warpedskydiver 0 #26 February 10, 2007 It is illegal to mail order ammunition if you live in Crook County Illinois Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 February 10, 2007 QuoteAmmunition is already taxed at a rate of 6.75%, so you think an additional tax of 10 cents per round is okay? I say bullshit Whoa there, slugger, I never said I like the tax. I was showing kallend a comparison to show how just because top end shotgun shells are not affected that much, the most popular cartridges would become prhibitively expensive. It's an assinie idea, and motivations are suspect to say the least.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 February 10, 2007 QuoteIt is illegal to mail order ammunition if you live in Crook County Illinois OK, that officially sucks for them. I lived in West Lafayette, IN for a while and I had no idea that was the case up in the blowhard county (right near the windy city). Glad my city/couny/state haven't gotten that bug up their ass.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #29 February 10, 2007 Oh I wasn't riled up...I did not mean it to sound that way..I was merely stating the hipocracy of such a tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 February 10, 2007 QuoteOh I wasn't riled up...I did not mean it to sound that way..I was merely stating the hipocracy of such a tax. Taxes can't be hypocritical. They just exist. Some are efficient, and some aren't. This is just a proposal from one county commissioner. It hasn't passed and may well never pass. Another storm in a teacup, like the fuss the RNC made over Pelosi's NON request of a large plane.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 February 10, 2007 QuoteTaxes can't be hypocritical. They just exist. Some are efficient, and some aren't. This is just a proposal from one county commissioner. It hasn't passed and may well never pass. Another storm in a teacup, like the fuss the RNC made over Pelosi's NON request of a large plane. That's a very phlegmatic statement coming from somone who was so riled up about taxes and tax breaks just a while back.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #32 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteTaxes can't be hypocritical. They just exist. Some are efficient, and some aren't. This is just a proposal from one county commissioner. It hasn't passed and may well never pass. Another storm in a teacup, like the fuss the RNC made over Pelosi's NON request of a large plane. That's a very phlegmatic statement coming from somone who was so riled up about taxes and tax breaks just a while back. I was riled up about which? Taxes? Or tax breaks for the very wealthy?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #33 February 10, 2007 Quote... top end shotgun shells are not affected that much, the most popular cartridges would become prhibitively expensive. It's an assinie idea, and motivations are suspect to say the least. I must defer to your greater knowledge of local ammunition costs. The secondary effects of this tax would be to discriminate against the use of small caliber ammunition and would of course have a far greater impact on the poorer segments of society (the same as all flat-rate taxes). So... Suppose that the proposal was for a 10% bullet tax, rather than 10 cents a unit. Would that change your perception of the tax or would you still see it as an anti gun measure rather than as a source of additional revenue? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #34 February 10, 2007 In that case I'd: (A) Still believe it's anti-gun just because of who proposed it (B) Bitch a lot, but ante up and pay if I lived there (C) Wonder why in the hell they are taxing anythign shooting related. Fuck's sake, if you want to make money, tax freakin IPods and toilet paper. There's no reason to choose guns or ammo for taxation unless you really just don' tlike them.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #35 February 10, 2007 QuoteIn that case I'd: (A) Still believe it's anti-gun just because of who proposed it (B) Bitch a lot, but ante up and pay if I lived there (C) Wonder why in the hell they are taxing anythign shooting related. Fuck's sake, if you want to make money, tax freakin IPods and toilet paper. There's no reason to choose guns or ammo for taxation unless you really just don' tlike them. They are already taxed. I'm not aware of any merchandise that is complete free of tax in Illinois. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #36 February 10, 2007 Quotetax freakin IPods and toilet paper. There's no reason to choose guns or ammo for taxation unless you really just don' tlike them. I'll bet that both iPods & toilet paper are taxed already under the standard sales tax. We're talking about special additional taxes here - the so-called "Sin-Taxes". In the case of iPods they are a one-off purchase so wouldn't raise much in the way of revenue. Toilet paper is considered an "essential" so a special tax would be politically unacceptable. The art to successful local taxation is not to apply a massive tax to a luxury item - that'll just drive folk away to buy it elsewhere. However, if you can identify a cheap consumable which is vital to the use of a luxury item, then that's a superb way of raising revenue - far more rewarding than taxing the actual luxury item. Consider for example your favourite gun. Lets say it cost $1,000. Ammunition costs 10 cents a shot. In the course of your guns life, do you actually spend more on buying the gun, or more on the ammunition you put through it? Same with a car. do you ultimately spend more on the car or more on the fuel for it? Same with a camera, do you ultimately spend more on the film and processing than on the actual camera stuff? I know I have. From that viewpoint, taxing ammunition (or fuel or film & processing) makes perfect sense. Far more sense than taxing guns or cars or cameras. In fact, there could be an argument for giving a tax break on guns, cars, cameras etc... On the basis that you're going to make more from the relatively cheap, recurring, consumable purchases which people are far less likely to travel to buy. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 February 10, 2007 Quote So... Suppose that the proposal was for a 10% bullet tax, rather than 10 cents a unit. Would that change your perception of the tax or would you still see it as an anti gun measure rather than as a source of additional revenue? It's always been an antigun proposal. How else can you describe a tax that adds 50-500% on the cost of bullets, and discourages safe use of lethal weapons? People fire a few hundred rounds per visit to a gun range. (or more) You've now doubled the cost of practice. But you've done almost nothing to the cost of using a gun for crime. Given how many antigun proposals are submitted with the notion "if it saves one child, it's worth it," how many deaths to do poor skill are acceptable? Do criminals practice? Probably not. But law enforcement and would be law enforcement do. Home owners with the interest of self defense do. BTW, Kallend, the Los Angeles proposal would have criminalized the use of reloading kits and raw materials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #38 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuote So... Suppose that the proposal was for a 10% bullet tax, rather than 10 cents a unit. Would that change your perception of the tax or would you still see it as an anti gun measure rather than as a source of additional revenue? It's always been an antigun proposal. . Great reasoning. Income tax is an anti-work tax. Capital gains tax is anti-business tax. Utility taxes are anti-electricity. Estate taxes reflect an anti-death attitude. Airline ticket taxes are because politicians HATE airplanes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote So... Suppose that the proposal was for a 10% bullet tax, rather than 10 cents a unit. Would that change your perception of the tax or would you still see it as an anti gun measure rather than as a source of additional revenue? It's always been an antigun proposal. . Great reasoning. Thank you for the support. (it really is much easier when you only answer the first sentence of a posting, and ignore the rest. You're a genius! And not just in physics) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #40 February 10, 2007 QuoteIt's always been an antigun proposal. OK. That's what's under discussion. Is this anti-gun or revenue-raising? QuoteHow else can you describe a tax that adds 50-500% on the cost of bullets, and discourages safe use of lethal weapons? People fire a few hundred rounds per visit to a gun range. (or more) You've now doubled the cost of practice. But you've done almost nothing to the cost of using a gun for crime.... Do criminals practice? Probably not. But law enforcement and would be law enforcement do. Home owners with the interest of self defense do... the Los Angeles proposal would have criminalized the use of reloading kits and raw materials. Surely with the foregoing you have successfully argued that this is a revenue-raising measure rather than an anti-gun or anti gun-crime measure. As such, it's a valid tax - a means for the local government to raise money for its other activities. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #41 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's always been an antigun proposal. OK. That's what's under discussion. Is this anti-gun or revenue-raising? QuoteHow else can you describe a tax that adds 50-500% on the cost of bullets, and discourages safe use of lethal weapons? People fire a few hundred rounds per visit to a gun range. (or more) You've now doubled the cost of practice. But you've done almost nothing to the cost of using a gun for crime.... Do criminals practice? Probably not. But law enforcement and would be law enforcement do. Home owners with the interest of self defense do... the Los Angeles proposal would have criminalized the use of reloading kits and raw materials. Surely with the foregoing you have successfully argued that this is a revenue-raising measure rather than an anti-gun or anti gun-crime measure. As such, it's a valid tax - a means for the local government to raise money for its other activities. Mike. It is 100% revenue raising. Cook County has a serious budget shortfall and is cutting back 17% on ALL county services. The county board is thrashing around looking for sources of revenue, and, as is to be expected of politicians, they are looking for sources that maximize the (revenue raised)/(voter unhappiness) ratio. This is just one of many many proposals but the only one to register on JohnRich's gun radar 700 miles away in Texas, where it will have ZERO effect on him. In fact, it's no-one's business unless they live in Cook County, IL (like me). Everyone else should mind their own fucking business.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #42 February 10, 2007 QuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall .... thrashing around looking for sources of revenue .... looking for sources that maximize the (revenue raised)/(voter unhappiness) ratio. This is just one of many many proposals but the only one to register on JohnRich's gun radar ... In fact, it's no-one's business unless they live in Cook County, IL ...Everyone else should mind their own fucking business. Xenophobia from YOU of all people prof! What are the other proposals? I'm genuinely interested since anything that works for Cook County is bound to be adopted by our government which doesn't really like the taxation principle of "How much do we need", preferring the principle of "How much can we screw out of folk, then worry about how to spend it!" Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #43 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall .... thrashing around looking for sources of revenue .... looking for sources that maximize the (revenue raised)/(voter unhappiness) ratio. This is just one of many many proposals but the only one to register on JohnRich's gun radar ... In fact, it's no-one's business unless they live in Cook County, IL ...Everyone else should mind their own fucking business. Xenophobia from YOU of all people prof! What are the other proposals? I'm genuinely interested since anything that works for Cook County is bound to be adopted by our government which doesn't really like the taxation principle of "How much do we need", preferring the principle of "How much can we screw out of folk, then worry about how to spend it!" Mike. www.dailysouthtown.com/news/251330,101NWS7.article Gun nuts can all breathe easy, the bullet tax didn't pass. Didn't even get a second.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #44 February 10, 2007 Quotewww.dailysouthtown.com/news/251330,101NWS7.article Gun nuts can all breathe easy, the bullet tax didn't pass. Didn't even get a second. Hmmm... That might balance their budget in the short term, but I doubt that it'll provide a long-term revenue in the way that taxing cheap consumables would. Were I "Cook-County", Id still go for bullets, fuel, photographic prints, and any other cheap consumables associated with the use of luxury goods that I could identify. Mike. Edited to add: Of course, if they REALLY wanted to make an impact on the well-being of their voters, they should slap a $50/gallon tax on cooking oil & pizza-dough! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #45 February 10, 2007 QuoteHmmm... That might balance their budget in the short term, but I doubt that it'll provide a long-term revenue in the way that taxing cheap consumables would. Were I "Cook-County", Id still go for bullets, fuel, photographic prints, and any other cheap consumables associated with the use of luxury goods that I could identify. It's ironic that I haven't heard you say that they should cut their spending as a way of balancing their books... You seem to really love taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 February 10, 2007 QuoteGun nuts can all breathe easy, the bullet tax didn't pass. My condolences to the gun-o-phobes. QuoteMost of the debate focused on whether certain proposals were "fees" rather than "taxes," the latter word proving poisonous for any proposal that included it. Well, yes, you shouldn't tax something that's constitutionallly protected, like bullets/guns. It would be similar to a free speech tax, or a voting tax. The Supreme Court has ruled that such things are illegal. Quote$1 million for charging a $500 impound fee to anyone whose car is towed by the county sheriff in connection with a drug- or prostitution-related arrest. That one is ridiculous. Just because someone solicits a blow job, is not justification to hold his car hostage for $500. QuoteHis proposal to tax bullets at 50 cents per round failed when no commissioners seconded it. 50 cents? Initially it was 10 cents. Geez, inflation sure worked quick there. That's what will happen if anyone ever gets their foot in the door on a bullet tax like this - it will do nothing but go up, up, up. The 88-shot match in which I might participate on Sunday, would cost me an additional $44 if such a proposal were made law where I live. That's ridiculous too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #47 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuote... provide a long-term revenue in the way that taxing cheap consumables would. Were I "Cook-County", I'd still go for bullets, fuel, photographic prints, and any other cheap consumables associated with the use of luxury goods that I could identify. It's ironic that I haven't heard you say that they should cut their spending as a way of balancing their books... You seem to really love taxes. An excellent point... Which shows the difference in American & European tax culture. I was responding within the terms of raising revenue rather than cutting spending (which I understand Cook County has already done). Would further cuts be wise? Should they (for example) avoid the "Bullet-Tax" and cut policing or prison space as a result? I remember being in Colorado at the time the state said it had raised too much money for its budget so it was halving sales tax, and thinking that'd NEVER happen at home! In Britain / Europe the extra money would be spent, and counted on to appear in successive years! But... Having said that, I suppose that I really DO love my taxes, and the attendant social (or socialised) care programs which they finance. Again, that's a "culture" thing - which I, as a Brit / European am used to. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #48 February 10, 2007 88 shots John? Must be IDPA I'd hate to have a tax on the round counts I was doing in 3gun. Typical match would expend about 250 handgun, 200 rifle and 150 shotgun, and those were fun little club matches. Start to shoot in the bigs and that could get real expensive, real fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #49 February 10, 2007 Quote... you shouldn't tax something that's constitutionallly protected, like bullets/guns. It would be similar to a free speech tax, or a voting tax. The Supreme Court has ruled that such things are illegal. But... Isn't the right to travel constitutionally protected?.. Yet you pay tax on vehicles, vehicle repairs & servicing, and, of course, fuel? I do recall that "The pursuit of happiness" is constitutionally protected!.. Yet you pay tax on alcohol, tobacco, gambling and entertainment! Indeed, some chemical "happiness" is even illegal! So what makes guns and ammunition so special? Mike. (and you were doing so well). Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #50 February 10, 2007 QuoteI do recall that "The pursuit of happiness" is constitutionally protected!.. There is a difference between our constitution and the declaration of independance. (pursiut of happiness) QuoteBut... Isn't the right to travel constitutionally protected?.. Yet you pay tax on vehicles, vehicle repairs & servicing, and, of course, fuel? I would agree with you that travel is constitutionally protected because it is not listed under the specific powers granted to the federal government. However, most politicians completely ignore that "living, breathing" document unless they're pandering for votes. The law breakers makers look at the Interstate Commerce clause and the "necessary and proper clause, and figure "Tough shit, we're the federal government and we'll do what we want." QuoteSo what makes guns and ammunition so special? Specific protect by constitutional amendment.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
