Posted on Aug 11, 2015
Seattle to tax guns and bullets. Is this an option to slow down gun violence which will work?
7.62K
72
63
5
5
0
Is this the answer to help eliminate gun violence, or is it for raising money for the city coffers? You decide!
The City Council unanimously passed a special tax on Monday, and Mayor Ed Murray signaled his support for the measure. The new law will impose a $25 tax on guns and a 5-cent tax on bullets sold within the city limits. Lawmakers called it a "gun violence tax" because proceeds would be used for prevention and research programs to reduce gun violence in Seattle.
The law is based on a similar $25 gun tax that passed in Cook County, Illinois, in 2013. The Seattle budget office estimates the law will raise $300,000 to $500,000 a year.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/seattle-gun-tax/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork
The City Council unanimously passed a special tax on Monday, and Mayor Ed Murray signaled his support for the measure. The new law will impose a $25 tax on guns and a 5-cent tax on bullets sold within the city limits. Lawmakers called it a "gun violence tax" because proceeds would be used for prevention and research programs to reduce gun violence in Seattle.
The law is based on a similar $25 gun tax that passed in Cook County, Illinois, in 2013. The Seattle budget office estimates the law will raise $300,000 to $500,000 a year.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/seattle-gun-tax/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 26
No, it just means gun shops will move right outside of the Seattle tax zone. Also, criminals don't think "hmmm, don't want to shoot that guy, bullets and guns cost too much." This is just another piece of feel good legislation that does nothing but hurt law abiding citizens.
(5)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) What!? You're trying to tell me that criminals (who often obtain their weapons illegally, not in a store that would be taxed anyways) don't consider the cost of their ammunition and explosives when carrying out their crimes?
No way! ;)
No way! ;)
(2)
(0)
In a word, NO!!! Just more politically correct socialist tax-whoring and gun-grabbing. Bloody Seattle grunge hippies.
(4)
(0)
If the tax is high enough, only the rich will have guns. Read up on the states and communities with lax gun laws and crime. I always love the fact that those that find ways to try to limit access to firearms have extensive protection paid for by my taxes. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and the death rate is huge. No taxes aren't the answer.
(3)
(0)
Whatever the intended purpose of this legislation, just chalk it up as a FAIL! Will it decrease gun violence? I doubt that even those who proposed this legislation believe that. Will it raise tax revenues to offset the costs of gun violence? No, of course not. As many have already pointed out, gun and ammo sales will just move to the next jurisdiction where it isn't taxed (and the gun sellers will move where the trade goes so they lose that income as well). Thus they can expect tax revenues to decrease. And, of course, the lion's share of any tax revenue realized will be diverted into the pockets of the bureaucrats administering the program. Yep, this is just another failure based on first order problem solving. No, to be fair, it doesn't even rise to the level of thinking on the first order, does it?
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish, It's an absurd idea. They aren't fooling anybody. You are 100% correct.
(1)
(0)
While I don't see a tax placed on weapons as an infringement on one's right to own a gun anymore than having to pay sales tax is an infringement on my right to own a huge HD TV; I would say that it will not really impact gun violence. We all know that most bad guys don't get their guns from a legit weapons dealer unless you classify the trunk of an old Oldsmobile as a legit store front. And even if they did, nothing is stopping them from going to another city or state that doesn't have this tax and taking the weapon back into Seattle. Yet again, the government taking much needed time to "do something" rather than addressing the issues in an effective way.
(2)
(0)
I'll be honest I don't really get it. They passed a tax, they didn't ban anything. Whether you think it's a reasonable tax or not (and probably not, but maybe) doesn't make it legal or illegal.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Sgt Joseph Brent Montgomery Also just to be clear I didn't mean I don't get what you're saying, I think the article is worth discussing and was a good post.
It's just a very very biased article that seems to insinuate some things that I don't think happened.
Part of it I do tend to agree with though is that the city apparently doesn't have the right to tax firearms sales. Even that is a bit ambiguous though. They don't have the right to "control" firearms sales at a level different than the state. A tax doesn't really do that, it generates revenue and potentially lowers sales. I can see the relation, but not quite the same
It's just a very very biased article that seems to insinuate some things that I don't think happened.
Part of it I do tend to agree with though is that the city apparently doesn't have the right to tax firearms sales. Even that is a bit ambiguous though. They don't have the right to "control" firearms sales at a level different than the state. A tax doesn't really do that, it generates revenue and potentially lowers sales. I can see the relation, but not quite the same
(2)
(0)
Remember, the only taxes paid will be by citizens who purchase weapons and ammo legally, this will not affect the back alley deals.
Once again the law-biding citizen is being punished.
Once again the law-biding citizen is being punished.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see), The back alley deals are what needs to be controlled, not legal gun owners.
(0)
(0)
It my believe sir that most ploys like this are to slow and even disable all veterans in the us so they could have national control over the population I could be wrong but it's not looking good
(1)
(0)
Read This Next