How you can resist funding the government → other ways the government is funded → excise taxes

I’m hunting for ideas for people who want to make up for the money I’m not paying into the government treasury. Use the email link off to the left to send me your ideas.

Ways you can support the federal government

• Have a smoke!: For every pack of cigarettes you buy, the manufacturer will donate 39 cents to the federal government — this is above and beyond the tax you paid on the income to buy the ciggies, the payroll taxes paid by the tobacco industry, state taxes, and payoffs to various lawsuit-happy attorneys general!
• Pay at the pump!: For every gallon you put in your car, the feds get another 18-and-a-half cents to spend. (Again, above and beyond…)
• Earn Income!: For every six or seven dollars you earn (on average), you’ll give one of those dollars to be spent by the U.S. Congress.
• Raise that mug!: At the bottom of every pint of beer is a federal excise tax nickel. The feds get 21 to 67 cents for your bottle of wine. Finish off that bottle of hard liquor and your Senator has another $2.14 to argue over.
• Enjoy Burning Man!: Half the price of your ticket goes straight to the federal Bureau of Land Management — what they don’t use to buy night-vision goggles and bong-seeking-missiles for use on the playa they get to keep as profit.
• Go shooting!: A sweet 10–11% of the cost of your firearm, and your shells and cartridges go to help Congress figure out new ways to interfere with your right to bear arms. (As always, above and beyond…)

Other federal excise taxes apply to cars and car parts, tires, coal, fishing equipment, vaccines, phone service, air travel, water travel, heavy vehicles and probably a bunch of other things. Can you help me with my list?

Like a lot of people, I’ve been keeping a fraction of an eye on the U.S. Treasury Department’s megalomaniacal thrashings about of late. The more I learn about it the more bafflingly absurd it seems, but I also realize I’m in way over my head and don’t really have any expertise to draw on in interpreting what I learn. On the other hand, those who do have the requisite expertise don’t seem to have the humility to understand that even so, they don’t really understand what they’re doing and have so far led things to ruin — they’re just certain that with a tighter grip on the wheel and a whole lot more money (why don’t we ask the taxpayers for a big loan — they’ve never said no before!) the cards are bound to come up better sooner or later and then this will all be like a bad dream.

But of course I looked for a tax resistance angle. And this is what I came up with:

The U.S. Treasury is seeking (or has just assumed) the “authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans” (I’m quoting from the Treasury Department’s press release).

If the U.S. Treasury just seized/purchased your mortgage… now there’s a dilemma! What’s a tax resister to do?

And then I stumbled on this interesting factoid:

When FDIC head Shelia Bair says her agency might have to bolster the FDIC’s insurance fund with Treasury borrowings to pay for the new spate of bank failures, a lot of us, this 40-year banking veteran included, assumed there’s an actual FDIC fund in need of bolstering.

We were wrong. As a former FDIC chairman, Bill Isaac, points out here, the FDIC Insurance Fund is an accounting fiction. It takes in premiums from banks, then turns those premiums over to the Treasury, which adds the money to the government’s general coffers for “spending… on missiles, school lunches, water projects, and the like.”

The insurance premiums aren’t really premiums at all, therefore. They’re a tax by another name.

You’ll recognize this as similar to the trick the government plays with the quasi-insurance trust funds for social security and medicare — the government goes out and spends the money, replacing it with IOUs which it has no plans to honor. And so I got to thinking about how many other ways the government reaches into our pockets, and to what extent we can resist these.

As I noted a few days ago, a large and growing percentage of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. This poses a bit of a challenge to the American war tax resistance movement, since most of their literature involves resisting that tax. (And the rest mostly concerns the excise tax on local telephone service — which is also becoming less relevant as more people are switching to cell phones and internet telephony.)

So I asked war tax resisters what they thought about all this:

…we need to have something to say when we encounter an activist in the non-income-tax-paying 40%. It may be difficult to recruit someone into war tax resistance when most of our literature concerns a tax that a lot of folks aren’t paying anymore…

…[It] might be a good idea for war tax resisters to consider ways of refining their messages so as to take some of the emphasis off of the federal income tax and instead cover the whole spectrum of ways people fund the government and its policies.

Larry Rosenwald took up the challenge, asking me “what do you see as being included in ‘the whole spectrum of ways people fund the government and its policies,’ and which aspects of that funding do you see as subject to choice and resistance, either implicit or [ex]plicit?”

Which is a good question, and one I don’t know the answer to (or if there’s an answer, especially with things changing so rapidly lately).

I took a look at the federal budget to see what kind of numbers they use. I’m sure that it’s misleading, but it does itemize many of the ways money we earn becomes money they spend.

According to the budget for fiscal year 2007, the government brought in $2,567,672,504,536 in “budget receipts” — mostly what we typically think of as taxes. These can be broken down as follows:

Confusingly, one section of the report threw the FICA acronym in with the “individual income taxes” section instead of the “social insurance and retirement” section where I would have expected to find it. So even at this level of granularity, I’m a little confused as to what the numbers mean.

Each of these categories is further subdivided. Under the individual income taxes section, for instance, you can learn that $49,779,182 was donated by the foolish and insane to the presidential campaign fund to help pay for those marvelous political conventions and advertisements we’ve been seeing lately.

The “excise taxes” category is subdivided to show the various taxes and trust funds involved — though there are negative numbers in the column as well, and I’m not sure why — do some of the trust funds give out refunds? do some relinquish their money into the general fund somewhere else? do some involve so much overhead that they don’t end up in the black? In any case, the biggest item here is deposits into the highway trust fund / leaking underground storage tank trust fund — totaling about $40½ billion of the $65 billion in the “excise taxes” category (if I’m reading the numbers right) and coming from the gas tax. There’s a catch-all subcategory also called “excise taxes” that runs another $15 billion, and then another $11½ billion coming from the airport & airway trust fund — money that eventually comes from inflated airline ticket prices I’d imagine. And there are many also-rans: vaccine injury compensation fund, black lung disability trust fund, tobacco excise tax, etc. Because there’s an obscurely-labeled negative $7½ billion or so in the mix, the numbers I’ve given here don’t add up like they ought.

The customs duties aren’t subdivided according to what the duties applied to — except for arms and ammunition — so that’s less helpful. The estate/gift tax is an unsubdivided line-item.

The miscellaneous section has some interesting bits in it. Most of it comes from federal reserve deposits and doesn’t much concern us. Another $10 billion comes from user fees, licenses, filing fees and the like, including that “universal service fund” fee you see on your phone bill (that’s $7½ billion of the ten) and immigration, passport, and consular fees (another billion). The government hauls in $4½ billion from assessing fines, penalties, and from seizing stuff and selling it at auction. It brings in $241 million from “gifts & contributions” — you heard that right — including (get this) $3,594,405 from something called the “Conscience Fund”:

Money voluntarily paid to restore amounts which the donor considers to have been wrongfully acquired or withheld from the Government. Also includes moneys from those… motivated by personal feeling to ease their conscience from wrongful acts against others.

Go fig.

And that wraps up the “budget receipts.” But there are a whole bunch of other receipts that apparently aren’t budgetish. This includes $12 billion in interest on money the government has lent out, for instance to other countries or the international monetary fund. And there’s $3½ billion in dividends on investments it makes via funds it controls and is allowed to invest (e.g. the national railroad retirement fund). It brings in $4 billion in royalties & rents on public lands, for instance when it leases mining, harvesting, or grazing rights. It gets nearly a billion for actually selling stuff — such as timber, mineral products, or power (for example, the government owns the Tennessee Valley Authority, so if you pay your electric bills to them, you’re contributing to the profits of a government-owned utility, and therefore to the federal budget).

In addition to those sales, there’s another $16 billion in sales of government property — almost entirely sales of military equipment to foreign countries. The government also “sells” insurance, collecting $50 billion in medicare premiums, and another $12 billion or so in other stuff, including the new medicare prescription drug scheme, nuclear waste disposal fees, and veterans life insurance.

There’s a $13 billion item called “negative subsidies & downward reestimates” that I could make no sense out of, $2½ billion in miscellany, and a negative billion worth of “receipt clearing accounts.” You tell me.

When you get to the bottom of that, you’ve got another $126½ billion in “proprietary receipts from the public” in addition to the “budget receipts.”

“But that’s not all!” Stick with me as I put on my straw hat and gesture with my cane at the “Intrabudgetary Receipts Deducted By Agency.” What could these be? I think they’re money that one government agency pays to another, that have to be included as receipts to make the accounting come out right. As such, I think we can safely ignore ’em.

After this comes “undistributed off-setting receipts” — $260 billion that seem to me mostly like more of the same, but it’s hard to tell. There’s “interest received by trust funds” which I’m guessing is grouped near the previous bunch because the interest is being paid by the government and the funds are being invested in Treasury securities, but perhaps not. There’s also $6¾ billion in rents and royalties on the outer continental shelf and about the same from the federal communication commission’s auctioning off of bits of the broadcast spectrum (an item that gets duplicated in the list, so perhaps the money is doubled as well).

From here, we hit the final item: “offsetting governmental receipts” — that is to say “regulatory fees” and “other”. The first is over $6 billion worth of fees for things like “mobile home inspection and monitoring,” “pipeline safety,” “bankruptcy oversight,”, “student and exchange visitors” and “immigration user fees.” The latter only comes to $27 million, so I won’t dwell.

Whew! And that doesn’t even cover the various state governments and other sub-franchise operators that the federal government authorizes to take our money from us (or to run monopolies like the state lotteries). And it also doesn’t count the various ways the government can compel us to labor directly for it (rather than supporting it indirectly through money) — everything from prison labor and stop-loss orders, to the hours we spend filling out paperwork. Nor is the hidden tax of inflation and the devaluation of government debt through its underreporting included here. And the various government powers that have significant economic value — for instance the power of eminent domain, the power to print currency, the power to make the rules — don’t make the balance sheet.

The challenge will be to start with something like this and end with some sort of a practical guide for people who want to boycott and divest from Washington. Any ideas?

As I mentioned several days back, I have been working on a series of pages, originally intended to supplement NWTRCC’s website or literature, on the subject of “Where Else Does the Government Get Money to Make War, and What Can We Do About It?” (Where else other than the personal income tax, that is.)

Unfortunately, it seems that the defenders of the NWTRCC faith are not happy with the direction this project has taken so far, fearing that it would distract from the orthodox war tax resistance message the group has already established, or something like that.

So I’ve dropped the project, and will just go ahead and publish the pages I’ve assembled so far here instead. Here’s the first, along with some introductory material:

Sources of Federal Revenue in a Typical Year

The United States government gets the majority of its revenue for conducting wars from two sources: the personal income tax and social insurance taxes (the “payroll” tax that ostensibly funds such programs as Social Security and Medicare). In addition, the government usually borrows a great deal of money to cover expenses that exceed its revenues. Another large source of revenue is the corporate income tax. A number of other taxes and fees and other sources of income make up the rest.

The receipts from some taxes and fees go into the federal government’s “general fund” from which it pays for most of its budget items, including most military spending. Receipts from other taxes and fees go into specific trust funds. For example, there is a tax on fuel that goes into the “Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund” that is used to fund the agency that oversees the cleanup of sites where fuel has seeped into the ground from leaking underground fuel storage tanks.

Some war tax resisters only want to resist taxes that go into the general fund but do not mind paying taxes that are at least nominally destined for such non-military-related trust funds.

However, Congress has a history of “borrowing” from trust funds to pay for general fund spending (including military spending). For example, it borrowed heavily from money paid into Social Security when more money was being collected by the payroll tax than was being paid out in Social Security benefits. Now that benefits paid are starting to exceed payroll tax receipts, Congress is balking at paying back this borrowed money and is instead talking of a Social Security “crisis” that will necessitate raising taxes or cutting benefits. What this amounts to is that all along, Congress treated the payroll tax as if it were money in the general fund that it could spend on war.

For this, and other reasons, some war tax resisters want to resist even those taxes that are ostensibly levied for non-military purposes.

The Excise Tax on Tobacco

Description

Every time someone buys a pack of cigarettes, they pay $1.01 in federal excise tax, and an average of $1.20 in state taxes (different states have different tobacco excise tax rates). Other tobacco products are also taxed.

Amount of the Tax

The federal excise tax on tobacco products rose sharply in 2009, and has risen 321% since 1995. As of 2009, the federal tax rates on tobacco products are:

In addition, every premises at which tobacco product manufacturing takes place is required to pay $1,000 per year in federal tax (some smaller manufacturers may pay a $500 tax instead).

How Much the Government Collects

In fiscal year 2009, the federal government reported collecting over $950 million in tobacco-related excise taxes.

How This Tax Is Collected

The manufacturer or importer of the tobacco product is liable for the federal tax. Tobacco products may be transferred from one licensed manufacturer or importer to another without tax being paid, but the final such entity who sells the product on its way to the end-consumer must pay the tax.

Are the Tax Receipts Earmarked?

These taxes go into the federal government’s general fund.

How Can You Resist This Tax?

Obviously, you can avoid contributing to tobacco taxes by not purchasing, manufacturing, selling, or using tobacco products.

In cases where the tax on tobacco products is considerably different in neighboring jurisdictions, some people evade the higher of the taxes by smuggling tobacco products from the low-tax jurisdiction to the higher-tax one and then selling (or using) the products there.

One can support the tax resistance of others by participating in the production and distribution of counterfeit tax stamps (such as are attached to cigarette packaging to indicate that the tax has been paid).

Another option is to “grow your own.” The process of growing and curing tobacco is complex but not completely out of reach of the small-scale producer. Don Carey of Freedom Township, Ohio, responded to a 2,153% increase in the excise taxes on roll-your-own tobacco by doing just that (see: “Smoker decides to grow his own tobacco” Ohio Beacon 28 June 2009).

See Also

• Lovenheim, Michael F. “How Far to the Border?: The Extent and Impact of Cross-Border Casual Cigarette Smuggling” 61 National Tax Journal 7–33 (March 2008)

When I was trying to write up a series of pages on how the federal government gets its hands on our money — that is, all of the miscellaneous ways, other than the big ones like the income tax and payroll tax — I had a hard time finding out just how much money the government brings in from the various excise taxes and what tax rates apply to what items.

• different agencies’ budget tables put the same revenue sources in different categories under different names
• sometimes more than one excise tax applies to the same item, but destined for different trust funds
• some excise taxes apply differently depending not on the good being taxed but on the nature of the company manufacturing, importing, or selling the good
• some excise taxes are partially, wholly, or super-wholly offset by tax credits and deductions, so that what at first looks like a taxed good may in reality be a taxpayer-subsidized good — but, complicating things even more, the taxes may be applied according to one set of rules and the credits and deductions according to another

So, in short, it was often difficult to get a definitive answer of what excise tax actually shows up in the price of any particular good.

But now the staff of the [Congressional] Joint Committee on Taxation has put together a booklet on Present Law and Background Information on Federal Excise Taxes that looks like just the almanac I was looking for.

Here’s a note about an English Quaker war tax resister from 1901:

The conscientious protest of one English Friend is producing a far-reaching impression. Says the London Friend, “We have not often read more hearty words than those appearing in a leading article of the Shields Daily Gazette of the ninth instant, commenting on the action of Charles H. Fox, of Gloucester, in refusing to pay his income tax this year. The Gazette said:”

Some of the greatest events of the world have been brought about by the firmness of one man in resisting what he believed to be oppression or national wrong. Some of our greatest modern conflicts have been marked by the refusal of members of the Society of Friends to be identified either actually or ethically with them. Mr. Bright’s protests against the Crimean war stand out as the most memorable, and the earliest stand made against popular passion within the period of extended franchises. No doubt a gradually growing humanity has been infusing itself into the minds of people all over the world. The passion of war is less intense and more short-lived than it was. There is a larger element of opposition to war among the more advanced peoples of the world than ever has been before. For this progress the world is largely indebted to men of the type of Mr. Fox and to acts such as his. They concentrate attention on great problems. There is no teacher so eloquent as the man who teaches at some risk, and makes protests that cost him dear.…

The strength of the “one man power” [reminds me of Ammon Hennacy’s “one man revolution” — ♇] for the truth, is not the strength of the man, but the strength of his cause; and his influence is not his, but that of the Spirit of Truth opening its way for the principle of which one stands as herald and sacrifice.…

I haven’t found the original Gazette article, or the source where the Gazette learned of Fox’s actions. The only other information on this that I’ve located is a back-and-forth in the letters column of The British Friend the following year:

The War and the Income Tax

Dear Friend,

I have read with interest the article written by Charles Fox on the Income Tax [which I have been unable to locate — ♇], which he seems to have felt it his duty not to pay. I have been Assessor and Collector of Taxes for three parishes for over twelve years, and have never had anyone refuse to pay them.

The Income Tax is not, strictly speaking, a war tax, but that it, along with many other duties, has risen through war expenses, I do not deny. The highest authority I have for the payment of taxes is our Saviour Himself, who asked for a penny to be shown Him, and then uttered the memorable words, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

May I ask if Charles Fox denies himself the enjoyment or use of many things which indirectly help to pay war expenses? I cannot see why the collector and auctioneer should have felt any shame in doing their duty.

I am, yours truly,
John Dixon.
Southbrook, Great Ayton, R.S.O.,
17^th February, 1902.

Dear Friend,

It is to be hoped that Charles Fox’s letter will help us to a clearer apprehension of the payment of War Taxes. His action in so vigorously opposing the impost is much to be admired; but many of us cannot draw the line at the “Income Tax.” The demand-note includes Schedules A, B, D and E, and House Duty and Land Tax. Are all these specifically War Taxes, or are we to single out Schedule D? The Sugar Tax is a War Tax; can we refuse to pay Income Tax and consistently continue to use sugar?

I am, sincerely,
R.B.
2/22/02.

And then finally we get to hear from Fox himself:

The War and the Income Tax.

Dear Friend,

Two correspondents last month referred to my action in refusing to pay income tax, and before finally leaving the matter to the consciences of individual Friends permit me another brief reply.

There must be some point at which every thoughtful man would refuse tribute to Cæsar. We have only to imagine such an extreme case as Nero imposing a tax to cover the cost of burning Christians, or the public supply of lions for the arena. Can John Dixon imagine a follower of Christ under those circumstances paying such a tax voluntarily, or picture himself acting as henchman to Cæsar in collecting the impost? Might he not at least, like our local officials, be ashamed to continue such a duty? My point of resistance arises when the modern Cæsar asks for a contribution, admittedly required and used for the killing and wounding of my fellow-men. That a part of the tax is due for past enterprises of the same nature, or that it is judiciously associated with civil charges, does not relieve us of responsibility for a share in evil doing.

The answer the biographer of Christ reports concerning tribute, must be read with its context, viz.: the penniless condition of the Master, and his absolute aloofness from affairs involving the use of worldly power and wealth. It may be that our standard ought to exclude the position of an income-tax payer; but meanwhile I do not hold that my money is Cæsar’s, but held in trust for God. To Him must I render account, and both reason and conscience forbid an entry for military purposes as an item in the reckoning.

It has been a satisfaction lately to abstain from tea, coffee, and cocoa, and to reduce the use of sugar to a minimum, besides omitting alcohol and tobacco from my bill of fare. The physical advantage has been ample repayment, and the little experience in eliminating these personal luxuries from my personal use has shown how easily many things may be dropped and the enjoyment of life be enhanced. I do grudge every penny given to the Government, seeing that three-fourths of our national expenditure is for past, present or future war.

Yours sincerely,
Charles Fox.
Upton St. Leonards, Gloucester,
ⅰ. ⅲ. 1902.

The “Radical Reformers” were groups that were pressing for democratic reforms in England — things like universal male suffrage and secret ballots. They had a largely middle-class, reform-based bent, in contrast to more radical and working-class groups that were also operating at this time.

But in the fall of 1819, even the moderates were feeling pretty radical. The military had charged a reform demonstration in Manchester in August, killing 15 people and injuring hundreds. It was the Tienanmien Square massacre of its time, and like Tienanmien, it was the beginning, not the end, of the crackdown on democratic reform.

But the radicals weren’t going down without a fight. Below I’m going to reproduce some excerpts from a report on a meeting of Radical Reformers in Carlisle that was held on this date in 1819, as described in the 6 November 1819 Carlisle Patriot. These show that tax resistance was one of the ways the Radicals were planning to escalate the conflict:

A hand-bill was issued a few days previous, announcing the meeting, and stating its object to be the coming to a resolution of abstaining as much as possible from exciseable articles, in order that, by circumscribing the revenue, the governing powers might be deprived of the means of oppressing the people, and withholding from them their just rights.

…[P]arties of radicals marched into Carlisle… [and] commenced their march through some of the principal streets… to the music of drums and fifes…

[Among the placards they carried was] A board to which were appended, a tea-kettle, a coffee-pot, a snuff-box, a tobacco-box, a broken wine glass, two short old black pipes, a quart and a pint pot, and a broken ale glass. These were all empty and turned up-side-down, as indicative of uselessness, now that the radicals are determined to abstain from taxed commodities.

The Chairman… stated that this meeting was held… to induce all friends of radical reform to abstain from using certain exciseable articles, until the people had obtained the desired radical reform in the British House of Commons. (Cheering.)

Mr. M‘Kenzie, a pressman in the Carlisle Journal Office, then commenced an address which he had in the poll of his hat, ready written. … Were the enormous sums raised by taxation employed only in measures of necessity, the people would bear their privations with philosophical firmness. But when they see vice revelling in the wages of corruption, they cannot tamely submit to their sufferings. What do you think of last year’s taxation, amounting to the sum of 58 millions, a sum ten times as great as when the present king ascended the throne — besides the many millions of debt hanging as a millstone about the necks of the people? To support this system almost every article of consumption is taxed beyond endurance. Tea pays a duty of 100 per cent. Salt, which every poor man must use, and which is indispensable to health, is taxed 3000 per cent. — 30s. upon every shilling’s worth that comes out of the pit. (Shame, shame.) Those are only a few of the means resorted to to uphold the present system. But the people must stand firm, and be true to themselves, and put their foes under their feet (cheers); they must put the pandemonium or corruption and oppression to the route; and to do this the more effectually they must withhold the taxes, by refusing to consume articles on which high duties are placed. To effect this, meetings have been held throughout the country, at which all have unanimously agreed to use as little as possible of such things as tea, tobacco, spirits, wine, &c.; in consequence, the duties of the last quarter fell a long way behind those of the corresponding quarter last year, itself a failing one. A string of resolutions will be submitted to you, the same in substance as was lately agreed to by 40,000 of your countrymen at a recent meeting in the North. They have boldly come forward, and are determined to stand by the resolutions, to shew themselves worthy descendants of [Robert the] Bruce and [William] Wallace. Now, gentlemen, will you not do the same? (Yes! yes!) Will you not as firmly abide by the resolutions? (We will!) Every one that refuses to do this, is unworthy to be the countryman of [John] Hampden, [Algernon] Sydney, and [William] Russell. (Bravo, and cheers.) We must make a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together. (Bravo.) We must manfully drag the monster corruption into day, and put a final period to all our miseries. (Loud cheering.)

Mr. [James] Weems now stepped forward. … Let all present abstain from the use of exciseable articles, in order to keep the revenue down, for no pay no soldier, therefore the people must withhold the means, and thus pull down the present abominable system — and it shall come down! a few months only will finish the job! (Loud cheering.) He would now retire in order to permit the reading of the resolutions, which done, he designed to make a few remarks upon them.

The following resolutions were then read by Mr. Liddell, bootmaker:–

1. That this meeting views with grief and sorrow an accumulated load of poverty, starvation, and wretchedness, heaped on this once happy land; and that this state of suffering is not confined to one class of society, but extends less or more over all (except those who live on taxation); that this misery is the result of an enormous load of taxation imposed upon the people by those who style themselves their rulers, but who have only plundered the defenceless people of their all, to render themselves despotic and rule by the law of the sword.
2. That the ruling faction could not have carried on their iniquitous measures, had it not been for the ignorance of the people, because tyranny ceases to exist the moment man is enlightened, therefore it is the duty of every man to procure useful information respecting his sacred rights and liberties, that as a man he may defend them against every encroachment, from whatever quarter it may come, for which important purpose men should associate in small numbers for their mutual instruction and improvement, that thus a race of enlightened men may arise who shall demand their rights as men, in a tone that will make tyranny tremble and hide its guilty head.
3. That the people have, in a great measure, themselves to blame for their sufferings, because they have inconsiderately wasted much of their money in the consumption of exciseable articles, whereby they have kept themselves in poverty and ignorance, to the support of despots, who keep a large standing army in time of peace to prevent the people from obtaining their constitutional rights, all which is a direct violation of the Great Charters of British Liberty.
4. That the exciseable articles particularly referred to, are tea, which pays a duty of cent. per cent. or just one half, consequently, every five ounces of tea consumed by any family, pays a soldier a day’s wages to prevent the people obtaining their rights and liberties; tobacco and snuff pay threpence an ounce, so that five ounces of these articles pay a soldier a day’s wages; spiritous liquors pay 11s. per gallon, or better than fourpence per noggin, consequently, every four noggins [approximately a pint] that a man drinks, he not only abuses his own constitution, impairs his finances, benumbs his understanding, and paralizes all the noble faculties of his soul, but pays a hireling soldier to keep him in subjection to a cruel and merciless task-master. Ale, which pays duties equal to spirits, may be viewed in the same light, as being equally destructive to the morals, the finances, and tends to the support of tyranny.
5. That every Radical Reformer should put on a firm resolution to abstain from the use of the above articles until he obtain a radical reform in the House of Commons. The happiest results may be expected from this line of conduct; he will always be in a sound state of mind and body, he will improve his mind by reading and reflection, and afford to his radical brethren good evidence that he is earnestly desirous to promote radical reform, and that to obtain this important end he can sacrifice his own propensities. And lastly, that which is of infinite importance to the good cause, he will keep out of the pockets of the borough-monger faction a great part of that revenue on which they depend to support themselves in their usurped authority.
6. That as Radical Reformers are generally oppressed and injured by those who oppose their constitutional claims, it is indispensably necessary that they endeavour to assist and support each other in their respective trades, callings, or professions, and that they should deal as much as they possibly can with each other, thus aiding, assisting, and encouraging one another in the good and great cause of universal freedom.
7. That although the faction in power may trump up green bag plots [referring, apparently, to a case in which the government planted agents provocateurs in Radical meetings to promote violent acts which were then used as justification for extra-legal crackdowns, much as is commonly done by the U.S. government today — Here’s a pamphlet by Radical Reformer Henry Hunt on “The Green Bag Plot.”], in order to form a pretext for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and may obtain such suspension and under its operation may send many innocent men to jail, harass and plague men infinitely better than themselves, yet they cannot thereby pay that enormous load of debt they have contracted, neither can they compel the Reformers to pay the interest thereof by compelling them to swallow their abominable exciseable articles, therefore, Reformers may comfort themselves with the idea that the debt and all its consequences hang over the heads of the borough-mongers notwithstanding indemnity or suspension bills.
8. [and so forth]

Mr. Weems again came forward… The [third] resolution informs us, that the people have themselves to blame for their sufferings. This is in a great measure true, because they have tamely given their money in the support of a hireling army, backed by which, their oppressors have been enabled to grind them to the earth. But this day, let us give them good earnest that we will do so no more; let them see that our eyes are opened; that in future we mean to be more circumspect; and prevent the borough faction from oppressing us, by keeping our money for our own use; — and probably we shall want it, too, to provide for our own defence (very loud cheering), because by that thing called magna charta, every one has a right to have arms, and should have them. (Cries of, And we will have them!) And I hope on that day no cowards will be found (cheers), but that all will be ready to spend the last drop of their blood in handing down our rights. (Loud cheers). — The next resolution informs us of various exciseable articles from which our oppressors derive their greatest support. Many of these cannot be done without; but such as can be done without, should be given up. Spirits, for instance, which injure not the pocket alone; they destroy the constitution and paralize the soul. By giving up these silly articles, we afford evidence that we are hearty in the cause, and are willing to sacrifice our appetites for the general good. If we cannot suffer in a trifle, how are we to stand in the field of battle? (cheers.) We shall be liable to run away. (True, true.) If we wish to afford evidence that we shall stand firm in the day of battle, we must take for our example, Sydney, Hampden, Bruce, and Wallace. (Applause.) — The next resolution, that every radical reformer put on a firm determination to abstain from these exciseable articles, I have no doubt all will acquiesce in. … Do the resolutions meet with your approbation? (Yes!) If so, signify the same by three cheers. — (Loud Cheering.)

After the dispersal of the meeting, the Lady-Radicals proceeded, in a body, to the house of one of the sisterhood, in Shaddongate, where they enjoyed a comfortable cup of either mint tea, or acorn coffee.

As the evening advanced, some of the leading radicals forgot their morning-vows of abstinence, and were not backward in their potations at different public houses. The “exciseable articles” agreed so ill with one of the most conspicuous of the leading men, that in bouncing about, just by way of practising the true liberty of the subject, he broke 20s. worth of glass, — thus adding we know not how much to the resources of the enemy!

At one point the Reformers raised a toast to “Cobler Jem, who is a noble example to all reformers.” A footnote explained that:

This said Cobler Jem is a well-known character in Carlisle, and was in the habit of consuming eighteen-pence or two shillings worth of snuff weekly. This quantum he has taken for 50 years (we are within the mark), which, at 1s. 6d. per week, to say nothing of interest, amounts to the round sum of £195! Add to this, that his wife has snuffed nearly the same quantity! Yet, wonderful to tell! — but what cannot the principles of radical reform effect? — Cobler Jem and his lady have thrown away their snuff-boxes!!!