quaisquer direitos sejam devidos ou deveriam ter sido pagos e que a mesma assistência deve ser dada aos referidos oficiais na execução de seus cargos como, pelo referido ato recitado do décimo quarto ano de Rei charles o segundo, é fornecido para os oficiais em Inglaterra: mas, nenhuma autoridade sendo expressamente dada pelo referido ato, feito no sétimo e oitavo anos do reinado do rei William a Terceira, a qualquer tribunal particular que conceda tais mandados de assistência aos funcionários da alfândega nas ditas plantações, duvida-se que tais funcionários possam legalmente entrar em casas e outros lugares em terra, para procurar e apreender bens, da maneira dirigido pelos ditos atos recitados: Para eliminar quais dúvidas para o futuro, e a fim de levar a intenção dos referidos atos recitados em execução efetiva, seja ela promulgada, e é por meio deste promulgada pela autoridade acima mencionada, que a partir de e após o referido vigésimo dia de novembro, mil setecentos e sessenta e sete, tais mandados de assistência, para autorizar e impelir os oficiais da alfândega de sua Majestade a entrar e entrar em qualquer casa, armazém, loja, adega ou outro lugar, no britânico colônias ou plantações em América, para procurar e apreender bens proibidos ou não habituais, na forma dirigida pelos referidos atos recitados, deve e pode ser concedida pelo referido tribunal superior ou supremo de justiça com jurisdição dentro de tal colônia ou plantação, respectivamente ...


Townshend Acts

As Leis de Townshend foram projetadas para arrecadar receita para ser usada em parte para apoiar governadores coloniais, juízes, oficiais da alfândega e o exército britânico na América. Em resposta, o advogado da Filadélfia John Dickinson, em Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer, argumentou que o Parlamento tinha o direito de controlar o comércio imperial, mas não tinha o direito de tributar as colônias, fossem as taxas externas ou internas.

A agitação que se seguiu à promulgação dos deveres de Townshend foi menos violenta do que a provocada pela Lei do Selo, mas mesmo assim foi forte, especialmente nas cidades da costa leste. Os comerciantes mais uma vez recorreram a acordos de não importação e as pessoas se contentaram com produtos locais. Os colonos, por exemplo, vestiam roupas feitas em casa e encontravam substitutos para o chá. Eles usaram papel feito em casa e suas casas não foram pintadas. Em Boston, a aplicação dos novos regulamentos provocou violência. Quando os funcionários da alfândega procuravam cobrar taxas, eram atacados pela população e maltratados. Por esta infração, dois regimentos britânicos foram despachados para proteger os comissários da alfândega.

A presença de tropas britânicas em Boston era um convite permanente à desordem. Em 5 de março de 1770, o antagonismo entre cidadãos e soldados britânicos novamente explodiu em violência. O que começou como uma bola de neve inofensiva de soldados britânicos degenerou em um ataque da multidão. Alguém deu a ordem de atirar. Quando a fumaça se dissipou, três Bostonians caíram mortos na neve. Apelidado de "Massacre de Boston", o incidente foi dramaticamente retratado como prova da crueldade e tirania britânicas.

Diante de tal oposição, o Parlamento em 1770 optou por um recuo estratégico e revogou todos os deveres de Townshend, exceto o do chá, que era um item de luxo nas colônias, consumido apenas por uma minoria muito pequena. Para a maioria, a ação do Parlamento significava que os colonos haviam ganhado uma grande concessão e a campanha contra a Inglaterra foi largamente abandonada. Um embargo colonial ao "chá inglês" continuou, mas não foi observado de maneira muito escrupulosa. A prosperidade estava aumentando e a maioria dos líderes coloniais estava disposta a deixar o futuro cuidar de si mesmo.


29/06/1767 & # 8211 Causes of War & # 8211 Commissioners of Customs Act of 1767 Recebeu consentimento real (um dos atos de Townshend)

Os Townshend Acts foram uma série de atos aprovados, começando em 1767, pelo Parlamento da Grã-Bretanha em relação às colônias britânicas na América do Norte. Os atos têm o nome de Charles Townshend, o Chanceler do Tesouro, que propôs o programa. Os historiadores variam ligeiramente nos atos que incluem sob o título & # 8220Townshend Acts & # 8221, mas cinco leis são frequentemente mencionadas: a Lei da Receita de 1767, a Lei de Indenização, a Lei dos Comissários de Alfândega, a Lei do Vice-Almirantado e a Nova Lei de Restrição de York. O objetivo das Leis de Townshend era aumentar a receita nas colônias para pagar os salários dos governadores e juízes para que fossem independentes do governo colonial, para criar um meio mais eficaz de fazer cumprir os regulamentos comerciais, para punir a província de New York por não cumprir a Lei de Quartering de 1765 e por estabelecer o precedente de que o Parlamento britânico tinha o direito de tributar as colônias. Os Townshend Acts encontraram resistência nas colônias, levando à ocupação de Boston pelas tropas britânicas em 1768, o que acabou resultando no Massacre de Boston em 1770.

Como resultado do massacre em Boston, o Parlamento começou a considerar uma moção para revogar parcialmente os deveres de Townshend. A maioria dos novos impostos foi revogada, mas o imposto sobre o chá foi retido. O governo britânico continuou em sua tentativa de taxar os colonos sem seu consentimento e o Boston Tea Party e a Revolução Americana se seguiram.

Após a Guerra dos Sete Anos & # 8217 (1756–1763), o Império Britânico estava afundado em dívidas. Para ajudar a pagar alguns dos custos do império recém-expandido, o Parlamento britânico decidiu cobrar novos impostos sobre as colônias da América britânica. Anteriormente, por meio das Leis de Comércio e Navegação, o Parlamento usava a tributação para regular o comércio do império. Mas com a Lei do Açúcar de 1764, o Parlamento procurou, pela primeira vez, tributar as colônias com o propósito específico de aumentar a receita. Os colonos americanos inicialmente se opuseram à Lei do Açúcar por razões econômicas, mas logo reconheceram que havia questões constitucionais envolvidas.

Argumentou-se que a Declaração de Direitos de 1688 protegia os súditos britânicos de serem tributados sem o consentimento de um Parlamento verdadeiramente representativo. Como as colônias não elegeram membros do Parlamento Britânico, muitos colonos viram a tentativa do Parlamento de tributá-los como uma violação da doutrina constitucional da tributação apenas por consentimento. Alguns políticos britânicos rebateram esse argumento com a teoria da & # 8220 representação virtual & # 8221, que sustentava que os colonos estavam de fato representados no Parlamento, embora não elegessem nenhum membro. Esta questão, apenas brevemente debatida após a Lei do Açúcar, tornou-se um grande ponto de discórdia após a aprovação da Lei do Selo de 1765 pelo Parlamento & # 8217. A Lei do Selo provou ser extremamente impopular nas colônias, contribuindo para sua revogação no ano seguinte, juntamente com a falta de arrecadação de receitas substanciais.

Implícita na disputa da Lei do Selo estava uma questão mais fundamental do que tributação e representação: a questão da extensão da autoridade do Parlamento nas colônias. O Parlamento respondeu a esta pergunta quando revogou a Lei do Selo em 1766, ao aprovar simultaneamente o Ato Declaratório, que proclamava que o Parlamento poderia legislar para as colônias & # 8220 em todos os casos & # 8221.

O primeiro dos Townshend Acts, às vezes conhecido simplesmente como Townshend Act, foi o Revenue Act de 1767. Este ato representou a nova abordagem do ministério de Chatham para gerar receita tributária nas colônias americanas após a revogação da Lei do Selo em 1766. O governo britânico teve a impressão de que, como os colonos se opuseram à Lei do Selo, alegando que era um imposto direto (ou & # 8220 interno & # 8221), os colonos, portanto, aceitariam impostos indiretos (ou & # 8220 externos & # 8221), como os impostos sobre as importações. Com isso em mente, Charles Townshend, o Chanceler do Tesouro, elaborou um plano que colocava novas taxas sobre papel, tinta, chumbo, vidro e chá importados para as colônias. Esses eram itens que não eram produzidos na América do Norte e que os colonos só podiam comprar da Grã-Bretanha.

A crença do governo britânico de que os colonos aceitariam impostos & # 8220 externos & # 8221 resultou de um mal-entendido da objeção colonial à Lei do Selo. A objeção dos colonos aos impostos & # 8220internos & # 8221 não significava que eles aceitariam impostos & # 8220 externos & # 8221. A posição colonial era que qualquer imposto estabelecido pelo Parlamento com o propósito de aumentar a receita era inconstitucional. & # 8220Townshend & # 8217s crença errônea de que os americanos consideravam os impostos internos como inconstitucionais e os impostos externos constitucionais & # 8221, escreveu o historiador John Phillip Reid, & # 8220 foi de vital importância na história dos eventos que levaram à Revolução. & # 8221 The Townshend Revenue Act recebeu o consentimento real em 29 de junho de 1767. Havia pouca oposição expressa no Parlamento na época. & # 8220Nunca poderia uma medida fatídica ter uma passagem mais tranquila & # 8221, escreveu o historiador Peter Thomas.

A Lei da Receita foi aprovada em conjunto com a Lei de Indenização de 1767, que pretendia tornar o chá da British East India Company mais competitivo com o chá holandês contrabandeado. A Lei de Indenização revogou os impostos sobre o chá importado para a Inglaterra, permitindo que ele fosse reexportado mais barato para as colônias. Esse corte de impostos na Inglaterra seria parcialmente compensado pelos novos impostos da Lei de Receitas sobre o chá nas colônias. A Lei da Receita também reafirmou a legalidade dos mandados de assistência, ou mandados de busca geral, que deram aos funcionários da alfândega amplos poderes para fazer buscas em casas e empresas em busca de mercadorias contrabandeadas.

O propósito original declarado dos deveres de Townshend era levantar uma receita para ajudar a pagar o custo de manutenção de um exército na América do Norte. Townshend mudou o propósito do plano tributário, porém, e em vez disso decidiu usar a receita para pagar os salários de alguns governadores e juízes coloniais. Anteriormente, as assembléias coloniais pagavam esses salários, mas o Parlamento esperava tirar o & # 8220poder da bolsa & # 8221 das colônias. De acordo com o historiador John C. Miller, & # 8220Townshend engenhosamente procurou tirar dinheiro dos americanos por meio de impostos parlamentares e empregá-lo contra suas liberdades, tornando governadores coloniais e juízes independentes das assembleias. & # 8221

Alguns membros do Parlamento objetaram porque o plano de Townshend & # 8217s deveria gerar apenas ₤ 40.000 em receita anual, mas ele explicou que uma vez que o precedente para tributar os colonos fosse firmemente estabelecido, o programa poderia ser gradualmente expandido até que as colônias se pagassem. De acordo com o historiador Peter Thomas, os objetivos de Townshend eram mais políticos do que financeiros & # 8221.

Para coletar melhor os novos impostos, o Commissioners of Customs Act de 1767 estabeleceu o American Board of Customs Commissioners, que foi modelado no British Board of Customs. O American Customs Board foi criado devido às dificuldades que o British Board enfrentou para fazer cumprir os regulamentos comerciais nas colônias distantes. Cinco comissários foram nomeados para o conselho, que tinha sede em Boston. O American Customs Board geraria considerável hostilidade nas colônias contra o governo britânico. De acordo com o historiador Oliver M. Dickerson, & # 8220A separação real das colônias continentais do resto do Império data da criação deste conselho administrativo independente. & # 8221

Outra medida para ajudar na aplicação das leis de comércio foi o Vice Admiralty Court Act de 1768. Embora frequentemente incluído nas discussões das Leis de Townshend, este ato foi iniciado pelo Gabinete quando Townshend não estava presente e não foi aprovado até depois de sua morte . Antes desse ato, havia apenas um tribunal do vice-almirantado na América do Norte, localizado em Halifax, Nova Escócia. Estabelecido em 1764, este tribunal provou ser muito remoto para servir todas as colônias, e assim o Vice Admiralty Court Act de 1768 criou quatro tribunais distritais, localizados em Halifax, Boston, Filadélfia e Charleston. Um dos objetivos dos tribunais do vice-almirantado, que não tinham júris, era ajudar os funcionários da alfândega a processar contrabandistas, uma vez que os júris coloniais relutavam em condenar pessoas por violarem regulamentos comerciais impopulares.

Townshend também enfrentou o problema do que fazer com a Assembleia Provincial de Nova York, que se recusou a cumprir a Lei de Quartering de 1765 porque seus membros consideraram as disposições financeiras da lei como cobrando um imposto inconstitucional. A Lei de Restrição de Nova York, que, de acordo com o historiador Robert Chaffin, era oficialmente parte das Leis de Townshend & # 8221, suspendeu o poder da Assembleia até que ela cumprisse a Lei de Quartering. A Lei de Restrição nunca entrou em vigor porque, na época em que foi aprovada, a Assembleia de Nova York já havia alocado dinheiro para cobrir os custos da Lei de Quartering. A Assembleia evitou conceder ao Parlamento o direito de tributar as colônias ao não fazer referência à Lei de Quartering ao apropriar esse dinheiro. Também aprovou uma resolução declarando que o Parlamento não poderia suspender constitucionalmente uma legislatura eleita.

Townshend sabia que seu programa seria polêmico nas colônias, mas argumentou que, & # 8220A superioridade da pátria não pode ser mais bem exercida do que agora. & # 8221 Os atos de Townshend não criaram um alvoroço instantâneo como o Selo Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the program had become widespread. Townshend did not live to see this reaction, having died suddenly on 4 September 1767.

The most influential colonial response to the Townshend Acts was a series of twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania”, which began appearing in December 1767. Eloquently articulating ideas already widely accepted in the colonies, Dickinson argued that there was no difference between “internal” and “external” taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising a revenue were unconstitutional. Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low, since this would set a dangerous precedent.

Dickinson sent a copy of his “Letters” to James Otis of Massachusetts, informing Otis that “whenever the Cause of American Freedom is to be vindicated, I look towards the Province of Massachusetts Bay”. The Massachusetts House of Representatives began a campaign against the Townshend Acts by first sending a petition to King George asking for the repeal of the Revenue Act, and then sending a letter to the other colonial assemblies, asking them to join the resistance movement. Upon receipt of the Massachusetts Circular Letter, other colonies also sent petitions to the king. Virginia and Pennsylvania also sent petitions to Parliament, but the other colonies did not, believing that it might have been interpreted as an admission of Parliament’s sovereignty over them. Parliament refused to consider the petitions of Virginia and Pennsylvania.

In Great Britain, Lord Hillsborough, who had recently been appointed to the newly created office of Colonial Secretary, was alarmed by the actions of the Massachusetts House. In April 1768 he sent a letter to the colonial governors in America, instructing them to dissolve the colonial assemblies if they responded to the Massachusetts Circular Letter. He also sent a letter to Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard, instructing him to have the Massachusetts House rescind the Circular Letter. By a vote of 92 to 17, the House refused to comply, and Bernard promptly dissolved the legislature.

Merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1769. Merchants in other colonial ports, including New York City and Philadelphia, eventually joined the boycott. In Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, Governor Lord Botetourt dissolved the assembly. The members met at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the “Association”.

The non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. British exports to the colonies declined by 38 percent in 1769, but there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott. The boycott movement began to fail by 1770, and came to an end in 1771.

The newly created American Customs Board was seated in Boston, and so it was there that the Board concentrated on strictly enforcing the Townshend Acts. The acts were so unpopular in Boston that the Customs Board requested naval and military assistance. Commodore Samuel Hood complied by sending the fifty-gun warship HMS Romney, which arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768.

On June 10, 1768, customs officials seized the Liberty, a sloop owned by leading Boston merchant John Hancock, on allegations that the ship had been involved in smuggling. Bostonians, already angry because the captain of the Romney had been impressing local sailors, began to riot. Customs officials fled to Castle William for protection. With John Adams serving as his lawyer, Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice-admiralty court, but the charges were eventually dropped.

Given the unstable state of affairs in Massachusetts, Hillsborough instructed Governor Bernard to try to find evidence of treason in Boston. Parliament had determined that the Treason Act 1543 was still in force, which would allow Bostonians to be transported to England to stand trial for treason. Bernard could find no one who was willing to provide reliable evidence, however, and so there were no treason trials. The possibility that American colonists might be arrested and sent to England for trial produced alarm and outrage in the colonies.

Even before the Liberty riot, Hillsborough had decided to send troops to Boston. On 8 June 1768, he instructed General Thomas Gage, Commander-in-Chief, North America, to send “such Force as You shall think necessary to Boston”, although he conceded that this might lead to “consequences not easily foreseen”. Hillsborough suggested that Gage might send one regiment to Boston, but the Liberty incident convinced officials that more than one regiment would be needed.

People in Massachusetts learned in September 1768 that troops were on the way. Samuel Adams organized an emergency, extralegal convention of towns and passed resolutions against the imminent occupation of Boston, but on 1 October 1768, the first of four regiments of the British Army began disembarking in Boston, and the Customs Commissioners returned to town. The “Journal of Occurrences”, an anonymously written series of newspaper articles, chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers during the military occupation of Boston, apparently with some exaggeration. Tensions rose after Christopher Seider, a Boston teenager, was killed by a customs employee on 22 February 1770. Although British soldiers were not involved in that incident, resentment against the occupation escalated in the days that followed, resulting in the killing of five civilians in the so-called Boston Massacre of 5 March 1770. After the incident, the troops were withdrawn to Castle William.

On the 5 of March 1770— the same day as the Boston Massacre—Lord North, the new Prime Minister, presented a motion in the House of Commons that called for partial repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act. Although some in Parliament advocated a complete repeal of the act, North disagreed, arguing that the tea duty should be retained to assert “the right of taxing the Americans”. After debate, the Repeal Act received the Royal Assent on 12 April 1770.

Historian Robert Chaffin argued that little had actually changed: It would be inaccurate to claim that a major part of the Townshend Acts had been repealed. The revenue-producing tea levy, the American Board of Customs and, most important, the principle of making governors and magistrates independent all remained. In fact, the modification of the Townshend Duties Act was scarcely any change at all.

The Townshend duty on tea was retained when the 1773 Tea Act was passed, which allowed the East India Company to ship tea directly to the colonies. The Boston Tea Party soon followed, which set the stage for the American Revolution.


Conteúdo

Taxes were low at the local, colonial and imperial levels throughout the colonial era. [1] The issue that led to the Revolution was whether parliament had the right to impose taxes on the Americans when they were not represented in parliament.

The Stamp Act of 1765 was the fourth Stamp Act to be passed by the Parliament of Great Britain and required all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the American colonies to carry a tax stamp. It was enacted on November 1, 1765, at the end of the Seven Years' War between the French and the British, a war that started with the young officer George Washington attacking a French outpost. The stamp tax had the scope of defraying the cost of maintaining the military presence protecting the colonies. Americans rose up in strong protest, arguing in terms of "No Taxation without Representation". Boycotts forced Britain to repeal the stamp tax, while convincing many British leaders it was essential to tax the colonists on something in order to demonstrate the sovereignty of Parliament.

Townshend Revenue Act Edit

The Townshend Revenue Act were two tax laws passed by Parliament in 1767 they were proposed by Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer. They placed a tax on common products imported into the American Colonies, such as lead, paper, paint, glass, and tea. In contrast to the Stamp Act of 1765, the laws were not a direct tax that people paid daily, but a tax on imports that was collected from the ship's captain when he unloaded the cargo. The Townshend Acts also created three new admiralty courts to try Americans who ignored the laws. [2]

Sugar Act 1764 Edit

The tax on sugar, cloth, and coffee. These were non-British exports.

Tea Act of 1773 Edit

The Tea Act of 1773 received the royal assent on May 10, 1773. This act was a "drawback on duties and tariffs" on tea. The act was designed to undercut tea smugglers to the benefit of the East India Company.

Boston Tea Party Edit

The Boston Tea Party was an act of protest by the American colonists against Great Britain for the Tea Act in which they dumped many chests of tea into Boston Harbor. The cuts to taxation on tea undermined American smugglers, who destroyed the tea in retaliation for its exemption from taxes. Britain reacted harshly, and the conflict escalated to war in 1775.

An assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth.

Income for federal government Edit

Tariffs have played different parts in trade policy and the economic history of the United States. Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes. Since the revenue from the tariff was considered essential and easy to collect at the major ports, it was agreed the nation should have a tariff for revenue purposes. [3] [4]

Protectionism Edit

Another role the tariff played was in the protection of local industry it was the political dimension of the tariff. From the 1790s to the present day, the tariff (and closely related issues such as import quotas and trade treaties) generated enormous political stresses. These stresses lead to the Nullification crisis during the 19th century, and the creation of the World Trade Organization.

Origins of protectionism Edit

When Alexander Hamilton was the United States Secretary of the Treasury he issued the Report on Manufactures, which reasoned that applying tariffs in moderation, in addition to raising revenue to fund the federal government, would also encourage domestic manufacturing and growth of the economy by applying the funds raised in part towards subsidies (called bounties in his time) to manufacturers. The main purposes sought by Hamilton through the tariff were to: (1) protect American infant industry for a short term until it could compete (2) raise revenue to pay the expenses of government (3) raise revenue to directly support manufacturing through bounties (subsidies). [5] This resulted in the passage of three tariffs by Congress, the Tariff of 1789, the Tariff of 1790, and the Tariff of 1792 which progressively increased tariffs.

Sectionalism Edit

Tariffs contributed to sectionalism between the North and the South. The Tariff of 1824 increased tariffs in order to protect the American industry in the face of cheaper imported commodities such as iron products, wool, and cotton textiles, and agricultural goods from England. This tariff was the first in which the sectional interests of the North and the South truly came into conflict because the South advocated lower tariffs in order to take advantage of tariff reciprocity from England and other countries that purchased raw agricultural materials from the South. [ citação necessária ]

The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, and the Tariff of 1832 accelerated sectionalism between the North and the South. For a brief moment in 1832, South Carolina made vague threats to leave the Union over the tariff issue. [6] In 1833, to ease North-South relations, Congress lowered the tariffs. [6] In the 1850s, the South gained greater influence over tariff policy and made subsequent reductions. [7]

In 1861, just prior to the Civil War, Congress enacted the Morrill Tariff, which applied high rates and inaugurated a period of relatively continuous trade protection in the United States that lasted until the Underwood Tariff of 1913. The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War. [8]

Early 20th century protectionism Edit

In 1921, Congress sought to protect local agriculture as opposed to industry by passing the Emergency Tariff, which increased rates on wheat, sugar, meat, wool and other agricultural products brought into the United States from foreign nations, which provided protection for domestic producers of those items.

However, one year later Congress passed another tariff, the Fordney–McCumber Tariff, which applied the scientific tariff and the American Selling Price. The purpose of the scientific tariff was to equalize production costs among countries so that no country could undercut the prices charged by American companies. [9] The difference of production costs was calculated by the Tariff Commission. A second novelty was the American Selling Price. This allowed the president to calculate the duty based on the price of the American price of a good, not the imported good. [9]

During the outbreak of the Great Depression in 1930, Congress raised tariffs via the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression by causing other countries to reciprocate thereby plunging American imports and exports by more than half. [ citação necessária ]

Era of GATT and WTO Edit

In 1948, the US signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which reduced tariff barriers and other quantitative restrictions and subsidies on trade through a series of agreements.

In 1993, the GATT was updated (GATT 1994) to include new obligations upon its signatories. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Whereas GATT was a set of rules agreed upon by nations, the WTO is an institutional body. The WTO expanded its scope from traded goods to trade within the service sector and intellectual property rights. Although it was designed to serve multilateral agreements, during several rounds of GATT negotiations (particularly the Tokyo Round) plurilateral agreements created selective trading and caused fragmentation among members. WTO arrangements are generally a multilateral agreement settlement mechanism of GATT. [10]

Federal excise taxes are applied to specific items such as motor fuels, tires, telephone usage, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages. Excise taxes are often, but not always, allocated to special funds related to the object or activity taxed.

During the presidency of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax on distilled spirits to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of the American Revolution for those states which had failed to pay. After a vigorous debate, the House decided by a vote of 35–21 to approve legislation imposing a seven-cent-per-gallon excise tax on whiskey. This marks the first time in American history that Congress voted to tax an American product this led to the Whiskey Rebellion.

The history of income taxation in the United States began in the 19th century with the imposition of income taxes to fund war efforts. However, the constitutionality of income taxation was widely held in doubt (see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

Legal foundations Edit

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution assigns Congress the power to impose "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", but Article I, Section 8 requires that "Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". [11]

In addition, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability to impose direct taxes, by requiring it to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9, therefore, specifies that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken".

Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it, he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as states or as a larger group.

What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax. The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called "capitation", "poll tax" or "head tax") and property. [12] All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes". [13]

Pre-16th Amendment Edit

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed its first personal income tax in 1861. [14] It was part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US$800 rescinded in 1872). Congress also enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. This income tax was repealed in 1872.

A new income tax statute was enacted as part of the 1894 Tariff Act. [15] [16] At that time, the United States Constitution specified that Congress could impose a "direct" tax only if the law apportioned that tax among the states according to each state's census population. [17]

In 1895, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were direct taxes on property and therefore had to be apportioned. Since the apportionment of income taxes is impractical, the Pollock rulings had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).

16th Amendment Edit

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the Pollock case, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, [18] and which states:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax on interest, dividends, and rents to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity.

Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars [19] ) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%. [20] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944 [21] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars [22] ). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. [23]

Tax rate reductions Edit

Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. Kennedy explicitly called for a top rate of 65 percent, but added that it should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions weren't phased out at the top of the income scale. [24] [25] [26] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. It slowly increased to 39.6% in 2000, then was reduced to 35% for the period 2003 through 2012. [23] Corporate tax rates were lowered from 48% to 46% in 1981 (PL 97-34), then to 34% in 1986 (PL 99-514), and increased to 35% in 1993, subsequently lowered to 21% in 2018.

Timothy Noah, the senior editor of the New Republic, argues that while Ronald Reagan made massive reductions in the nominal marginal income tax rates with his Tax Reform Act of 1986, this reform did not make a similarly massive reduction in the effective tax rate on the higher marginal incomes. Noah writes in his ten-part series entitled "The Great Divergence," that in 1979, the effective tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers was 42.9 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but that by Reagan's last year in office it was 32.2%. This effective rate on high incomes held steadily until the first few years of the Clinton presidency when it increased to a peak high of 41%. However, it fell back down to the low 30s by his second term in the White House. This percentage reduction in the effective marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, 9%, is not a very large decrease in their tax burden, according to Noah, especially in comparison to the 20% drop in nominal rates from 1980 to 1981 and the 15% drop in nominal rates from 1986 to 1987. In addition to this small reduction on the income taxes of the wealthiest taxpayers in America, Noah discovered that the effective income tax burden for the bottom 20% of wage earners was 8% in 1979 and dropped to 6.4% under the Clinton Administration. This effective rate further dropped under the George W. Bush Administration. Under Bush, the rate decreased from 6.4% to 4.3%. [27] These figures also correspond to an analysis of effective tax rates from 1979–2005 by the Congressional Budget Office. [28]

Development of the modern income tax Edit

Congress re-adopted the income tax in 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased.

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000. [30] [31] When Congress did not enact that proposal, Roosevelt issued an executive order attempting to achieve a similar result through a salary cap on certain salaries in connection with contracts between the private sector and the federal government. [32] [33] [34] For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963. [35]

For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. In 1978 income brackets were adjusted for inflation, so fewer people were taxed at high rates. [36] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986. [37] Reagan undid 40% of his 1981 tax cut, in 1983 he hiked gas and payroll taxes, and in 1984 he raised tax revenue by closing loopholes for businesses. [38] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's 12 tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut. [39]

For tax year 1987, the highest marginal tax rate was 38.5% for individuals. [40] It was lowered to 28% in revenue neutral fashion, eliminating many loopholes and shelters, along with in corporate taxes, (with a 33% "bubble rate") for tax years 1988 through 1990. [41] [42] Ultimately, the combination of base broadening and rate reduction raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue [43]

For the 1991 and 1992 tax years, the top marginal rate was increased to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress. [44]

In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with no Republican support) an increase in the top marginal rate to 39.6% for the 1993 tax year, where it remained through tax year 2000. [45]

In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and Congress accepted an eventual lowering of the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this was done in stages: with a highest marginal rate of 39.1% for 2001, then 38.6% for 2002 and finally 35% for years 2003 through 2010. [46] This measure had a sunset provision and was scheduled to expire for the 2011 tax year when rates would have returned to those adopted during the Clinton years unless Congress changed the law [47] Congress did so by passing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by President Barack Obama on December 17, 2010.

At first, the income tax was incrementally expanded by the Congress of the United States, and then inflation automatically raised most persons into tax brackets formerly reserved for the wealthy until income tax brackets were adjusted for inflation. Income tax now applies to almost two-thirds of the population. [48] The lowest-earning workers, especially those with dependents, pay no income taxes as a group and actually get a small subsidy from the federal government because of child credits and the Earned Income Tax Credit. [ citação necessária ]

While the government was originally funded via tariffs upon imported goods, tariffs now represent only a minor portion of federal revenues. Non-tax fees are generated to recompense agencies for services or to fill specific trust funds such as the fee placed upon airline tickets for airport expansion and air traffic control. Often the receipts intended to be placed in "trust" funds are used for other purposes, with the government posting an IOU ('I owe you') in the form of a federal bond or other accounting instrument, then spending the money on unrelated current expenditures. [ citação necessária ]

Net long-term capital gains as well as certain types of qualified dividend income are taxed preferentially. The federal government collects several specific taxes in addition to the general income tax. Social Security and Medicare are large social support programs which are funded by taxes on personal earned income (see below).

Treatment of "income" Edit

Tax statutes passed after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 are sometimes referred to as the "modern" tax statutes. Hundreds of Congressional acts have been passed since 1913, as well as several codifications (i.e., topical reorganizations) of the statutes (see Codification).

The modern interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment taxation power can be found in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955). In that case, a taxpayer had received an award of punitive damages from a competitor and sought to avoid paying taxes on that award. The U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. [49]

The Court held that "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power", id., and that "the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." [50]

The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Identificação. at 431. The defendant, in that case, suggested that a 1954 rewording of the tax code had limited the income that could be taxed, a position which the Court rejected, stating:

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly, punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income. [51]

No Conner v. The United States, [52] a couple had lost their home to a fire, and had received compensation for their loss from the insurance company, partly in the form of hotel costs reimbursed. The U.S. District Court acknowledged the authority of the IRS to assess taxes on all forms of payment but did not permit taxation on the compensation provided by the insurance company, because unlike a wage or a sale of goods at a profit, this was not a gain. As the court noted, "Congress has taxed income, not compensation". [53] By contrast, at least two Federal courts of appeals have indicated that Congress may constitutionally tax an item as "income," regardless of whether that item is in fact income. Ver Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner [54] and Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv. [55]

The origins of the estate and gift tax occurred during the rise of the state inheritance tax in the late 19th century and the progressive era.

In the 1880s and 1890s, many states passed inheritance taxes, which taxed the donees on the receipt of their inheritance. While many objected to the application of an inheritance tax, some including Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller supported increases in the taxation of inheritance. [56]

At the beginning of the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt advocated the application of a progressive inheritance tax on the federal level. [57]

In 1916, Congress adopted the present federal estate tax, which instead of taxing the wealth that a donee inherited as occurred in the state inheritance taxes it taxed the wealth of a donor's estate upon transfer.

Later, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1924, which imposed the gift tax, a tax on gifts given by the donor.

In 1948 Congress allowed marital deductions for the estate and the gift tax. In 1981, Congress expanded this deduction to an unlimited amount for gifts between spouses. [58]

Today, the estate tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of the "taxable estate" of a deceased person, whether such property is transferred via a will or according to the state laws of intestacy. The estate tax is one part of the Unified Gift and Estate Tax system in the United States. The other part of the system, the gift tax, imposes a tax on transfers of property during a person's life the gift tax prevents avoidance of the estate tax should a person want to give away his/her estate just before dying.

In addition to the federal government, many states also impose an estate tax, with the state version called either an estate tax or an inheritance tax. Since the 1990s, the term "death tax" has been widely used by those who want to eliminate the estate tax, because the terminology used in discussing a political issue affects popular opinion. [59]

If an asset is left to a spouse or a charitable organization, the tax usually does not apply. The tax is imposed on other transfers of property made as an incident of the death of the owner, such as a transfer of property from an intestate estate or trust, or the payment of certain life insurance benefits or financial account sums to beneficiaries.

Prior to the Great Depression, the following economic problems were considered great hazards to working-class Americans:

  • The U.S. had no federal-government-mandated retirement savings consequently, for many workers (those who could not afford both to save for retirement and to pay for living expenses), the end of their work careers was the end of all income.
  • Similarly, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for citizens disabled by injuries (of any kind—work-related or non-work-related) consequently, for most people, a disabling injury meant no more income if they had not saved enough money to prepare for such an event (since most people have little to no income except earned income from work).
  • In addition, there was no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for people unable to ever work during their lives, such as anyone born with severe mental retardation.
  • Finally, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for the elderly consequently, for many workers (those who could not afford both to save for retirement and to pay for living expenses), the end of their work careers was the end of their ability to pay for medical care.

Creation Edit

In the 1930s, the New Deal introduced Social Security to rectify the first three problems (retirement, injury-induced disability, or congenital disability). It introduced the FICA tax as the means to pay for Social Security.

In the 1960s, Medicare was introduced to rectify the fourth problem (health care for the elderly). The FICA tax was increased in order to pay for this expense.

Development Edit

President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. FICA began with voluntary participation, participants would have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. [ citação necessária ]

During the Lyndon B. Johnson administration Social Security moved from the trust fund to the general fund. [ citação necessária ] Participants may not have an income tax deduction for Social Security withholding. [ citação necessária ] Immigrants became eligible for Social Security benefits during the Carter administration. [ citação necessária ] During the Reagan administration Social Security annuities became taxable. [60]

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) was introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, [61] and became operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time. [62]

In recent years, the AMT has been under increased attention. With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the AMT was broadened and refocused on home owners in high tax states. Because the AMT is not indexed to inflation and recent tax cuts, [62] [63] an increasing number of middle-income taxpayers have been finding themselves subject to this tax.

In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code. The advocate noted that the AMT punishes taxpayers for having children or living in a high-tax state and that the complexity of the AMT leads to most taxpayers who owe AMT not realizing it until preparing their returns or being notified by the IRS. [2]

The origins of the income tax on gains from capital assets did not distinguish capital gains from ordinary income. From 1913 to 1921, income from capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7 percent. [64]

Congress began to distinguish the taxation of capital gains from the taxation of ordinary income according to the holding period of the asset with the Revenue Act of 1921, allowed a tax rate of 12.5 percent gain for assets held at least two years. [64]

In addition to different tax rates depending on the holding period, Congress began excluding certain percentages of capital gains depending on the holding period. From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period: 20, 40, 60, and 70 percent of gains were excluded on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. [64] Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains from income on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent. [64]

Capital gains tax rates were significantly increased in the 1969 and 1976 Tax Reform Acts. [64]

The 1970s and 1980s saw a period of oscillating capital gains tax rates. In 1978, Congress reduced capital gains tax rates by eliminating the minimum tax on excluded gains and increasing the exclusion to 60 percent, thereby reducing the maximum rate to 28 percent. [64] The 1981 tax rate reductions further reduced capital gains rates to a maximum of 20 percent.

Later in the 1980s, Congress began increasing the capital gains tax rate and repealing the exclusion of capital gains. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion from income that provided for tax-exemption of long term capital gains, raising the maximum rate to 28 percent (33 percent for taxpayers subject to phaseouts). [64] When the top ordinary tax rates were increased by the 1990 and 1993 budget acts, an alternative tax rate of 28 percent was provided. [64] Effective tax rates exceeded 28 percent for many high-income taxpayers, however, because of interactions with other tax provisions. [64]

The end of the 1990s and the beginning of the present century heralded major reductions in taxing the income from gains on capital assets. Lower rates for 18-month and five-year assets were adopted in 1997 with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. [64] In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, into law as part of a $1.35 trillion tax cut program.

The United States' corporate tax rate was at its highest, 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969. The top rate was hiked last in 1993 to 35 percent. [65] Under the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" of 2017, the rate adjusted to 21 percent.


Related Information

Timeline of the Townshend Acts

Chronological events that led to the Townshend Acts and its repeal.

Townshend Acts in facts and numbers

Known and unknown facts about the Townshend Acts.

Townshend Acts crisis and resistance

Political and economical resistance that unified colonial residents and defined leaders who fought towards American independence.

Partial repeal of the Townshend Acts and the Boston Massacre

Residents were outraged that the acts had brought in new measures to keep tight control of the population. The occupation of Boston by British soldiers led to violence and to the Boston Massacre. Violence and economic pressure led to the partial repeal of the Townshend acts.

The first hero of the American Revolution, Crispus Attucks

Interesting facts and information from the Crispus Attucks On-line Museum.

Back to Stamp Act History Homepage

Stamp Act Video from PBS

Anúncio

Linha do tempo

1651 - Navigation Acts
1733 - Molasses Act
1754-1763 - French and Indian War
1754 - Albany Congress
1763 - Proclamation of 1763
1764 - Sugar Act
1764 - Currency Act
1765 - Stamp Act
1765 - Quartering Act Congress
1766 - Declaratory Act
1767 - Townshend Revenue Act
1770 - Boston Massacre
1773 - Tea Act
1773 - Boston Tea Party
1774 - Intolerable or Coercive Acts
1774 - First Continental Congress
1775-1783 - War of Independence


Assista o vídeo: Acts of Rebellion: Stamp Act and Townshend Acts with Patrick Henry and John Dickinson (Dezembro 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos