Could Internet Sales Taxes lead to another Boston Tea Party?

Courtesy of Thomas Carlson's wonderful blog "Analysis of the Marketplace Fairness Act by a Former Federal Agent" comes this essay comparing the battle over the National Internet Sales Tax Mandate to the Boston Tea Party. Campaign for Liberty is preparing an all-out effort to fight any efforts to ram the National Internet Sales Tax Mandate into Congress's upcoming lame duck session.

The Ironic Similarities Between the Marketplace Fairness Act and the Boston Tea Party

The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, granted the British East India Company (THE STATES) a Tea (RETAIL) a monopoly (WALMART) on tea sales in the American colonies (REMOTE SELLERS). This was what ultimately compelled a group of Sons of Liberty (eMAINSTREET.org) members on the night of December 16, 1773 to disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians, board three ships moored in Boston Harbor, and destroy over 92,000 pounds of tea. The Tea Act (MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT aka MFA) was the final straw in a series of unpopular policies and taxes imposed by Britain (STATES) on her American colonies (REMOTE SELLERS). The policy ignited a “powder keg” (grassroots Twitter & Facebook groups) of opposition and resentment among American colonists and was the catalyst of the Boston Tea Party. The passing of the Tea Act (MFA) imposed no new taxes on the American colonies (citizens). The (USE) tax on tea (REMOTE SALES) had existed since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act. Along with tea, the Townshend Revenue Act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act’s taxes were repealed on all commodities except tea in 1770. The tea (SALES) tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. The Tea Act (MFA) was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company (STATES) out of debt. The British East India Company (STATES) were suffering from massive amounts of debts incurred primarily from annual contractual payments due to the British (US) government totaling £400,000 (400M) per year. Additionally, the British East India Company (STATES) were suffering financially as a result of unstable political and economic issues in India (China), and European markets were weak due to debts from the French and Indian War among other things. Besides the tax on tea which had been in place since 1767, what fundamentally angered the American colonists about the Tea Act was the British East India Company’s (MEGA RETAILERS) government sanctioned monopoly on tea (REMOTE SALES). CONCLUSION:

  • Tea Act: It was the British’s governments sales tax on remote colonial business that passed the cost on to buyers. This was a tax paid to a remote government that business had no representation with the remote British government and was a remote sales tax.
  • Marketplace Fairness Act: It will allow State government sales taxes on remote businesses that can pass the cost on to buyers. The remote sellers would also have no representation with the remote State governments.

So history repeating it’s self again will we ever learn? Thanks to Bill Jensen for this great satirical article.

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF