did taxes ever lead to a revolution?
87789
Taxation without representation. \n\nTaxes led to the famous Boston Tea Party\n\nSee attached\n\nhttp://www.kidport.com/RefLib/UsaHistory/AmericanRevolution/TeaParty.htm
214568
I wouldn't say a revolution.  But I think the middle class, who make up the majority of the votes, are going to finally get sick of those in Washington D.C. and start a third party.  It is both democrats and republicans that just don't seem to get it.  We are watching them sell off our country to the highest bidder.  We watch gas prices increase while congress does nothing but wag their fingers at oil big wigs.  When it boils down to it, congress and the president (no matter who it is) won't pass laws that will hurt the company's that give them their campaign money. Until the middle class wakes up, smells the coffee and realizes that we need representatives in our government, it will only get worse.
990752
Nope. He raised taxes. Go figure, a democrat got into the white house and raised taxes. Nothing new there. All democrats lie to get into the white house. Its the only way they can win.
529203
Revolution? Hmmmmm, wishful thinking.\nI wish I knew the answer to this one. I think that our (UK) society has to take a giant evolutionary leap and realise that actually, the royals are not all that great and that their vast wealth could be redistributed to make better schools, hospitals, public transport.\nIs it going to happen? That's another question....
441646
That is what was used to establish the federal income tax. Yes, seriously.
479673
Well.. my best guess.\n\nThe income tax started in the 1860's (I believe 1861) but was declared unconstitutional in 1881 so there were no income taxes in 1890.\n\nLiquor taxes were around since the 1700's... so there's that.  It did provide a lot of money to the government.\n\nSales Taxes: there were times during our history when there was a federal sales tax  (Civil War, World Wars) but none existed in 1890 or today.\n\nCustom Duties: If you're referring to "Excise Taxes" on goods then yes, this is where the majority of the income for the Fed's came from.  These taxes were actually charged to business who passed them along to consumers.  This inculded liquor and cigarettes.
112367
No.  Actually, war funding and the running of the government within the limits of the constitution are the only things that the federal government is supposed to use tax money for.  In addition, the constitution prohibits the federal government from direct taxation of the people.  They are supposed to get thier money from the states.  \n\nAll the rest of the money should go back to the people.  it's nice to help the poor and disabled and elderly, but no one should be compelled to do so.  It is not the government's place to collect taxes for these things. Individual members of congress can give all they want, but they need to keep thier hands out of the money pot for public service.  It's not thier money to give.
910157
A flat tax would tax everyone at the same rate (percentage).  There would be no exemptions or exceptions.  There would be no loop holes for the very rich to use.  A flat tax would almost eliminate the need for an IRS.  That alone is a good reason to implement a flat tax.  The other tax that has been discussed with the "USE TAX".  That would tax everything we buy but not everything we earn.
1182733
They weren't - that's the reason they had the Boston Tea Party, with the slogan, "no taxation without representation".  The British were taxing everything (including tea) but the American colonies had no say in how much the tax would be or what it would be used for.
629809
The workers gave support to the revolution due to the ignorance and arrogance of the King and the aristocracy to the plight of the workers.\n\nTo begin the workers were victimized by high taxes. For example a peasant would have to pay tax to the King, tax to the church and then tax to the Lord of the estate they lived on. \n\nA worker had severe working conditions because they not only worked for themselves but also had under law, to undertake labor the the Lord of the estate.\n\nWhile under this pressure there was a constant rise in the cost of food and goods and add to that in 1788 there was a \nbad harvest and this in turn made the price of bread rise beyond the ability of some peasants to even buy.
893478
There is no provision in either document you cite which says keeping all the fruits of our earnings is a part of freedom.\n\nNow, our founding fathers were involved in colony govts before they were involved in rebellion.  In Virginia, our house of burgesses provided money every year to every widow and orphan.  We also applied our tax money to construction projects for the common good.  We also had courts to help protect our rights.  \n\nWhen we had our revolution, we were opposed to taxation WITHOUT representation, we were not opposed to taxation.  We never have been.\n\nYou have a pretty limited view of humanity and our responsibility to create a just society.   Plus, you seem to be basing it on parts of our founding documents which don't exist.
919804
I believe that the Federal Income Tax was instituted during World War I, to pay for the war.\n\nObviously, whoever said that the government could "never be able to spend all these taxes" had no idea what politicians can do with someone else's money.
265148
The main problem was that the Federal Goverment had no real power of the States to raise taxes (or anything else) \n\nIt was like each State was its own country
781509
None.  It was enacted as a response to the searches carried out by England which were the primary reason for the revolutionary wat.  England was issuing "writs of assistance" to customs officers to combat the growing problem of smuggling to avoid taxes paid to England.
23672
The first income tax was instituted in the North during the Civil War.  After the war our current income tax was instituted in 1913 with the adoption of the 16th amendment to the US constitution.
901614
I watched only long enough to see it was about the 16th amendment not being legally ratified, and therefore we didn't have to pay income tax.  \n\nI refer you to this page to see a response.  The final rebuttal is at the bottom.  \nhttp://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
946854
Sorry - I'm not smart......\n\nbut I can google:  http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0846474.html\n\nStamp Act, 1765, revenue law passed by the British Parliament during the ministry of George Grenville. The first direct tax to be levied on the American colonies, it required that all newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, commercial bills, advertisements, and other papers issued in the colonies bear a stamp. The revenue obtained from the sale of stamps was designated for colonial defense; while the means of raising revenue was novel, the application of such revenue to defense continued existing British policy. The act was vehemently denounced in the colonies by those it most affected: businessmen, merchants, journalists, lawyers, and other powerful persons. Among these were Samuel Adams, Christopher Gadsden, Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, John Lamb, Joseph Warren, and Paul Revere. Associations known as the Sons of Liberty were formed to organize opposition to the Stamp Act. Merchants boycotted English goods; stamp distributors were forced to resign and stamps were destroyed; and the Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of James Otis, issued a call for a general congress to find means of resisting the law. The Stamp Act Congress,. which met in Oct., 1765, in New York City, included delegates from New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Maryland, and Connecticut. The congress adopted the Declaration of Rights and Grievances; it declared that freeborn Englishmen could not be taxed without their consent, and, since the colonists were not represented in Parliament, any tax imposed on them without the consent of their colonial legislatures was unconstitutional. Faced with a loss of trade, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766.