A History of Taxpayer Revolts
Linda Upham-Bornstein's "Mr. Taxpayer versus Mr. Tax Spender" delivers an evenhanded view of American tax resistance movements.

"Mr. Taxpayer versus Mr. Tax Spender": Taxpayers' Associations, Pocketbook Politics, and the Law During the Great Depression, by Linda Upham-Bornstein, Temple University Press, 220 pages, $32.95
Though animus toward tax increases was a key reason for the American Revolution, historians have not shown much interest in the topic in other contexts. One reason may be that the history of tax revolts, much like the history of mutual aid or of nonunion workers during strikes, cannot easily be subsumed under the most popular analytical categories, such as economic class. So Linda Upham-Bornstein's "Mr. Taxpayer versus Mr. Tax Spender": Taxpayers' Associations, Pocketbook Politics, and the Law During the Great Depression is a welcome sign.
Upham-Bornstein, a historian at Plymouth State University, begins in the 19th century. The taxpayer leagues of the Gilded Age charged that political corruption had produced (as one group put it) "the reckless expenditure of the people's money." These organizations divided sharply along regional lines. In the Northeast, Gilded Age tax resistance groups were generally nonpartisan and had few apparent ideological axes to grind; in the South, they were vehicles for Democrats who sought to undermine Reconstruction governments that had raised taxes to fund new programs.
Southern taxpayers' organizations gained support from small white landowners who felt burdened by these levies. More than a few of these came from the so-called Scalawag group and might otherwise have voted Republican. These groups' leaders denied that race played a role in their efforts, but Upham-Bornstein does not find this convincing. While this skepticism is more than warranted, it is also true that tax increases on financially struggling white yeoman farmers greatly weakened the potential viability of the GOP as a multiracial coalition.
By the 1890s, the Gilded Age wave of taxpayer revolt had largely subsided in both the North and the South. But the Great Depression brought a rapid revival of resistance, with several thousand organizations springing up almost overnight. Massachusetts alone had more than 150 of them. A key reason was that taxes were now harder for many Americans to pay, thanks to slumping incomes, rising unemployment, and the laggardness of real estate tax assessments to fall as fast as property values. As Upham-Bornstein observes, "The American economy, the incomes of most Americans and the revenues of many American businesses shrank far more precipitously than did local and state government expenditures in the early 1930s, producing crippling taxes for many."
The agenda of these Depression-era organizations had some close parallels with those of the anti-tax groups of the 1970s and later. They demanded budget slashes and called for statutory limits on property taxes and governmental debt. Though most of the leaders favored conventional political methods, some called for tax strikes. These tended to be more spontaneous than labor strikes, which usually took place after careful planning and coordination. Politicians had a hard time quashing them, because the enforcement system had largely broken down in many communities.
Chicago's tax strike was particularly impressive. From 1930 to 1933, the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers, which represented some 30,000 members (mostly skilled workers and owners of small businesses) gradually escalated its tactics. Finally, it called for withholding property tax payments. Chicago became the center of one of the largest tax strikes since the 18th century, if not the largest. Tax collections plummeted, and the city government had to pare its budget by more than a third.
Upham-Bornstein concludes that tax resistance during the Great Depression had some success in limiting local and state taxes and spending. Despite, or perhaps partly because of, this success, these groups were in decline by the late 1930s. The author attributes much of this to stepped up federal subsidies to states and localities, which reduced upward pressure on state and local taxes. These included direct loans through the new federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation, which required that individual borrowers prioritize paying off their tax-delinquent obligations. In addition, the Public Works Administration told local and state governments that if they wanted subsidies from the agency, they should repeal (or creatively skirt) statutes limiting taxes. Although many participants in the 1930s tax revolt had anti-statist views, others were more receptive to the New Deal, even while calling for cutbacks on the state and local levels.
Upham-Bornstein briefly discusses the tax revolts of the 1970s and later, including the Tea Party movement that emerged during President Barack Obama's first term. While that movement had many similarities to the taxpayer activism of the Depression era, it put much greater emphasis on federal rather than local and state levies.
Upham-Bornstein is refreshingly evenhanded, and she avoids taking cheap shots or making simplistic generalizations. Her fair-mindedness deserves acknowledgement in a field where the spotlight often shines on those, such as Nancy MacLean, who are ideologically fixated on discrediting the intentions of every species of anti-statism. Most of Upham-Bornstein's analytical points are sensible. She makes a convincing case that New Deal subsidies dampened the motivation for tax resistance, either legal or illegal, and she poses intriguing questions about the extent to which African-American poll tax resistance counts as a form of tax revolt.
Nevertheless, there are places where the book disappoints. Upham-Bornstein characterizes President Herbert Hoover as an "antistatist" who "opposed federal spending for unemployment relief or to control agricultural output and support crop prices." Extensive evidence exists to the contrary. Hoover pushed for more government intervention through such programs as the Federal Farm Board, which was intended to control farm output; the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which extended the first direct federal relief in American history.
While she underlines the fact that many resisters argued that underconsumption had led to the downturn, Upham-Bornstein generally neglects Hoover's similar views. He vigorously pressed "high wage" policies in an ultimately failed strategy to secure recovery. Hoover's underconsumptionist efforts to prop up wages found expression in such measures as the Smoot-Hawley tariff and the Davis-Bacon Act, which required contractors for federal projects to pay prevailing (union) wages.
Also largely absent in this book is a meaningful assessment of the contradictions in President Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric and policies. Even while calling for more federal relief during the 1932 campaign, for example, he repeatedly attacked Hoover as a spendthrift. In one speech, for example, he called the president's tenure "the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime government anywhere, anytime." In words that might have appeared in any taxpayers' league broadside, he charged that Hoover "has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs and reduced earning power of the people." Roosevelt even promised to reduce the cost of current federal government operations by 25 percent.
Several of the author's statements about federal tax policy under Roosevelt cry out for elaboration. Here is an example: "The New Deal regime also helps to explain why tax resisters campaigned for economy and efficiency in local and state government while simultaneously supporting, or being agnostic about, New Deal spending. The Roosevelt administration refused to consider taxing the income of the middle classes and instead relied mainly on taxes on the wealthy and corporations, on indirect or hidden consumer taxes." That's true as far as it goes, but she could have explored the unflattering implications for New Deal tax policy. The ironic effect of high marginal rates was to shift the burden from the wealthy, who successfully scrambled to find shelters, and onto lower-income Americans who paid higher excise taxes.
These excise taxes, imposed on products ranging from cosmetics to radios to movie tickets, were paid primarily by the poor and middle class. In 1929, excise taxes constituted 19 percent of federal tax revenue, while personal income and corporate income taxes were 81 percent. By 1934, the latter had plummeted to 39 percent while the share held by excise taxes had risen to 61 percent. This starkly disparate tax impact undermines the New Dealers' claims of fostering tax equity.
The book also underplays the populist nature of the Tea Party revolt. While wealthy funders certainly played an important part in that movement, there is no denying the spontaneous energy of the protesters who marched in the streets and descended on "town hall" meetings.
But this book's valuable contributions outweigh these issues. Backed by meticulous research and thoughtful analysis, "Mr. Taxpayer versus Mr. Tax Spender" should be a model for future studies of the oft-neglected story of American tax revolts.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Interesting to actually admit that federal subsidies / bribes of state and local governments let those state and local governments raise taxes without much consequence. So much for the spirit of "no taxation without representation."
I've tried to imagine ways of banning these inter-governmental transfers, but IANAL and my quibbly mindset knows only that lawyers and judges would find ways around any such bans.
A while back I was listening to the radio while driving, and there was an interesting piece where a former constitutional lawyer was being interviewed. The guy was pretty jaded because he thought he'd be defending the Constitution. Instead the job involved him coming up with ridiculous excuses to justify blatantly unconstitutional laws brought to him by legislators who knew there was no justification for the law. He quit after an attack of conscience.
At this point I would settle for no representation without taxation.
I'd love "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as a ballot choice for all legislative offices, and if elected, that government can no longer spend or collect any money in that district.
Might need to exclude Senators, since having one Senator and one NONE would be a bit awkward, and leave plenty of scope for courts to twist the whole thing into nothingness.
"None of the Above" could help. But if we really want to save democracy (at least one where people have proper rights) we need to disenfranchise the cohort that keeps voting themselves free stuff.
Free stuff like roads, police, public schools, public libraries, restaurant inspectors... Enjoy food poisoning.
All the "public" services could be provided better and at less cost by either private businesses or voluntary non-profit organizations. Even security can be provided this way, provided that private security abides by the same Constitutional restrictions as law enforcement.
Statists like yourself were always a source of bemusement at your narrow thinking. It's sad that I'll encounter no shortage of you when Reason boots off those of us who won't pay for their own flavor of Statism.
Nowadays, that goes without saying.
🙂
😉
By the way, before the boom comes down before me, it was always good having a fellow Skeptic and gadfly in the Comments. You, Chumby, and Utkonos brought me many moments of thoughtful entertainment!
The alternative is a federal takeover of many state and local governmental functions.
Is there any form of taxation more like a mafia-style protection racket than property taxes?
Since when do we get to vote on Mafia protection fees?
Since when do we get to vote on property tax rates?
Or judicial misinterpretations of property assessments?
Around here, we vote on all property taxes. What country are you from?
When you are involuntary members of that Mafia.
"Once you're in...dere's no gettin' out!"
I am here to correct a common misconception, or maybe it's a deliberate lie.
The Tea Party started before 0bama took office. It was a way to put excess money from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign to good use.
Our first target was Congress. We sent tea bags to our representatives with a letter protesting taxation. When the post office refused to forward mail with tea bags, we sent pictures of tea bags.
It was not anti-black, anti-0bama or anti-anything except big government. Our disapproval of 0bama was no more or less than our disapproval of Bush and our congress.
It was only after Palin and Armey got involved to bring it into the GOP mainstream that it went bad.
I remember the start of the Tea Party and understand the concerns that started the movement, but I also saw it go downhill fast. I think one of the reasons is that it lacked broad support. I remember watching an early national meeting on CPAN and being struck by the fact that it was mostly white middled aged people. Now this would likely be one of the group hardest by taxes, but also one of the group most well served by government spending. This group went to college when government support keep tuition low. They generally had job that included retirement pensions and could look forward to social security. At the televised meeting one attended noted the lack of young people and asked why they did not join. To me the answer was simple, the Tea Party was looking to keep it taxes low not by cutting back it own benefits but rather those of others. And in particular the generation behind them.
"the Tea Party was looking to keep it taxes low not by cutting back it own benefits but rather those of others"
MAGA isn't much different. Note Trump's promise of tariffs that dwarf Smoot-Hawley levels. Yet MAGA idiots whine about the much lower inflation levels we have today compared to what such trade wars will bring about. The author also fails to note that FDR through reciprocal trade agreements pulled off significant reductions in tariffs, saving American consumers and businesses a lot of money.
That was not my experience. In Eastern Washington and North Idaho we had few SS age people and many young. I never heard any talk of preserving benefits.
Americans, even pre–United States, resisted taxation and the Boston Tea Party is enshrined in our history. But it also true that the Americans resisted paying its bills. The English taxes that sparked the American Revolution were not just Enland extracting wealth. The English had just finished the French and Indian War, that greatly benefited the English colonists. Some English taxes were paying the debts from that war. Even after the Revolutionary war historical writing tell us the our country new leaders had trouble getting tax money to cover the expenses of the Revolutionary war. The US is much better today and assist many other countries, but even this foreign aid, a small amount, comes under much critacism.
No. You are wrong.
First off, the war had sent the French packing, so troops to protect against the French were unnecessary, and the taxes were not for past debts, but for maintaining new troops.
Second, the troops were justified as keeping the colonists from crossing the Appalachians into Indian territory.
Third, the British refused to let the colonists provide any of the troops themselves. They had to be British troops.
Fourth, the British refused to simply tell the colonial government how much tax they wanted and leave the manner of collection to the colonial governments.
Fifth, the Stamp Act, among others, cost more to implement than it would have collected, even by British estimates.
There can never again be a tax strike. Today the government can simply shut off your bank accounts and financial assets with a few mouse clicks if you refuse to cooperate.
It is called the Rule of Law.
Linda Upham-Bornstein’s “Mr. Taxpayer versus Mr. Tax Spender” delivers an evenhanded view of American tax resistance movements
No it doesn’t. But it certainly helps explain why tax resistance has led to more debt (which is mentioned once in this article in passing) and centralization of government (where debt can be carried) and, more recently, deliberate distortion of the cost of capital. Not to reduced spending and/or any serious thought about the role of government.
"President Herbert Hoover"
Hoover signed into law monstrous tax increases at the beginning of the Great Depression. Not just the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff, which triggered a trade war that turned a nasty recession into the worldwide Depression, but also the Revenue Act of 1932.
"The law was signed in June but retroactive to January. It increased all individual income tax rates with the top rate rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The act broadened the income tax base, raised the corporate tax rate from 12 percent to 13.75 percent, and increased the top estate tax rate from 20 percent to 45 percent. The act also imposed a slew of large excise tax increases on items such as cars, tires, radios, and electricity. As a result, excise taxes raised more federal revenue than income taxes the rest of the decade."
https://www.cato.org/blog/tax-increases-great-depression
As is typical on this site, we see an attempt to blame Democrats for bad policies instituted by Republicans.
And Free-Market Economists such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig Von Mises acknowledged this and opposed both Hoover's Depression-causing tariffs as well as Roosevelt's moves that prolonged and intensified economic deprivation and redistributed wealth from the workers to FDR-favored agricultural and corporate interests.
Start again..though you might have to start again without me.