« | Main | We've all had clients like that »
A 25% tax on firearms?
Wikileaks indicates that Hillary endorses the idea.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Taxing firearms is only a small part of ole Hil's plan of attack. Besides, dimocrats have never seen a tax that they did not like.
Isn't it California that is taxing ammo in an effort to stifle it purchase or is that Seattle?
One of those Socialist/ Progressive places?
Both, CA is also starting background checks for ammo sales.
It is up to the people of each state to deal with violations of trust by their elected servants. It is also up to the people of each state to remind those in office that the office holder is there at the service OF the people NOT because the people want the elected folks to do whatever. Those elected ARE NOT our masters but we must remove them often in order to establish supremacy of the people over the government. If folks re-elect the same people over and over, it is the electorates fault for the governing they get.
People also must educate themselves to understand the system of government we are supposed to have. People need to recognize that the power to tax is a revenue power and any use other than for revenue generation, especially raising taxes above the peak revenue point, is a breach of trust and a violation of the authority WE allow our government to have.
The people need to remove these "tax" folks in the next election but the people are greedy and want all the "Stuff" government "gives" them.
Another answer is to use you feet and move.
We already have an 11% tax on firearms and ammo, with the funds dedicated to wildlife and habitat preservation.
I'd support a 25% tax on firearms and ammo if the funds went to the construction of target ranges and firearms safety instruction in every public school.
See that's how the government gets us. We like what the money is spent for. BUT excise taxes on articles exported from any state to any other location cannot be taxed as per the Constitution (although the courts have interpreted export to mean ONLY to a foreign country except that to one state all the other states ARE foreign countries). AND the federal government has no authority to spend monies on wildlife and habitat protection. But it's ok. I like it it's just those OTHER things the government does to violate the Constitution I don't like.
The attitude that if the end is good the means is ok got us where we are today. The government violates every letter of the Constitution with the support of the courts and to the disadvantage of the people. People have the attitude that as long as government doesn't gore MY ox, it's ok if they gore yours.
The power to tax is solely the power to raise revenue. Plot tax rate vs revenue and you get an inverted curve with a maximum return at some tax rate. At higher tax rates consumption is reduced and so is revenue. The highest proper rate is the lowest rate that results in the greatest revenue. Taxing above that rate is not an exercise in valid taxation power but is abuse of that power in order to reduce consumption.
The Constitution prohibits taxes on items exported from a State. The courts have decided this means to a foreign country but there is no evidence of that in the Constitution. The only grammarically valid reading is that any taxes on things exported from one state to any other state, foreign nation or Indian nation are prohibited.
Of course I don't see any fix since the courts seldom if ever correct their wrong decisions.