The Official Resistance South Africa

Featured Post DOWNLOAD FREE EBOOK ! The Truth is FREE

The Illuminati Exposed! 50 year old recording EXPOSES ALL! FAthers of apartheid & ANC

    Who also financed Apartheid and the ANC Stay Vigilant

Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 30, 2016




The Sugar Act, also known as the American Revenue Act or the American Duties Act, was a revenue-raising act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain on April 5, 1764.[1] The preamble to the act stated: "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same."[2] The earlier Molasses Act of 1733, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon of molasses, had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate by half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, the British hoped that the tax would actually be collected.[3] These incidents increased the colonists' concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.[4]

Effect on the American colonies

The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament on 5 April 1764,[1] and it arrived in the colonies at a time of economic depression. It was an indirect tax, although the colonists were well informed of its presence. A good part of the reason was that a significant portion of the colonial economy during the Seven Years' War was involved with supplying food and supplies to the British Army. Colonials, however, especially those affected directly as merchants and shippers, assumed that the highly visible new tax program was the major culprit. As protests against the Sugar Act developed, it was the economic impact rather than the constitutional issue of taxation without representation that was the main focus for the colonists.[10]
New England ports especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement made smuggling molasses more dangerous and risky. Also they argued that the profit margin on rum was too small to support any tax on molasses. Forced to increase their prices, many colonists feared being priced out of the market. The British West Indies, on the other hand, now had undivided access to colonial exports. With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while New England ports saw revenue from their rum exports decrease. Also the West Indies had been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or specie, and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened.[11]
Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act were Samuel Adams and James Otis, both of Massachusetts. In May 1764, Samuel Adams drafted a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounced the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects:
For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?[12]
In August 1764, fifty Boston merchants agreed to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and New York there were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in Rhode Island.[13] Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when the Stamp Act was passed.[14]
The Sugar Act was repealed in 1766 and replaced with the Revenue Act of 1766, which reduced the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the Stamp Act of 1765 was repealed


Also ...

The sugar tax is an attempt to curb SA’s growing obesity and diabetes death rate which is largely caused by sugary beverages.

This is what all this noise about , but is it really?
We also know that since when has our government been in support of our health? its always been  about the money, so I'm making a prediction, we will follow the money trail
We also know that our Country has a very big sugar industry, supplying sugar to a few countries over the sea.. come on people look deeper into this and spot the Dick...

Health or money??

You decide...

See Exert :

Local Policy: from Sugar to Monsanto
Over the past decades, Hawai‘i has changed from a landscape dominated by tropical monocrops of sugar and pineapple, to one of agrochemical-seed product development on the peripheries of a military-tourism economy. However, in many ways, today’s plantations operated by Monsanto and Syngenta do not stray far from those of the “Big Five” sugar oligarchy’s. Agrochem has directly inherited sugar’s infrastructures and institutions and, similarly, operates by way of consolidated wealth, power and resource control, all undergirded by American hegemony and colonialism. As with all plantations, benefits are largely privatized while costs are socialized.

Without favorable land, water, forest, labor, infrastructure, tax and trade policies, sugar could not have been competitive or profitable on the global market, and the “Big Five” sugar oligarchy could not have held so much wealth and economic control. Likewise, in addition to U.S. government facilitation of product monopolies and corporate dominance, agrochemical operations today are conditioned upon a range of supports from the State of Hawai‘i and general public—including the subsidization of land, water, research, infrastructure, pollution abatement and public health costs.
Land acquisition by agrochemical corporations is enabled by Hawai‘i’s colonial-plantation history of consolidated land control and State management of lands seized from the Hawaiian Kingdom in its overthrow. Like sugar, much of the land that the industry operates on are “State” lands that Native Hawaiians continue to be dispossessed of. Leases include 20–35 year agreements, most for over 2,000 acres, at rates as low as $50/acre/year for tillable acres and $1/acre/year for non-tillable acres. Hawai‘i’s plantation-descendant, large landholders similarly lease extensive acreage to the industry, reportedly evicting local farmers and ranchers for the higher paying multinationals.

Essential to the agrochemical companies, these large tracts of prime agricultural lands include irrigation infrastructure from sugar days, some of it maintained with public funds. While Hawai‘i’s laws guarantee water as a public trust resource, it continues to be diverted for the benefit of Hawai‘i’s most powerful business and landowning interests, leaving streams dry and Native Hawaiians, local farmers, and other users without water. Earthjustice alleges that the State’s Agribusiness Development Corporation is “hoarding” and “dumping” millions of gallons of water daily where they lease lands to agrochemical companies. In addition to irrigation, ex-sugar lands are already equipped with drainage, electrical power and roadway systems to service the new corporate agribusiness tenants.
Direct financial contributions provided to agrochemical companies include property tax breaks, General Excise Tax exemptions, and a history of unpaid taxes. Further, in the early 1990s policy-makers began offering investment capital and tax incentives for agricultural biotechnology research and development. A long, sugar-shaped history of cooperative relationship between large industry, federal and island governments, and public and private research institutions continues to operate for the agrochemical companies today. This both sidelines other agricultural research pathways in the public interest, and has raised concerns at the University of Hawai‘i about the influence of agrochemical companies on intellectual inquiry.

Stay Vigilant !