YEAR 4: THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR AND AFTER
6 days ago James II. king of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Alternative Titles: Duke of He was then removed by order of Parliament to St. James's Palace, from and he consented to the marriage of his elder daughter, Mary, to the. The new king, James II, crowned jut three years earlier, was Roman the crown would go to Princess Mary, Protestant daughter of his first marriage. all the women smoked pipes of tobacco, "without shame, even the very young, Parliament and the court were in a permanent state of panic, made worse. Barnard married on 18 August and had three children: Grace, James II, and Laura. Some years after James's death, Elizabeth married William C. Simpson. illustrations of / the effects of alcohol & cigarettes; / care of children; / how to cook and 'Entered, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year.
This is designed to meet the Commonwealth's requirement that the new arrangements should not lead to price rises for the affected commodities.
The Commonwealth has also announced its intention to levy a per cent 'windfall gains' tax on any successful claims for refunds of monies paid under the now invalidated franchise fee system, with the proceeds being paid back to the States and Territories.
While this appears to be a possible solution to the problem, one can only presume that this will still be a fertile area for litigation. Federal-State financial relations in Australia are characterised by a substantial degree of vertical fiscal imbalance, that is, an imbalance between the revenue sources available to each tier of government and their expenditure responsibilities. With sole access to both the sales tax base and, sincethe income tax base, the Commonwealth raises around 80 per cent of all tax revenue but is responsible for only 63 per cent of all own-purpose expenditures.
The invalidation of State business franchise fees has further reduced the States' financial independence. The invalidation of this substantial source of State revenue may be a catalyst for a further review of both Federal-State financial relations and the structure of taxation in this country.
If it is felt desirable to redress the worsened fiscal balance in the Federation, one option might be amendment of section 90 of the Constitution to give the States greater access to the consumption tax base. Another alternative might be for the Commonwealth to make room for the States to impose their own personal income tax in tandem with that of the Commonwealth.
The current crisis also highlights the limited structure of consumption taxation in Australia. Already, around one half of Federal indirect tax is raised from petroleum, tobacco and alcohol. The new tax arrangements will make the fiscal dependence upon these products even more marked.
The narrowness of the indirect tax base and the huge disparities that apply to the taxation of different goods and services in Australia distort resource allocation and impinge upon economic efficiency. The present crisis in Federal-State finances may thus be the stimulus required to undertake major restructuring of the present pattern of consumption taxation.
However, the Constitutional basis for these fees has always been insecure. There has always been a suspicion that these imposts might be characterised as an excise and, under section 90 of the Constitution, only the Commonwealth can levy an excise. It is for this reason that the States have been very loathe to extend this form of taxation to other commodities. The decision also leaves open the possibility that, based upon the High Court's clarification of what legally constitutes an excise, other State taxes such as stamp duties on 'real' property transactions e.
Even prior to this decision, Federal-State financial relations have been characterised by a substantial degree of vertical fiscal imbalance, that is, an imbalance between the revenue sources available to each tier of government and their expenditure responsibilities.
The States have major expenditure responsibilities in the fields of education, health, law and order, transport and housing yet they have very limited means of raising revenue. Resort to business franchise fees has been one initiative taken by the States to expand their revenue base. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, has sole access to the main taxes such as income tax, sales tax and duties of customs and excise.
These revenues considerably exceed the Commonwealth's own expenditure requirements. As a result, the Commonwealth provides a significant amount of financial assistance to the States.
This 'power of the purse' has enabled the Commonwealth to engage in policy making in areas over which it has no direct constitutional powers and has also given it influence over State borrowing. The invalidation of State business franchise fees will have the effect of increasing the degree of vertical fiscal imbalance in Federal-State financial relations. Even if the Commonwealth follows through with its pledge to raise such taxes on behalf of the States, this will only serve to increase the States' dependence on the Commonwealth as a source of revenue.
Vertical Fiscal Imbalance Australia is characterised by a larger degree of vertical fiscal imbalance between its tiers of government than any other federal nation. On the other hand, Commonwealth outlays for its own purposes were only 63 per cent of total general government outlays.
These grants represented 46 per cent of State and Territory general government revenue. To a large extent, the source of this vertical imbalance lies in the Constitution. The Commonwealth's power to tax is found in section 51 ii of the Constitution. Such power is certainly concurrent with the taxing power of the States, except in relation to the imposition of duties of customs and excise which, by virtue of section 90 of the Constitution, is a power exclusive to the Commonwealth.
With the exception of customs and excise duties, therefore, the States can have access to any tax base, including income taxation. The High Court has ruled that sectionwhich ensures that where Commonwealth and State laws are in conflict Commonwealth law will prevail, would have limited application in the taxing field. For that reason, it is possible for the Commonwealth and the States to impose taxes on the same tax base. Such taxes would not be interpreted as being in conflict with each other, but would be seen as a sharing of the available tax base.
Even though the States have the legal power to impose income tax concurrently with the Commonwealth, they have not done so since due to the political difficulties they would face in attempting to take this course of action.
The Constitution does require sections 51 ii and 99 that any tax imposed by the Commonwealth shall not discriminate between any States or parts of States.
In this respect, the imposition of taxation by the Commonwealth must be 'uniform'. Despite the apparent scope that the Constitution grants to the States to impose tax on a great variety of tax bases, in reality, the Commonwealth has been able to rely on High Court interpretations of powers bestowed upon it by certain sections of the Constitution, most notably sections 96 and 90, to effectively prevent the States from fully exploiting their taxing potential.
Section 96 of the Constitution permits the Commonwealth to grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
- YEAR 4: THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR AND AFTER
- Federalism Up in Smoke? The High Court Decision on State Tobacco Tax
Perhaps the greatest source of the current vertical fiscal imbalance was the takeover of personal income tax by the Commonwealth during World War 2. A number of the States had been levying small amounts of income tax even before Federation, although the main source of taxation revenue available to them at that time were duties of customs and excise. When the power to levy customs and excise became the exclusive preserve of the Commonwealth upon Federation, the States began to develop their income tax base.
Even so, the Commonwealth began to compete for this base by commencing to levy income tax in Nevertheless, prior to World War 2, the States and the Commonwealth shared the income tax base in such a way that the States were reasonably fiscally self sufficient.
However, inthe Treasurer appointed a Committee to consider the question of the Commonwealth becoming the sole income taxing authority for the duration of the War, and for reimbursement payments to be made, using section 96 powers, to the States upon their retirement from the income taxing field.
At the time, the various States imposed their income taxes at very different levels. The Commonwealth wished to raise income taxes to finance the War, but found itself in a quandary.
If it set its income tax at a uniformly high level, this would impose a serious burden on those inhabitants in States with high income tax.
James II | Biography, Religion, Accomplishments, & Facts | posavski-obzor.info
Imposing low Commonwealth tax would not yield sufficient revenue. The solution was for the Commonwealth to impose a uniform, high rate of tax and reimburse the States for the income tax that they would have forgone. The Committee presented its report and recommended that, for the duration of the War and one year afterwards, the Commonwealth government should be the sole authority to impose taxes on income and that the States should be duly compensated.
In Maylegislation was introduced in the Federal Parliament to give effect to this recommendation and a uniform income tax scheme came into operation on 1 July At a Premiers' Conference in Januarythe States were informed that the Commonwealth proposed to continue uniform taxation indefinitely.
A formula approach was adopted to the distribution of tax reimbursement grants which continued to be provided on condition that the States made no attempt to re-enter the income taxing field.
This left the States with little alternative other than to devise new forms of taxation. However, the States' ability to devise new taxes was constrained by High Court interpretation of section 90 of the Constitution. To an economist, an excise is a tax which is imposed upon goods which have been produced domestically as against customs duties which are imposed on imported goods.
An excise is usually applied at the point of production, for example, being paid by the oil refiner or by the cigarette manufacturer. In this respect, an excise is different from a sales tax, which is usually imposed at the wholesale or retail level and which generally does not discriminate between domestically produced and imported goods. This distinction is even more important in a federal system of government.
The incidence of an excise applied at the point of production, say in one State, is likely to fall upon consumers in all States where the product is sold.
The incidence of a State sales tax, however, will fall almost entirely upon the residents of the State imposing the tax. The sales tax thus does not have the 'spillover' effects of an excise and one might surmise that it was the avoidance of such spillover effects that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when drafting section In its early decisions on section 90, the High Court adopted a narrow definition of an excise - one which was more closely aligned with the economic definition.
However, in later cases, the Court widened its definition of an excise to be any tax on goods applied anywhere in the production and distribution chain.
This has seriously eroded the financial independence of the Australian States. In most other federations, either direct access to, or formula-based sharing of, the sales tax base is an important source of State revenue.
In the United States, for example, the Federal government collects no general sales taxes at all. These are the preserve of the States and local government. Such sales taxes generate around one-third of State taxation revenue in the US and around 10 per cent of local government tax revenue. Faced with these Constitutional and political obstacles, the States have had difficulty in expanding their tax bases.
At various times, the States have negotiated with the Commonwealth and mounted High Court challenges to restore their access to the income tax base. This document, among other things, requested that State and Commonwealth Treasury officers be instructed to devise a scheme whereby the States should have access to income tax, broadly along the lines of the system operating in Canada.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth did attempt to assuage the States by increasing their financial assistance, by agreeing to assist with State debt, and by agreeing to co-operate in identifying potential 'growth' taxes that the States might apply. It was this last agreement which ultimately led to the transference of payroll tax from the Commonwealth to the States in June Currently, the States raise tax revenue mainly through payroll tax and a range of other taxes which frequently tend to be economically distorting and involving significant administration and compliance costs.
Such taxes include stamp duties, taxes on gambling, taxes on motoring, financial transactions taxes and land tax. The following table sets out the structure of State taxation in Australian Bureau of Statistics. Taxation Revenue, Australia Despite the constraints upon the States, they have not been immune from the criticism that they have not attempted to fully utilise the tax bases available to them.
For example, even though the High Court interpretation of section 90 has prevented the States from imposing a sales tax upon goods, there is nothing preventing the States from imposing such taxes on services such as accommodation, travel, entertainment, personal services and so forth.
To date, the States have really only applied such taxes in the field of financial and insurance services. The States have also been accused of not fully exploiting their land tax base, which exempts residential and agricultural land, while competition between the States in the payroll tax arena may have led to higher exemption thresholds and lower rates than might otherwise have been applied.
Death and estate duties were phased out by all States over the late s and early s, following Queensland's abolition of death and estate duties in Such taxes are applied by requiring the vendor of a particular commodity to be licensed. The tax then takes the form of a licence fee. The fee usually consists of a flat-rate amount plus some ad valorem component, usually expressed as a percentage of turnover over some specified preceding period.
In this way, the impost is portrayed as a licence fee for the right to conduct a particular type of business rather than as a tax on the commodity being sold.
License fees had long been applied by the States on the suppliers of liquor, who were required to be licensed to engage in such trade. The validity of licence fees on the sale of alcohol was upheld by the High Court in the case of Dennis Hotels 9 in It thus became obvious that such a scheme might be extended to other commodities and, to date, such business franchise fees have been levied on the sale of petroleum products, tobacco products, liquor and, in South Australia, gas.
An attempt by Victoria to impose a similar type of fee on oil pipelines was found by the High Court to be in breach of section 90 in August The legislation imposing the fee was challenged in the High Court, where it was found to be valid, although certain technical flaws with the legislation, especially in regard to a consumption tax element of the scheme, were identified.
The State redrafted its legislation to overcome these but before it could be retested in the High Court the fee was suspended following the negotiation of revised financial arrangements with the Commonwealth. The collection of licence fees was suspended from 1 July NSW introduced a franchise fee on petroleum products to apply from Marchwhile South Australia introduced a similar fee in South Australia also applied a licence fee to the supply of gas for final consumption, with effect from December Both Victoria and South Australia legislated for business franchise fees on tobacco products in Tasmania reintroduced its business franchise fee on tobacco from January as did the Northern Territory.
Queensland resisted the trend, until it too introduced a tobacco franchise fee in Petroleum products franchise fees were abolished in NSW in earlywhile the South Australian petroleum fee was abolished as from December In both States, these fees were regarded as politically unpopular and inflationary. Both States gave as their excuse for abolishing the fees improved financial arrangements with the Commonwealth.
At this stage, different Members of Parliament can read out different charges these can be prepared beforehand. Charles I refuses to answer any of them. Oliver Cromwell is a traitor. Oliver Cromwell orders that the guards point their guns towards the spectators to prevent any more outbursts.
James II (1633 - 1701)
You cannot kill me! I am the King of England! We will no longer suffer under his tyranny. Each of the MPs involved in the trial has to sign it. Look at the image here, and see which of the following features you can locate. Charles I with his head chopped off. It was removed in one clean blow. The executioner and his assistant actually wore masks, so that no one could take revenge on them. It was a very cold day, and Charles insisted on wearing a thick undershirt to keep warm.
If he was seen shivering, he said, people would assume that he was scared. Execution takes place outside of Banqueting House, the grandest building in the Palace of Westminster. A man with his leg missing—a former soldier from the English Civil War—there to remind us that the king drove the country to war.
A lady feints at the sight of her King being executed. She is shocked by what she has seen—very few people could really believe that the King, appointed by God, had been killed by his own Parliament. Execution Article Stuart Times 10 11 Lesson 3. Much of his early reign was spent asserting control over Ireland and Scotland, which he did so with notorious violence, and he tried hard to impose his Puritan beliefs on the English people.
When he died, his son Richard Cromwell took power, but he was a poor leader with little desire to do the job. Write a comparison of what the two different rulers were like resource 5.
Therefore, the Restoration is known as a period of great celebration and relief. Royalists hoped that restoring Charles II to the throne would stop all the wars and fighting.
What was life in England like under Oliver Cromwell? He became a Puritan during the s, and had extremely strict religious views. He was a member of Parliament, and hated Charles I.
Eventually, Cromwell was placed in charge of the Parliamentary force. Charles II had lived a difficult life up until this point. He was only 18 years old when his father was beheaded. He led a rebellion against Oliver Cromwell, and when that failed, Charles II had to sneak out of England to France disguised as a working man.
He even hid in an oak tree to escape capture! Cromwell pushed to have the King executed in Inhe was made Lord Protector similar to King. He ruled England in a very strict fashion, according to his Puritan beliefs. He could be very brutal.
In particular, Cromwell is remembered in Ireland for killing women and children whilst putting down a Catholic uprising. He was tolerant of all different religions, and many people rejoiced about having Charles II as king.
However, the start of his reign did see two disasters: People were forced to go to church every Sunday. Pubs and theatres were closed down, and many sports were banned. Women were not allowed to wear make-up, and you could be thrown in prison for swearing. Most famously, Oliver Cromwell banned Christmas celebrations like presents and decorations!
Charles loved to dance and have parties, and he reopened theatres across Britain. He was also very interested in science, and formed the Royal Society. Unlike his father, Charles was willing to share power with Parliament. Many claimed that he was so concerned with enjoying himself and having parties, that he was happy to leave the boring business of government to other people! It followed a second, less harmful, outbreak of the plague in Many religious fanatics at the time believed that this fire and pestilence meant that the apocalypse was upon them, particularly seeing that the date,was the number of the devil.
Core Knowledge The fire of London began on the night of 2nd September, and destroyed the homes ofpeople. It was caused by a baker who left his ovens burning through the night at his bakery on Pudding Lane.
Activities for Learning Cover the reasons why the Fire of London spread so quickly across seventeenth century London. This 3D recreation of London is very helpful. Set pupils a true or false activity on why the fire spread resource 6. Ask pupils to imagine that they are the Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, and challenge them to find a way of stopping the Great Fire.
As clues, show the pupils pictures of firehooks and firebreaks. Firsthand accounts from diarist Samuel Pepys can be found here, alongside many other useful resources.
The National Archive Resources are also useful, especially the map of the area destroyed page 8. Why did the Fire of London spread so quickly? How was the Fire of London eventually stopped?
Why did the Fire Spread? The Fire of London raged for four nights from the 2nd September The flames were so enormous they could be seen from Oxford.
Overpeople lost their homes, and 13, properties and 87 parish churches were destroyed. Once the fire had finished, the people of England were desperate for an explanation for why it had happened.
Circle which of the following facts you think are true, or false. The city of London was overcrowded, and the streets and houses were very close together.
The fire was caused by a person throwing their cigarette onto the side of a wooden house. Many houses in central London were made out of wood, with thatched straw roofs, even though this had been made illegal. Flammable substances such as tarr, hemp and gunpowder, were kept in ware- 5. Many houses used gas lightingand the gas pipes were poorly made. There were no professional firefighters, and power hoses did not exist for putting out fires. However, he could not father an heir with his wife despite having some 17 illegitimate children.
This meant that when he died, his brother James became King, and James was a Catholic. This event became known as the Glorious Revolution. People disliked him because he was a Catholicand he had a son who was also a Catholic. Complete a miniature family tree, in order to understand the troubles caused by Charles II having no legitimate children, and James II and his son being Catholics resource 8.