miked10270 0 #51 February 11, 2007 Quote QuoteSo what makes guns and ammunition so special? Specific protect by constitutional amendment. By God... I think I've got it! If I understand correctly, items or services which facilitate something which is constitutionally protected CAN'T be subject to specific taxation, but can still be subject to general taxation such as a general sales tax. Guns and ammunition cannot be additionally taxed since such a tax would interfere with "The Right to Bear Arms". Film, processing & publishing can't be specifically taxed since such a tax would interfere with "The Right of Free Speech & Belief". Vehicles, Fuel, etc... can't be specifically taxed since such a tax would interfere with "The Right of Free Passage". But... ALL these things can be taxed as an incidental part of a general tax on sales and income... Which makes the decisions of Cook County make sense. Ta. 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
nathaniel 0 #52 February 11, 2007 Quote ALL taxes are arbitrary. It is true that most taxes are enacted to suit some politician's fancy, but it is not true that tax is necessarily arbitrary. Some of them are calibrated against projected economic effects, and recalibrated continuously to maintain particular levels of the regulated activity. Marketized pollution permits, for instance, are a great example of a tax that is not arbitrary.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #53 February 11, 2007 Quote It is 100% revenue raising. Surely you don't believe that! Give me a flipping break! QuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall If Cook County REALLY needs money, they should work out a deal with Chicago and the owners of Sears Tower for jumps. $100 to $200 a pop BASE jumps on special weekends. People will be lining up. Charge spectators for special viewing areas. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #54 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteHmmm... 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. They already did a 17% spending cut this year. Pity George W. Bush doesn't learn how to do that.... 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
kallend 2,182 #55 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuote It is 100% revenue raising. Surely you don't believe that! Give me a flipping break! QuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall If Cook County REALLY needs money, they should work out a deal with Chicago and the owners of Sears Tower for jumps. $100 to $200 a pop BASE jumps on special weekends. People will be lining up. Charge spectators for special viewing areas. (1) Wrong and (2) daft. Cook County Information Center Press Release December 28, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Audio, video file links below. County Board President Todd Stroger has announced today that the majority of departments under his authority have succeeded in cutting their budgets by 17% to address a deficit of $500 million. I seriously doubt base jumping can raise $500Million a year.... 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
1969912 0 #56 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote It is 100% revenue raising. Surely you don't believe that! Give me a flipping break! QuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall If Cook County REALLY needs money, they should work out a deal with Chicago and the owners of Sears Tower for jumps. $100 to $200 a pop BASE jumps on special weekends. People will be lining up. Charge spectators for special viewing areas. (1) Wrong and (2) daft. Cook County Information Center Press Release December 28, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Audio, video file links below. County Board President Todd Stroger has announced today that the majority of departments under his authority have succeeded in cutting their budgets by 17% to address a deficit of $500 million. I seriously doubt base jumping can raise $500Million a year. County Board President Todd Stroger is part of the problem; can he be trusted in re his 17% reduction claim? County Board President Todd Stroger's 17% reduction "address[e's]" the $500 Million deficit, and does not, apparently, represent $500 million savings. In any case, what the hell does charging for BASE jumps have to do with raising or not raising $500 Million per year? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #57 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It is 100% revenue raising. Surely you don't believe that! Give me a flipping break! QuoteCook County has a serious budget shortfall If Cook County REALLY needs money, they should work out a deal with Chicago and the owners of Sears Tower for jumps. $100 to $200 a pop BASE jumps on special weekends. People will be lining up. Charge spectators for special viewing areas. (1) Wrong and (2) daft. Cook County Information Center Press Release December 28, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Audio, video file links below. County Board President Todd Stroger has announced today that the majority of departments under his authority have succeeded in cutting their budgets by 17% to address a deficit of $500 million. I seriously doubt base jumping can raise $500Million a year. ... In any case, what the hell does charging for BASE jumps have to do with raising or not raising $500 Million per year? Well, SOMEONE that wasn't me wrote in post #53 of this thread: If Cook County REALLY needs money, they should work out a deal with Chicago and the owners of Sears Tower for jumps. $100 to $200 a pop BASE jumps on special weekends. People will be lining up. Charge spectators for special viewing areas. So ask that individual why BASE jumping was brought up. His username is 169912, same as yours.... 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
1969912 0 #58 February 11, 2007 QuoteI seriously doubt base jumping can raise $500Million a year. What individual implied that my BASE jump suggestion might generate anything other than $100 to $200 per jump, with people waiting in line for jumps? Read my post, slowly. If necessary, move your lips while you read it. Understand it. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #59 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteI seriously doubt base jumping can raise $500Million a year. What individual implied that my BASE jump suggestion might generate anything other than $100 to $200 per jump, with people waiting in line for jumps? Read my post, slowly. If necessary, move your lips while you read it. Understand it. Feeble attempt at weaseling out of your silly statement.... 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
RBM 1 #60 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo you'd be ok if the state of Florida placed a $50 tax on pack jobs at DZs? Yeah... I'd pack myself! but it's a bad analogy to compare taxing such a service. Let's say that Fl placed a special $50 tax on a jump ticket... Then there'd be a lot less jumping done in Fl, with most folk saving up and going to Az twice a year for loads of jumps. But... For an occasional single jump, then it may be cheaper for Fl residents to go to a local Dz than it would be to travel out of state. The thing with taxes is that they might modify behaviour, but they certainly raise money. QuoteHow many people are trying to outlaw alcohol, tobacco, gambling, cars, and luxury items? There is a difference in motivations that leads to a difference in reactions. Remember: just because you're paranoid that doens't mean they're not out to get you. Some counties in the US DO outlaw alcohol - they're called "dry-counties". Many states outlaw gambling. Some states do legislate to outlaw the use of tobacco by banning smoking in public. Some other states or counties choose to allow such things and tax them. So... The question is whether Cook County is seeking to outlaw firearms or make extra money from their use. A 10cent bullet tax tends to suggest the latter. If Cook County really wanted to prohibit guns I'm sure that there's other ways to go about it that'd be far more effective than this tax, perhaps by some variation on business laws to make operating any business connected with firearms prohibitively expensive. Mike. Remember,, alcohol, tobacco, cars, gambling, are priviliges.. not rights.. they can be restricted as some states, have done,, second amendment Guarentees the right to have,, you may not be able to carry a gun in the state,, but you have the right to own one,,, big difference guys.,. plus when a state or county or whatever, trys to tax something to the outragous, only the very rich will be able to afford them,,, so then you will have created a class division ,, only the rich can protect themself's cause they have the money to pay such high taxes?? and then the poor having the same rights,, would be denied??? cause they can't afford it?? some ppl are poor, its a reality in this world,, but they should not be subjected to not being able to have the rights as we all do... just because its a money issue Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #61 February 11, 2007 Quote Remember,, alcohol, tobacco, cars, gambling, are priviliges.. not rights.. they can be restricted as some states, have done,, second amendment Guarentees the right to have,, you may not be able to carry a gun in the state,, but you have the right to own one,,, big difference guys.,. plus when a state or county or whatever, trys to tax something to the outragous, only the very rich will be able to afford them,,, so then you will have created a class division ,, only the rich can protect themself's cause they have the money to pay such high taxes?? and then the poor having the same rights,, would be denied??? cause they can't afford it?? some ppl are poor, its a reality in this world,, but they should not be subjected to not being able to have the rights as we all do... just because its a money issue It is, of course, self-evident that we have some inalienable rights that are not mentioned in any amendment. Many people pursue happiness by drinking, smoking and gambling, but the government quite happily taxes these activities anyway.... 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 #62 February 11, 2007 Quote 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. I don't see your reasoning here, Mike. Increasing accidental deaths, a clear cost of an onerous tax, is a easy means to promote the true goals of gun bans. And by discouraging the fun use of guns (target practice), you eliminate people doing much more with them other than storing in the closet. End result - very quick dropoff in the taxes collected. So in the end, you have little money, and you've fucked with the rights of your citizens. Only the gun haters like Kallend (whatever, John) are happy at the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #63 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuote 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. I don't see your reasoning here, Mike. Increasing accidental deaths, a clear cost of an onerous tax, is a easy means to promote the true goals of gun bans. And by discouraging the fun use of guns (target practice), you eliminate people doing much more with them other than storing in the closet. End result - very quick dropoff in the taxes collected. So in the end, you have little money, and you've fucked with the rights of your citizens. Only the gun haters like Kallend (whatever, John) are happy at the end. I have told you over and over that I have no problem with guns. I DO have a problem with people that delude themselves into thinking society is safer when flooded with handguns.... 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 #64 February 11, 2007 Quote I have told you over and over that I have no problem with guns. And we tell you over and over again that we don't believe you for a second. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #65 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuote I have told you over and over that I have no problem with guns. And we tell you over and over again that we don't believe you for a second. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... Whatever helps your illusions.... 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
JohnRich 4 #66 February 11, 2007 Quote88 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. Not IDPA, rather "highpower rifle across-the-course". We shoot 200-yards standing slow-fire, then 200-yards sitting rapid-fire, then 300-yards prone rapid fire, and finally 600-yards prone slow-fire. Each of the four stages is 20-shots for score, with two sighter shots to get your zero ready. Slow-fire is fired and scored one shot at a time. Rapid-fire is two strings of 10-shots, each fired in 60 seconds, with a magazine change. I can just picture a government tax collector attending shooting matches with a little ledger book to keep track of who shot how many bullets, so that he can bill you for the taxes... It's ridiculous to single-out the shooting sports for such treatment. The real hidden agenda is to punish shooters because they hate guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 February 11, 2007 QuotePity George W. Bush doesn't learn how to do that. Instead of trying to derail every unrelated thread in this forum to feed your desire to bash President Bush, perhaps you should try starting your own threads on that specific topic to feed your obsession. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #68 February 11, 2007 QuoteI have told you over and over that I have no problem with guns. Can you point us to any message that you've ever written in which you defended gun rights against an attack by an anti-gun person? To the contrary, however, all we ever see from you is attacks against guns, and against pro-gun people. And despite your claims to be concerned only with the "guns make you safe" argument, you go way beyond that and argue all kinds of anti-gun points which have nothing to do with that specific area. So, all your one-sided responses make your claims about being pro-gun ring a bit hollow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #69 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteI have told you over and over that I have no problem with guns. Can you point us to any message that you've ever written in which you defended gun rights against an attack by an anti-gun person? . Why would I need to do that when you are around. "Don't keep a dog and bark yourself", Philotimus: The Warre Betwixt Nature and Fortune, 1583. ... 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
jm951 0 #70 February 12, 2007 John- Sounds like a DCM match. As an interesting aside, my younger son decided to play with a Glock on the rifle section of a match. Targets were 8x10 steel starting at 60yds, spaced at unequal distance and heights out to 200. With the Glock, he put 5 on steel on each target, each successive target was about 15yds further out. He didn't miss until 115yds and that was still 4 out of 5, all shot offhand. back to the issue, I strongly resent being told how many and what kind of guns I can own by fedgod. So long as I'm a lawabiding citizen, the 2nd has no clause about what or how many. The only reason of circumscribing this is the insecurity of the liberals pantywaists of either party, not to mention those who would like to control every facet of individual liberty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #71 February 12, 2007 Quote Taxes are taxes, the dues we pay to belong to an advanced society. They are ALL arbitrary to some extent. Why should mortgage interest be deductible but furniture payment interest is not? Because the government wants you to own a home - first not to be a homeless (therefore spending government money in a some way), and second, to pay property taxes. And the government does not care about the furniture.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #72 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuote Taxes are taxes, the dues we pay to belong to an advanced society. They are ALL arbitrary to some extent. Why should mortgage interest be deductible but furniture payment interest is not? Because the government wants you to own a home - first not to be a homeless (therefore spending government money in a some way), and second, to pay property taxes. And the government does not care about the furniture. Arbitrary decisions by the government.... 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 #73 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuote Quote... 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.... ... this is a revenue-raising measure rather than an anti-gun or anti gun-crime measure... I don't see your reasoning here, Mike.... Sorry for the slow response. My reasoning is that this tax targets folk who will pay the taxes. If your $30 box of ammo now costs $40, then as Kennedy said, you'd probably grumble, but pay up. Unless you're able and willing to make a $500+ ammunition purchase, then it probably isn't worth your while to travel the 60 miles (In Kallends example) to buy your ammunition cheaper. The cost of getting it would be greater than the money you save on buying it. So... The effect of the tax will be to raise money for Cook County. They still come out ahead since even if local ammunition sales fall, some ammunition will still be bought locally so they get money they otherwise wouldn't. The CONSEQUENCES of the tax are that this will impact most on the poorer responsible gun-owner who would curtail his sport according to his more limited budget. So, the politicians point to the consequences and make their claims. But it's really about the money. Again, I'll cite UK Tobacco Tax (history) to further illustrate my point. In the 1950's, the government of the time wanted to eliminate or drastically reduce tobacco use on health grounds, so they introduced prohibitive taxation on tobacco products (heading up to 1,000%)! Their motives at the time were clear and publicly stated. THe actual effect wasn't what they wanted, instead, tobacco sales stayed near constant but govenment revenue went up! So... They kept the extra money, but still say that they want us to stop. Meanwhile, tobacco, and more importantly, ANY TOBACCO SUBSTITUTE attracts this massive tax. It's the same with their "Green" policies. They SAY they make car use expensive to protect the environment, but they tax biofuels the same as fossil fuels... Therefore, it's really about getting money. 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
StreetScooby 5 #74 February 12, 2007 Quote I think those shooters will just go outside the county to purchase their ammo. Without a doubt, as they should.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #75 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteCan you point us to any message that you've ever written in which you defended gun rights against an attack by an anti-gun person? Why would I need to do that when you are around. So let's see if I've got this straight. 1) You claim here to be pro-gun. 2) You never defend gun rights here. 3) Your only participation in gun discussions is to argue against them. And yet you expect us to believe #1? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
