1. For conservative support for a federal VAT, see Bruce Bartlett, “The Conservative Case for a VAT,” in Tax Analysts, Inc., The VAT Reader: What a Federal Consumption Tax Would Mean for America (Falls Church, Va., 2011), 83–95. For the social science literature suggesting that relying on easily raised consumption taxes enables a more expansive welfare state, see Wilensky, Harold L., The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures (Berkeley, 1975)Google Scholar; Steinmo, Sven, Taxation and Democracy: Swedish, British, and American Approaches to Financing the Modern State (New Haven, 1993)Google Scholar; Kato, Junko, Regressive Taxation and the Welfare State: Path Dependence and Policy Diffusion (Cambridge, 2003)Google Scholar; Beramendi, Pablo and Rueda, David, “Social Democracy Constrained: Indirect Taxation in Industrialized Democracies,” British Journal of Political Science 37 (2007): 619–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Prasad, Monica and Deng, Yingying, “Taxation and the Worlds of Welfare,” Socio-Economic Review 7 (2009): 431–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander Hertel-Fernandez and Cathie Jo Martin, “How Employers and Conservatives Shaped the Modern Tax State,” draft paper under review, 21 May 2015, http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/taxstate-62115.pdf (accessed 31 October 2016). Two tax scholars have gone so far as to consider the absence of a federal VAT the “fiscal historian’s version of the classical Werner Sombart question: Why no socialism in the United States?”: Ajay K. Mehrotra and Hiroyasu Nomura, “The VAT Laggards: A Comparative History of Japanese and U.S. Resistance to the Value-Added Tax,” paper prepared for Hebrew University Legal History Workshop, 7 May 2013, http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/Mehrotra.pdf (accessed 31 October 2016) (quotation on 3). For the contrary argument that broad consumption taxes do not necessarily produce expansive welfare states, see Ganghoff, Steffen, “Tax Mixes and the Size of the Welfare State: Causal Mechanisms and Policy Implications,” Journal of European Social Policy 16 (2006): 360–73Google Scholar, and Kenworthy, Lane, Progress for the Poor (Oxford, 2011), chap. 8Google Scholar. For the point that consumption taxes are not necessarily easy to raise, see also Major, Aaron and McCabe, Josh, “The Adversarial Politics of Fiscal Federalism: Tax Policy and the Conservative Ascendancy in Canada, 1988–2008,” Social Science History 38 (2014): 333–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a critique of the inequality-enhancing features of American state sales taxes, see Katherine Newman and O’Brien, Rourke L., Taxing the Poor: Doing Damage to the Truly Disadvantaged (Berkeley, 2011).Google Scholar

2. Prasad, Monica, The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty (Cambridge, 2012), 102Google Scholar; Kato, Regressive Taxation, 77–159; James, Kathryn, The Rise of the Value-Added Tax (New York, 2015), 241–52, 343–75;Google Scholar James, Kathryn, “We of the ‘Never Ever’: The History of the Introduction of a Goods and Services Tax in Australia,” British Tax Review (2007): 320–48.Google Scholar

3. Schwarz, Jordan A., “John Nance Garner and the Sales Tax Rebellion of 1932,” Journal of Southern History 30 (1964): 162–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; James, Rise of the Value-Added Tax, 340–43; Ajay K. Mehrotra, Making the Modern American Fiscal State: Law, Politics, and the Rise of Progressive Taxation, 1877–1929 (New York, 2013), 17–18, 376–83, 413–14; Mehrotra and Nomura, “The VAT Laggards”; Morgan, Kimberly J. and Prasad, Monica, “The Origins of Tax Systems: A French-American Comparison,” American Journal of Sociology 114 (2009): 1350–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Prasad, Land of Too Much, chap. 4; Zelenak, Lawrence A., “The Federal Retail Sales Tax That Wasn’t: An Actual History and an Alternate History,” Law and Contemporary Problems 73 (2009): 149–205Google Scholar; Thorndike, Joseph J., Their Fair Share: Taxing the Rich in the Age of FDR (Washington, D.C., 2013), 236–40Google Scholar.

4. In 1952–53, total receipts from federal excise taxes on goods (other than alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and lubricating oil) were about $2.4 billion; by 1963/64, total receipts had increased to $3.7 billion. State general sales taxes raised $2.4 billion in 1952/53; by 1963/64 these taxes amounted to $6.1 billion. Federal figures from Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1953 (available online at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/data) (hereafter ARST), 373–74, and ARST 1964, 442; state figures from John Joseph Wallis, “State Government Revenue, by Source: 1902–1996,” Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennium Edition (New York, 2008), table Ea358.

5. The Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965 involved revenue losses of the same general size as the two Kennedy-Johnson income tax cuts of 1962 and 1964 and arguably had just as significant policy implications. But the only references to it that I have been able to find in the tax history literature are two brief mentions in policy-oriented treatises: Pechman, Joseph, Federal Tax Policy, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C., 1987), 200–201Google Scholar, and Steuerle, C. Eugene, Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C., 2008), 37.Google Scholar It is not mentioned in the following leading works by historians and political scientists that cover the Kennedy-Johnson years: Martin, Cathie J., Shifting the Burden: The Struggle over Growth and Corporate Taxation (Chicago, 1991)Google Scholar; Zelizer, Julian E., Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar; Brownlee, W. Elliot, Federal Taxation in America: A History, 3rd. ed. (Cambridge, 2016)Google Scholar; Michelmore, Molly C., Tax and Spend: The Welfare State, Tax Politics, and the Limits of American Liberalism (Philadelphia, 2012).Google Scholar

6. For the introduction of the first progressive income tax in Great Britain, see Daunton, Martin, Trusting Leviathan: The Politics of Taxation in Britain, 1799–1914 (Cambridge, 2001), chap. 11Google Scholar, and Murray, Bruce K., The People’s Budget 1909/10: Lloyd George and Liberal Politics (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar. For the development of the British tax system from 1914 to 1945, see Daunton, Martin, Just Taxes: The Politics of Taxation in Britain, 1914–1979 (Cambridge, 2002), chaps. 2–6Google Scholar; the rejection of sales tax proposals in 1919 and 1922 is discussed on 94–98. Percentages of “tax units,” defined as single adult individuals plus married couples, subject to income tax are calculated from the number of tax units in Atkinson, A. B., “The Distribution of Top Incomes in the United Kingdom 1908–2000,” in Top Incomes over the Twentieth Century: A Contrast between European and English-Speaking Countries, ed. Atkinson, A. B. and Piketty, T. (Oxford, 2007), 126Google Scholar, and the number of income tax filers subject to tax from Daunton, Just Taxes, 180 (note that the corresponding number for the United States was 6 percent). Percentages of total tax receipts from customs duties and excise taxes have been calculated from Mitchell, B. R., British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1988), 584Google Scholar, and Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, D.C., 1975), 1106–7; for similar data on the degree of reliance on consumption taxes, see Daunton, Just Taxes, 175, and Leff, Mark, The Limits of Symbolic Reform: The New Deal and Taxation, 1933–1939 (Cambridge, 1984), 12Google Scholar (note that, in order to preserve comparability with British data, Social Security taxes have to be excluded from the American data, as the corresponding British imposts, called “National Insurance Contributions,” are not included in British statistics of tax receipts). Total income and profits taxes as a percentage of GDP have been calculated from Mitchell, British Historical Statistics, 584; Samuel H. Williamson, “What Was the U.K. GDP Then?” MeasuringWorth 2015, http://www.measuringworth.com/ukgdp; John Joseph Wallis, “Federal Government Revenue, by Source: 1934–1999,” Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennium Edition, table Ea683; Samuel H. Williamson, “What Was the U.S. GDP Then?” MeasuringWorth 2015, http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp.

7. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5th ser. (available online at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com) (hereafter HCD), 360: 74–75, 77 (23 April 1940). The broad exemptions covered food, fuel, and housing, as well as those products (most importantly alcohol, tobacco, and petrol) already subject to separate excise taxes. For the genesis of the purchase-tax proposal within the Treasury bureaucracy and the broader context of the 1940 budget, see Sayers, R. S., Financial Policy 1939–1945 (London, 1956), 31–41Google Scholar; Peden, G. C., The Treasury and British Public Policy, 1906–1959 (Oxford, 2000), 318–21.Google Scholar

8. HCD, 360: 818 (first quotation), 827 (second quotation) (1 May 1940); “Purchase Tax Would Hit the Working Class,” Manchester Guardian, 29 April 1940 (third quotation).

9. “Purchase Tax Opposed,” Financial Times, 4 July 1940; “Second Budget, 1940,” 5 July 1940, The National Archives, Kew, London (hereafter TNA), T 171/552; “The Purchase Tax: Labour Opposition,” Manchester Guardian, 10 July 1940; “Purchase Tax Bill to Go,” Financial Times, 11 July 1940; HCD, 363: 650–52 (23 July 1940); 364: 747–51 (13 August 1940); “Sales Tax at Two Levels,” Manchester Guardian, 24 July 1940.

10. “Deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from Labour Members of Parliament and Representatives of the Co-operative Movement to Urge the Abolition of the Purchase Tax,” 28 May 1941, TNA, T 172/1974; HCD, 372: 717–33 (18 June 1941); “Notes of a Deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the National Council of Labour, Thursday, 18th December, 1941,” TNA, T 172/1972; H. Dalton to K. Wood, 10 March 1942, H. Dalton to K. Wood, 26 March 1942, and W. Eady to H. Wilson Smith, 28 March 1942, all in TNA, T 171/361; HCD, 379: 132–33 (14 April 1942); 388: 955–56 (12 April 1943). For a full discussion of the utility schemes, see Christopher Sladen, The Conscription of Fashion: Utility Cloth, Clothing, and Footwear, 1941–1952 (Aldershot, 1995); Dover, Harriet, Home Front Furniture: British Utility Design, 1941–1951 (Aldershot, 1991)Google Scholar.

11. HCD, 379: 137, 145–47 (14 April 1942); 388: 973 (12 April 1943), 1087–88 (13 April 1943); 390: 245–48 (2 June 1943). The selected luxuries included fur, glassware, photographic apparatus, musical instruments, and clocks and watches. The idea for an increased rate on luxuries originated with John Maynard Keynes; see J. M. Keynes, “Notes on the Budget,” 3 November 1941, and Keynes, “Revised Notes on the Budget,” 2 March 1942, both in TNA, T 171/360.

12. HCD, 421: 2198–200 (11 April 1946), 2783–84 (17 April 1946); 425: 1259–60 (17 July 1946). In the budgets introduced during the six years of Labour government from 1945 to 1951, taxes on incomes, profits, and capital were reduced by a cumulative £331 million, while taxes on consumption were increased by £394 million, as calculated from figures given in J. C. R. Dow, The Management of the British Economy, 1945–1960 (Cambridge, 1964), 200. For an interesting commentary on Labour’s obsession with cutting direct rather than indirect taxes, see Richard Whiting, The Labour Party and Taxation: Party Identity and Political Purpose in Twentieth-Century Britain (Cambridge, 2000), 90–105; for other background on the broad trends of taxation under Labour, see Daunton, Just Taxes, chap. 7; Francis, Martin, Ideas and Policies under Labour, 1945–1951: Building a New Britain (Manchester, 1997), chap. 7.Google Scholar

13. HCD, 421: 2783 (both quotations) (17 April 1946), 1823–24 (9 April 1946); 440: 525–35 (16 July 1947).

14. HCD, 436: 85–86 (15 April 1947), 925–55 (22 April 1947); 440: 539 (16 July 1947); 486: 858–60 (10 April 1951), 1287–88, 1311 (quotation) (12 April 1951), 1522 (16 April 1951). On the limited penetration of motor cars, radio and television sets, and household appliances in Great Britain before 1953, especially when compared to the United States, see Bowden, Sue and Offer, Avner, “Household Appliances and the Use of Time: The United States and Britain since the 1920s,” Economic History Review 47 (1994): 725–48Google Scholar; Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Ina, Austerity in Britain: Rationing, Controls, and Consumption, 1939–1955 (Oxford, 2000), 56–58.Google Scholar

15. HCD, 477: 86 (quotation) (3 July 1950); 463: 2649, 2676 (12 April 1949).

16. Purchase tax was imposed on total goods worth £759 million, as calculated from data in HCD, 488: 29 (29 May 1951). GDP, linearly interpolated for the fiscal year, is estimated from Williamson, “What Was the U.K. GDP Then?” Alcohol tax receipts are from HCD, 486: 837 (10 April 1951); purchase-tax receipts from Central Statistical Office, Annual Abstract of Statistics 95 (1958): 258; and income and total tax receipts from Mitchell, British Historical Statistics, 585.

17. The Americans classified excise taxes somewhat differently than the British did. Excises taxes other than those on alcohol and tobacco were generally lumped together as “miscellaneous excises,” which included the taxes on services that generally had no equivalent in Great Britain. Within this category, taxes on goods were classed as either “manufacturers’ excises” or “retail excises,” depending upon the point of sale at which the tax was assessed. These two categories generally correspond to the British purchase tax, except that the American manufacturers’ excises included taxes on gasoline and lubricating oil that in Great Britain were classed separately as the “hydrocarbon oil duty,” as well as a tax on matches that was also considered a separate tax in Great Britain and a tax on electrical energy that was not levied there. In order to maintain comparability with the British system, I shall treat the manufacturers’ and retail excise taxes, less those on gasoline, lubricating oil, matches, and electrical energy, as “purchase-tax equivalents.”

18. For a convenient chart showing the rates and effective dates of all excise taxes from 1914 to 1940, see ARST 1940, 496–520. For a thorough discussion of federal excise taxes during the 1930s, see Leff, Limits of Symbolic Reform, chap. 1; Thorndike, Their Fair Share, 30–43.

19. ARST 1940, 458. For background on this revenue act, see Thorndike, Their Fair Share, 247–48; Blum, John Morton, From the Morgenthau Diaries: Years of Urgency, 1938–1941 (Boston, 1965), 283–89Google Scholar; Blakey, Roy G. and Blakey, Gladys C., “The Two Federal Revenue Acts of 1940,” American Economic Review 30 (1940): 724–28.Google Scholar

20. Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue Revision of 1941: Hearings, United States House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 1st sess., 50, 52; Transcript of meeting, 8 April 1941, 10:35 a.m., Diaries of Henry Morgenthau Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. (available online at http://fdrlibrary.marist.edu), 387:13, 16–17, 21 (first quotation on 16, second quotation on 13). The evolution of Treasury Department plans for selective excise taxes can be followed through various memoranda in Office of Tax Policy Subject Files 1913–72 (Record Group 56, Entry A1 682) (hereafter OTP), National Archives II, College Park, Md., Box 43, Class DB4, Folder 1. For background on the Revenue Act of 1941, see Thorndike, Their Fair Share, 231–52; Blum, Years of Urgency, 304–11; Blakey, Roy G. and Blakey, Gladys C., “The Revenue Act of 1941,” American Economic Review 31 (1941): 809–22.Google Scholar

21. The officials were Leon Henderson, head of the Office of Price Administration, and Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Revenue Revision of 1941, 645–46, 660–62, 685–86, 692–93; Henry N. Dorris, “Roosevelt Aides Present Tax Plan Opposing Treasury,” New York Times, 8 May 1941. For White House backing of their proposals, see M. S. Eccles to President of the United States, 22 April 1941, and F. D. Roosevelt, “Memorandum for Lauchlin Currie,” 23 April 1941, both in President’s Secretary’s Files, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. (available online at http://fdrlibrary.marist.edu), Box 132, Folder “Executive Office of the President—Currie, Lauchlin.”

22. The manufacturers’ excises now applied to radios, refrigerators, sporting goods, photographic apparatus, luggage, phonographs and records, musical instruments, optical instruments, business and store machines, household appliances, rubber goods (except footwear), commercial washing machines, electrical signs, and electric light bulbs. Minutes of the Committee on Ways and Means, United States House of Representatives (Record Group 233) (hereafter MCWM), National Archives, Washington, D.C., 77th Cong., 1st sess. (30 June 1941, 1 July 1941, 2 July 1941, 23 July 1941); Minutes of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate (Record Group 46) (hereafter MCF), National Archives, Washington, D.C., bound volume for 75th through 79th Congresses, 429–32 (27 August 1941), 435–36 (28 August 1941); L. Henderson to Secretary Morgenthau, 20 May 1941, Morgenthau Diaries, 400: 172; M. Farioletti, “Outline for Discussion of Excises,” 23 June 1941, OTP, Box 1, Class KA1, Folder 2; R. Blough, “Memorandum for the Secretary,” 8 July 1941, Morgenthau Diaries, 419: 165; Henry N. Dorris, “Conferees Agree, Report Tax Bill for a Quick Vote,” New York Times, 16 September 1941; Treasury Department, Division of Tax Research, “Estimated Revenue Effect of the Revenue Bill of 1941 (H.R. 5417) as Agreed upon in Conference September 11, 1941,” Morgenthau Diaries, 441: 17. Without the increases, the purchase-tax equivalents had been expected to yield $182.3 million, as calculated from data in Committee on Finance, Revenue Act of 1941: Hearings, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 1st sess., 45.

23. “Treasury Tax Program to Yield $7.6 Billion Puts Most of Burden on Individuals, Firms,” Wall Street Journal, 4 March 1942; MCWM 77/2 (12 June 1942, 24 June 1942); transcript of meeting, 10 August 1943, 4:00 p.m., Morgenthau Diaries, 655: 53. For background on the Revenue Act of 1942, see Thorndike, Their Fair Share, 249–57; Blum, John Morton, From the Morgenthau Diaries: Years of War, 1941–1945 (Boston, 1967), 33–48Google Scholar; Blakey, Roy G. and Blakey, Gladys C., “The Federal Revenue Act of 1942,” American Political Science Review 36 (1942): 1069–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlee, Federal Taxation, 140–43.

24. Transcript of meeting, 17 August 1943, 9:00 a.m., Morgenthau Diaries, 656: 143, 149–50 (first quotation on 149); R. Blough to C. Shoup and L. Shere, 18 August 1943, OTP, Box 2, Class KA6, Folder 3 (second quotation); transcript of meeting, 10 August 1943, 4:00 p.m., Morgenthau Diaries, 655: 51–52 (third quotation on 51); M. S. Eccles, “Revenue Program,” 24 August 1943, OTP, Box 64, Class EA1, Folder 21.

25. Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue Revision of 1943: Hearings, United States House of Representatives, 78th Cong., 1st sess., 64; MCWM, 78/1: 99 (26 October 1943); Treasury Department, Division of Tax Research, “Principal Provisions of the Revenue Act of 1943 Compared with Prior Law, Treasury Proposals, House Bill, and Senate Bill,” 1 March 1944, Morgenthau Diaries, 721: 91–92. For background on the Revenue Act of 1943, see Bank, Steven A., Stark, Kirk J., and Thorndike, Joseph J., War and Taxes (Washington, 2008), 104–7Google Scholar; Blum, Years of War, 64–78; Brownlee, Federal Taxation, 144–45.

26. C. P. Trussell, “Total Again Lifted,” New York Times, 25 October 1945; “Tax Report,” Wall Street Journal, 31 October 1945; Charles Hunt, “Truman Proposes Retention of Excise Taxes Till July, ’48,” New York Times, 7 January 1947; “Opposes Tax Cuts; Predicts High Business Activity; Wants Excise Levy Retained,” Wall Street Journal, 11 January 1947; Rodney Crowther, “GOP Unit Maps Retention of Excise Taxes,” Baltimore Sun, 15 January 1947; John D. Morris, “House to Hold Out for Six Billion Cut in Truman Budget,” New York Times, 2 March 1947; J. Copeland, “Rationale of Excise Reduction Program,” 1 August 1949, OTP, Box 3, Class KA6, Folder 6; Treasury Department, Tax Advisory Staff, “Memorandum for the Secretary,” 6 December 1949, “Memorandum for the Secretary,” 7 December 1949, and “Memorandum for the Secretary,” 17 January 1950, all in Box 66, Class EA1, Binder “1950 Revenue Program”; Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue Revision of 1950: Hearings, United States House of Representatives, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., 15–16; MCWM, 81/2: 86 (19 April 1950), 89, 91–93 (20 April 1950), 96–99 (21 April 1950), 104–6 (26 April 1950), 127–28 (2 May 1950), 294 (1 June 1950), 312, 314 (5 June 1950), 317, 320 (6 June 1950); Alan L. Otten, “House Group Votes Increase in Top Corporate Tax Rate to 41 percent from 38 percent and Reduction for Smaller Companies,” Wall Street Journal, 20 June 1950. For detailed background on U.S. tax policy during these years, see Holmans, A. E., United States Fiscal Policy, 1945–1959: Its Contribution to Economic Stability (London, 1961), 45–51, 56–101, 125–26.Google Scholar

27. “Truman Message Outlines Economic Controls and Tax Boost,” Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 1950; ARST 1950, 228; MCF, 80–85: 141 (2 August 1950). For background on the reshaping of the Revenue Act of 1950 after the outbreak of the Korean War, see Holmans, United States Fiscal Policy, 134–40; John F. Witte, The Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax (Madison, 1985), 137–38; Bank, Stark, and Thorndike, War and Taxes, 112–16.

28. Treasury Department, Tax Advisory Staff, “Discussion of Eight Possible New Sources of Excise Revenue,” 22 January 1951, and “Report of Meeting on Excises in Room 4426, January 25, 1951 at 9:30 A.M.” (quotation), both in OTP, Box 66, Class EA1, Binder “Tax Program for 1951”; Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue Revision of 1951: Hearings, United States House of Representatives, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., 7–8, 20; MCWM 82/1: 414 (15 May 1951); ARST 1951, 501, 506–7; F. N. Campbell, “Issues in the Development of a Tax Program for 1952,” 12 December 1951, OTP, Box 66, Class EA1, Binder “Tax Program for 1952”; Treasury Department, Tax Advisory Staff, “Memorandum for the Secretary,” 7 February 1952, OTP, Box 66, Class EA1, Folder 34. For broader discussions of the Revenue Act of 1951, see Holmans, United States Fiscal Policy, 150–79; Witte, Politics and Development, 140–44; Bank, Stark, and Thorndike, War and Taxes, 120–25.

29. The amount of goods subject to purchase-tax equivalent excises has been calculated from the taxes collected from each class of goods, as given in ARST 1951, 725–26; the amount is not exact, as tires and tubes were charged a specific tax by weight rather than ad valorem. GDP for the year ended 30 June 1951, of $323,750 million has been interpolated from Williamson, “What Was the U.S. GDP Then?” Total federal tax receipts are from Wallis, “Federal Government Revenue.”

30. Brownlee, Federal Taxation, 190–207.

31. R. A. Butler, “Purchase Tax: Memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,” 27 November 1953 (quotation), TNA, T 171/438. This refusal has led Daunton, Just Taxes, 237–47, and Hugh Pemberton, Policy Learning and British Governance in the 1960s (Basingstoke, 2004), 150, to suggest that these officials, especially in Customs and Excise, were intransigent toward new ideas such as the VAT, thereby making them seem like hidebound reactionaries. What this emphasis overlooks is the positive contribution made by them in the gradual reform of the purchase tax, thereby ensuring its continuing viability as a source of revenue that could then later be converted into a VAT under more opportune circumstances.

32. R. B. Bligh, “Note for Record,” 12 November 1952 (quotation), TNA, T 171/434; “Purchase Tax: Memorandum by Board of Customs and Excise,” September 1948, P.B.(48)11, “Purchase Tax: Note by Board of Customs and Excise,” 30 November 1948, P.B.(48)17, “Purchase Tax,” 23 December 1948, P.B.(48)27, and “Reduction of Indirect Taxation: Beer v. Purchase Tax: Note by Board of Customs and Excise,” 17 January 1949, B.C.(49)14, all in TNA, T 171/398. For subsequent reaffirmations of the basic strategy, see “Purchase Tax: Joint Note by Board of Trade and Customs,” 7 February 1950, B.C.(50)7, and Customs & Excise, “Purchase Tax,” 16 February 1950, C.&E.(50)1, both in TNA, T 171/400; “Purchase Tax in the Next Budget (Note by Customs),” 4 February 1953, B.C.(53)9, “Future of the D Scheme,” 5 March 1953, B.C.(53)23, and “Treasury Comments on Customs Memorandum B.C.(53)23,” 17 March 1953, all in TNA, T 171/414; Customs and Excise, “General Review of Purchase Tax,” 17 June 1955, C.&E.(55)12, TNA, T 171/467; “Taxation of Consumer Goods: Customs Note,” 5 December 1955, and R. L. Hall to Financial Secretary, 16 December 1955, both in TNA, T 171/475; J. I. C. Crombie, “A Broader Base for Indirect Taxation,” 19 August 1957, TNA, T 171/488.

33. “Purchase Tax and Utility: Note by the Secretary,” 1 November 1950, B.C.(50)24, “Purchase Tax and Utility: Revised Note—Prepared by the Board of Trade,” 11 November 1950, B.C.(50)31, “Purchase Tax and Utility,” 9 February 1951, covering note to B.C.(51)7, and W. Armstrong, “Purchase Tax on Utility,” 28 March 1951, all in TNA, T 171/404; Report of the Purchase Tax/Utility Committee, Cmd. 8452 (London, 1952); HCD, 497: 1277–78 (11 March 1952), 497: 1572–73 (13 March 1952). On the marked differences between Labour and Conservative economic policy at this time, see Kelly, Scott, The Myth of Mr Butskell: The Politics of British Economic Policy, 1950–1955 (Aldershot, 2002).Google Scholar

34. Peden, Treasury and British Public Policy, 478–79; Dell, Edmund, The Chancellors: A History of the Chancellors of the Exchequer, 1945–90 (London, 1996), 200–202Google Scholar; “The Future of Purchase Tax: Note by Customs,” 23 December 1952, B.C.(52)34, TNA, T 171/414; Customs and Excise, “Extra Revenue from Customs and Excise,” 4 August 1955, C.&E.(55)13, and Customs and Excise, “Extra Revenue from Customs and Excise,” 25 August 1955, C.&E.(55)14, both in TNA, T 171/457; HCD, 545: 221–23, 264, 273, 278, 293 (26 October 1955), 404, 418 (27 October 1955), 557, 572, 579–80 (28 October 1955), 1689 (8 November 1955); 547:1018 (13 December 1955).

35. “Taxation of Consumer Goods: Customs Note,” 5 December 1955, TNA, T 171/475; J. I. C. Crombie, “A Possible Tax on Sweets: Note by Customs and Excise,” 29 January 1957, C.&E.(57)1, TNA, T 171/479; E. W. Maude, “Purchase Tax,” 27 February 1958, TNA, T 171/488; “Indirect Taxation: Note by Customs and Excise,” 25 September 1961, B.C.(61)31, and “Possible Increases in Customs and Excise Taxation,” B.C.(62)3, 24 January 1962, both in TNA, T 171/592; HCD, 657: 990 (9 April 1962).

36. HCD, 514: 53 (14 April 1953); “Purchase Tax: Modifications of the Purchase Tax Schedule,” 30 July 1953, and W. D. Croft, “Purchase Tax—Proposed Changes,” 15 September 1953, both in TNA, T 171/447; HCD, 523: 1013, 1021–24 (9 February 1954); 537: 1021–22 (21 February 1955).

37. “Budget 1958: Note of a Meeting in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Room on Wednesday, 12th February, 1958,” TNA, T 171/487; J. I. C. Crombie, “Budget 1958: Purchase Tax,” 26 February 1958, C.&E.(58)1, TNA, T 171/488; HCD, 586: 72–73 (15 April 1958); 603: 54–55 (7 April 1959).

38. “Indirect Taxation: Note by Customs and Excise,” 25 September 1961, B.C.(61)31, “Note of a Meeting Held in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Room in the House of Commons at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th February, 1962,” and “Note of a Meeting Held in the Chancellor’s Room at 4.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th February, 1962,” all in TNA, T 171/592; HCD, 657: 991–92 (quotation on 992) (9 April 1962).

39. HCD, 666: 628–30 (5 November 1962), 667: 106W (20 November 1962); “TV Men Plead: Cut Our Tax,” Observer (London), 11 November 1962; “Purchase Tax Cut to 25 p.c.,” Guardian (London), 1 January 1963.

40. Coverage of the tax is calculated from the estimate of receipts by tax rate for 1963 given in HCD, 678: 102W (28 May 1963). Yield as a percentage of total tax receipts and of GDP is calculated from purchase-tax yield in Central Statistical Office, Annual Abstract of Statistics 105 (1968): 277; tax receipts from Mitchell, British Historical Statistics, 585; and GDP from Williamson, “What Was the U.K. GDP Then?”

41. HCD, 668: 1232–34 (first quotation on 1234) (4 December 1962), 659: 1237 (second quotation) (15 May 1962); see also 502: 1083, 1091–92 (17 June 1952), 514: 220–30 (15 April 1953), 661 (20 April 1953), 529: 1025 (28 June 1954), 545: 404, 418 (27 October 1955), 571: 299 (28 May 1957), 603: 209, 221, 246 (8 April 1959), 407 (9 April 1959), 657: 1017 (9 April 1962), 1164 (10 April 1962).

42. “Reed’s House Unit to Open Hearings June 16 on Reform of Revenue Laws,” Wall Street Journal, 14 May 1953; Robert W. Ruth, “President Sees No Hope of Income Tax Cut in ‘53, Blames Russian Rulers,” Baltimore Sun, 20 May 1953; “Broadening of Excise Tax Base Is Proposed,” Christian Science Monitor, 16 October 1953. I have seen no studies for possible excise tax broadening in the Office of Tax Policy Subject Files for this period.

43. “Report of Meeting on 1951 Revenue Program, January 18–19, 1951,” OTP, Box 66, Class EA1, Folder 34; J. Copeland et al. to L. Ecker-Racz, 15 November 1951, and J. Copeland to L. Ecker-Racz, 6 December 1951, both in OTP, Box 66, Class EA1, Binder “Tax Program for 1952”; J. Copeland, “Excise Tax Reduction in a Tax Reform Program,” 31 May 1962 (quotation), OTP, Box 3, Class KA6, Folder 8. Copeland was the Treasury Advisory Staff representative to the committee studying a sales tax in 1953; I have found no other evidence of his involvement with excise or sales taxes during the Eisenhower years. He was already involved with excise tax policy during World War II and would stay involved until at least 1969; see J. Copeland, “Conference on July 17 1943 to Ascertain the Reaction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Proposed Excise Tax Program to Raise $2 billion,” OTP, Box 2, Class KA6, Folder 3; J. Copeland, “Possible Revenue Increases from Selective Excises,” 3 December 1969, OTP, Box 1, Class KA1, Folder 4.

44. “President’s State of Union Address Covers Taxes, Labor, Farm Plan, Defense, Housing,” Wall Street Journal, 8 January 1954; John D. Morris, “Martin Supports Billion Cut in Luxury and Excise Taxes,” New York Times, 28 January 1954; Morris, “House Passes Excise Slash; President Fights New Cuts,” New York Times, 11 March 1954; John Fisher, “Vote Tax Cuts in Senate,” Chicago Tribune, 25 March 1954; Rodney Crowther, “Bill Reduces Levies 122 Million More Than Measure House Passed,” Baltimore Sun, 26 March 1954; “Conferees Clear Billion Excise Cut,” New York Times, 30 March 1954; Witte, Politics and Development, 145–46; McClenahan, William M. Jr., and Becker, William H., Eisenhower and the Cold War Economy (Baltimore, 2011), 34–35.Google Scholar

45. “Income Tax Cut Killed in Congress,” Hartford Courant, 26 March 1955; “Senators Block Business Tax Cut,” New York Times, 27 March 1956; “Senate Votes Extension of Profits, Excise Taxes,” Boston Globe, 28 March 1957; Edwin L. Dale Jr., “Eisenhower Says Slump Has ‘Spent’ Most of Its Force,” New York Times, 29 May 1958; “Senators Vote to Cut Excises,” Washington Post, 20 June 1958; “Repeal of 3 percent Tax on Freight Transportation Agreed on by House-Senate Unit, Passenger Excise Cut Rejected,” Wall Street Journal, 27 June 1958; “Conferees Agree on Excise Tax,” Los Angeles Times, 27 June 1959; “Senate Votes to End Dividend Tax Credit, Trim Exempt Entertainment,” Wall Street Journal, 21 June 1960; “Congress Likely to Extend Excise, Corporate Taxes,” Wall Street Journal, 27 June 1960; “Tax Measure Is Approved by Senate,” Baltimore Sun, 23 June 1961; “Transportation Tax Cutoff Set at Nov. 15, as House-Senate Conferees Compromise,” Wall Street Journal, 27 June 1962; “Tax Extension Bill Signed by Kennedy,” New York Times, 30 June 1963.

46. John D. Morris, “Treasury Is Cool to Excise Tax Cut,” New York Times, 5 October 1955; “Dozens of Changes in Excise Laws Proposed by Congressional Staffs,” Wall Street Journal, 20 February 1956; “Congressional Staffs Reportedly Ask Excise on Recording Machines,” Wall Street Journal, 21 February 1956; “Tax Voted on Garbage Units, Tape and Wire Recorders, Disc Players,” Wall Street Journal, 11 May 1956; “House Approves Revenue Revision,” New York Times, 21 June 1957; “Conferees Agree on Three Bills Revising Taxes,” Wall Street Journal, 14 August 1958.

47. Yield of purchase-tax equivalents and estimated coverage of the tax is calculated from data in ARST 1964, 442. Other data sources are same as in note 29.

48. Newton, Scott, “The Two Sterling Crises of 1964 and the Decision Not to Devalue,” Economic History Review 62 (2009): 73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jim Tomlinson, Economic Policy, vol. 3 of The Labour Governments 1964–1970, ed. Steven Fielding and John W. Young (Manchester, 2004), 49–55; F. R. P. Vinter to W. Armstrong, 24 January 1966, TNA, T 171/1372; “Confidential Annex: CC(66)37th Conclusions, Tuesday, 19th July, 1966 at 5.00 p.m.,” TNA, CAB 128/46/18; HCD, 732: 629 (20 July 1966). For a broader discussion of Britain’s recurring balance-of-payments crises in the 1960s, see Cairncross, Alec and Eichengreen, Barry, Sterling in Decline: The Devaluations of 1931, 1949 and 1967, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke, 2003), 156–217.Google Scholar

49. HCD, 727: 1452–57, 1475 (3 May 1966); Ann Robinson and Cedric Sandford, Tax Policy-Making in the United Kingdom: A Study of Rationality, Ideology and Politics (London, 1983), 24–33, 98–99, 127–31; Daunton, Just Taxes, 290–93, 296–98; Whiting, Labour Party and Taxation, 159–68, 198–201; Pemberton, Policy Learning, 159–68; Tomlinson, Economic Policy, 132–34.

50. HCD, 761: 276–77, 279 (19 March 1968); 773: 1790–93 (22 November 1968); 781: 1022–24 (15 April 1969). For the economic background to these budgets, see Tomlinson, Economic Policy, 57–64, 206–9; Hamilton, Arran, “Beyond the Sterling Devaluation: The Gold Crisis of March 1968,” Contemporary European History 17 (2008): 73–95.Google Scholar

51. HCD, 799: 1242 (14 April 1970), 797: 778, 799 (6 March 1970).

52. Daunton, Just Taxes, 313–15, 326–27; Robinson and Sandford, 9, 34–38, 74, 113–16; HCD, 821: 1040 (19 July 1971); 833: 1378 (21 March 1972). A separate 10 percent tax on the wholesale price of automobiles was retained for budgetary reasons and was not finally abolished until 1992. See HCD, 833: 1374 (21 March 1972); Michael Kemp, “Car Tax Axed but Road Tolls Are in Sight,” Daily Mail (London), 13 November 1992.

53. Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929–1964 (New York, 1981), 173–95Google Scholar; Martin, Shifting the Burden, 52–80; Zelizer, Taxing America, 179–211; J. Copeland, “Excise Tax Reduction Program,” 7 March 1962, and Copeland, “Excise Tax Reduction in a Tax Reform Program,” 31 May 1962, both in OTP, Box 3, Class KA6, Folder 8.

54. W. W. Heller, “Memorandum for the President,” 25 July 1964, Papers of Gardner Ackley (microfilm edition), Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Reel 5, Folder “Troika—1964”; W. W. Heller, “Memorandum for Mr. William Moyers,” 30 July 1964, White House Central Files (hereafter WHCF), Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Category “Legislation,” Box 52, Folder “Executive: LE/FI 11-3”; Anthony Lewis, “Dillon Proposes Excise Tax Cuts in a Policy Shift,” New York Times, 19 August 1964; Eileen Shanahan, “Cut in Excise Tax in 1965 to Reach Billion or More,” New York Times, 21 August 1964; “Johnson Pledges to Seek Excise-Tax Cut, Scores Those Who ‘Rant’ against Progress,” Wall Street Journal, 23 September 1964.

55. J. A. Stockfish to S. S. Surrey, 7 April 1964, J. A. Stockfish to S. S. Surrey, 9 October 1964, and S. S. Surrey, “Memorandum to the Secretary,” 31 October 1964, all in OTP, Box 4, Class KA6, Folder 16; O. Eckstein to The Council of Economic Advisers, 11 November 1964, Ackley Papers, Reel 4, Folder “Taxes—1964”; S. S. Surrey, “Memorandum to the Secretary,” 2 December 1964, OTP, Box 3, Class KA6, Binder “Excise Tax Revision—1964, Volume 1”; C. D. Dillon, K. Gordon, and G. Ackley, “Memorandum for the President,” 7 December 1964, and G. Ackley, “Memorandum for the President,” 13 December 1964, both in Ackley Papers, Reel 5, Folder “Troika—1964”; Richard F. Janssen, “Administration Analysts Foresee Slow-Up in ‘65, Plan Some Stimulants,” Wall Street Journal, 22 December 1964; Eileen Shanahan, “Cut of $1.75 Billion in Excise Tax Urged,” New York Times, 26 January 1965.

56. Philip Warden, “Count on War Cost to Keep Economy Firm,” Chicago Tribune, 23 April 1965; S. S. Surrey, “Memorandum to the Secretary,” 27 April 1965, Papers of Henry Fowler, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Box 103, Folder “Domestic Taxes: Excise Taxes 1965 (2 of 2)”; B. Moyers, handwritten notes, 9 May 1965, Office Files of Bill Moyers, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Box 6, Folder “Taxes”; G. Ackley, “Memorandum for the President,” 11 May 1965, WHCF, Category “Finance,” Box 57, Folder “Executive: FI 11-3”; Ackley, “Memorandum for the President,” 12 May 1965, Fowler Papers, Box 103, Folder “Domestic Taxes: Excise Tax—Background 1965”; Eileen Shanahan, “Program Is Imminent,” New York Times, 16 May 1965; John D. Morris, “Johnson to Seek Cut of $4 Billion in Excise Taxes,” New York Times, 16 May 1965.

57. “The Text of President Johnson’s Message on Repeal or Reduction of Excise Taxes,” New York Times, 18 May 1965 (both quotations); “Ultimate End of 10 percent Excise Tax on New Cars Is Voted by House Group Despite Johnson’s More Modest Plan,” Wall Street Journal, 20 May 1965; John D. Morris, “Senate Approves Excise Cut, 84–3,” New York Times, 16 June 1965; “Conferees Approve Excise-Tax Cuts of $4.6 Billion, Drop Car-Safety Tax,” Wall Street Journal, 17 June 1965.

58. King, Ronald F., “The President and Fiscal Policy in 1966: The Year Taxes Were Not Raised,” Polity 17 (1985): 685–714Google Scholar; Sloan, John W., “President Johnson, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Failure to Raise Taxes in 1966 and 1967,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 15 (1985): 89–98Google Scholar; H. H. Fowler, C. L. Schultze, and G. Ackley, “Memorandum for the President,” 1 December 1965, WHCF, Category “Confidential File,” Box 44, Folder “FI 9”; H. H. Fowler, “Memorandum to Joseph Califano Jr.,” 5 January 1966, and J. W. Barr to M. Watson, 17 January 1966, both in Legislative Background Files: Tax Increase, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Box 1, Folder “Tax Increase Jan–Aug 1966”; Thomas J. Foley, “2-Year Limit Set on Tax Hike,” Los Angeles Times, 14 January 1966; “‘Big Four’ Accept Auto Excise Tax,” New York Times, 28 January 1966; “War Measure Would Raise $1.1 Billion in Current Year, $4.8 Billion in Fiscal 1967,” Wall Street Journal, 11 March 1966. Even the American Automobile Association’s lobbyist told his White House contact that the organization’s strongly worded protest was mainly for the benefit of its membership and not intended to sway Congress. N. P. Gillen to J. Jones, 25 January 1966, WHCF, Category “Legislation,” Box 52, Folder “Executive: LE/FI 11-3.”

59. “Corporate Tax Speedup Voted by House Panel,” Wall Street Journal, 21 February 1968; Frank C. Porter, “Excise Tax Extension Voted,” Washington Post, 11 April 1968; “House Approves Tax Boost, Spending Cut,” Wall Street Journal, 21 June 1968; Fred L. Zimmerman and Albert R. Hunt, “Tax Reform, Relief Bill Due to Reach Nixon by Midweek,” Wall Street Journal, 22 December 1969; Eileen Shanahan, “Speedup Weighed in Tax Collection,” New York Times, 7 January 1970; “Senate Passes Measure to Extend Excise Taxes on Cars, Phone Service,” Wall Street Journal, 30 December 1970.

60. For studies of VAT during the Nixon administration, see James, Rise of the Value-Added Tax, 343–48, and the material in OTP, Boxes 5 and 6, Class KA10; for the careful design of the Medicare tax, see Zelizer, Taxing America, 212–54.

61. Rodney Crowther, “Nixon Picks Tax Position,” Baltimore Sun, 9 September 1958; for business group espousals of a national sales tax, see also “Federal Sales Tax Is Urged by N.A.M.,” New York Times, 4 August 1953; “Dr. Lutz Defends N.A.M.’s Tax Plan,” New York Times, 15 September 1953; “Group Urges Excise Tax Boost to Provide 25 percent of U. S. Budget,” Wall Street Journal, 25 June 1956; “Chamber Urges a U.S. Sales Tax,” New York Times, 1 May 1958; Joseph Hearst, “U.S. Sales Tax Plea Jolts G. O. P.,” Chicago Tribune, 22 October 1958; “Urges 7 percent Federal Sales Tax,” Chicago Tribune, 18 November 1959; Rodney Crowther, “Group Gives 2-Part Plan for Tax Cut,” Baltimore Sun, 14 December 1962; “Wilde Asks Elimination of 45 U.S. Excise Taxes,” Hartford Courant, 23 July 1964.

62. Matusow, Allen J., Nixon’s Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, & Votes (Lawrence, Kans., 1998), 108–15, 131–81Google Scholar; “Business Surprised, but Initial Reaction to Nixon’s Moves Is Generally Favorable,” Wall Street Journal, 16 August 1971; Jerry M. Flint, “Autos Back from the Brink,” New York Times, 19 September 1971.

63. The excise taxes on tires and inner tubes, and half of those on trucks and buses, had been earmarked along with the gasoline tax for the new Highway Trust Fund in the Interstate Highway Act of 1956; the remainder of the truck and bus taxes would follow in 1962. See Rose, Mark H. and Mohl, Raymond A., Interstate: Highway Politics and Policy since 1939, 3rd ed. (Knoxville, 2012), chap. 7Google Scholar; Bureau of Public Roads, Highway Statistics: Summary to 1965 (Washington, D.C., 1967), 55.

64. In 1964, the federal purchase-tax equivalents raised close to 0.6 percent of GDP, while the state general sales taxes raised about 0.95 percent. By 1973, federal purchase-tax equivalents had dropped to about 0.1 percent of GDP (the truck and tire taxes earmarked for the Highway Trust Fund), while state general sales taxes had increased to about 1.5 percent of GDP, which remains their level today. See notes 4 and 29 for data sources.