English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-11-28 17:18:45 · 6 answers · asked by Phillip M 1 in Arts & Humanities History

6 answers

~Parliament had imposed taxes on the colonies long before the Seven Years War. Much higher taxes were levied against those British subjects living at home. The colonial taxes were largely not collected and the rampant smuggling was overlooked. The Seven Years War had drained British coffers. There was a depression on. The empire worldwide was in trouble. The French were always getting ready to do battle again. The colonial component of the war, the so-called French and Indian War, was a minor theater of the conflict but the cost was burdensome. The colonials reaped the benefit of the British troops in removing the French and "pacifying" the Indians who had allied with them. Aside from the war, the colonies incurred costs to the empire to maintain them and to promote their growth and security. There was no reason on earth that a street vendor in Kent or a shopkeeper in London or a wharfman in Liverpool should have borne the entire cost of moving the French out of Detroit or Pittsburgh. There was no reason they should have, but they did.

The Townshend Acts, the Stamp Act and like 'onerous' levies established lower taxes than the ones they replaced. What really ticked off the colonials was that now, out of economic necessity, Parliament was actually going to collect the taxes and to clamp down on the smuggling and to enforce the trade regulations that had been designed for the good of all the empire as a whole (and to prohibit the colonials from selling war materials to the French and Spanish and other enemies of the empire to use against British troops).

All governments tax their citizens. Taxation is how governments are able to survive and function and provide services to the citizens. The colonies did not mind having the troops around to catch the lead when the bullets were flying or to benefit from everything else they received from home. However, once the mission was accomplished and there was no longer a threat from the enemy at the gates, they took offense at having to pay even a small part of the cost.

Parliament, not King George, had the bizarre idea that all British subjects should share in the cost of the salvation of the empire. Parliament enacted and enforced the tax laws, not the Crown. Be that as it may, Parliament did not attempt to get from the colonials reimbursement for the actual and total outlay attributable to the colonies - either before the war or after. If the colonies had been billed on a 'pay as you go and pay for what you get' basis, the colonials, with the few exceptions at the top of the food chain, would have been as poor and poorly off as they had been went they fled the home isles.

Most colonials were not opposed to some taxes. They understood that they received more than they paid. Most colonials, right up until 1783, were either opposed to or were neutral to colonial independence. Most colonials knew that they were as equally represented in Parliament as was anyone back home. Most colonials understood that no colony had ever suggested or requested that a colonial be appointed or elected to Parliament. Most colonials knew that colonial taxes were far less than the taxes in the homeland and most colonials knew that colonists, notably the wealthy planters, merchants and shippers, had been avoiding and cheating on the taxes since the first Englishman got off the boat at Roanoke. The facts (on this side of the Atlantic) were lost in and buried by the rhetoric of treason from the minority who wanted to sever ties with the Motherland but with a modicum of research, particularly in sources other than the histories written by the victors, the facts can still be found.

2007-11-28 19:28:47 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 2 1

Yes, the British were facing bankruptcy but the taxes they imposed were not of enough significance to help them much. After the French and Indian war many settlers and Colonial governors had asked England for help in securing the western part of their states from Indian attacks. Part of the plan to remedy this was the proclamation of 1763 which prohibited the Americans from further developing the west. The other part of the solution was to keep some troops in the colonies after the French and Indian War was over. The British government estimated this would cost them close in the neighborhood of 300,000 pounds per year. to recoup some of this cost they imposed the stamp act which had been paind for years in England and a sugar tax and asked their customs people to crack down on collections at ports. The British actually only expected to get back about 40,000 pounds per year from all the taxes they imposed. Many did not appreciate the fact the colonists in the east did not want the troops while the western colonists were asking for more.

2016-03-16 00:04:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why did the british decide to tax the colonists?

2015-08-18 16:20:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 1 · 0 0

The British had just fought what historians call the first true world war. The Seven Years war ( the French-Indian War to American history books) was waged between the British and the French throughout their colonial possessions around the world. After the ensuing war more revenue was needed to pay off the government accumulated war debt, and thus more taxes were levied upon the colonists.

2007-11-28 17:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by joel s 1 · 1 1

I think the simplest reason:

It was easier/less risky than raising taxes back at home. What are a bunch of colonists 4000 miles across the ocean going to if they don't like the tax? Send nasty letters?

And so began the end of the british empire........

2007-11-28 17:26:31 · answer #5 · answered by www.AllGuides.com Publisher 3 · 0 1

Blimey, the British Empire had hardly begun! But yes, it was politically advantageous to tax subjects across the pond, whilst those most able to pay - the aristocracy at home - were exempt. No sense trifling with that lot - one deposed king in recent memory was enough.

2007-11-28 17:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by geraldine f 4 · 1 1

They'd just finished a very expensive war, a large part of which was to secure the North American Colonies. They saw it as "why shouldn't the ones who benefited from it, pay for it?"

2007-11-28 17:24:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

George III wanted more money for his coffers. Of course he was a bit looney at the time. (The Madness of King George- "what,what?")

2007-11-28 17:23:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers