Taxes on guns

[RetiredGySgt]

Further we have precedent and law on our side when we make the claim. Or do you not recall the decision that states a poll tax on voters infringed their rights?

I guess you missed this right?

No, I didn't miss it. It's just not germain.

A tax has been ruled to be an infringement of a right and you say it is not germane to your claim you can put a punitive tax on a right? Reality exist between your ears?

 

[candycorn]

Taxation
See also: Cigarette taxes in the United States
Many governments have introduced excise taxes on cigarettes in order to reduce the consumption of cigarettes
.
In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity,[74] around $3400 per year per smoker. Another study by a team of health economists finds the combined price paid by their families and society is about $41 per pack of cigarettes.[95]

Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate that a 10% increase in price will reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities, and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or smoke less than other smokers in response to price increases.[96][97] Smoking is often cited as an example of an inelastic good, however, i.e. a large rise in price will only result in a small decrease in consumption.
Many nations have implemented some form of tobacco taxation. As of 1997, Denmark had the highest cigarette tax burden of $4.02 per pack. Taiwan only had a tax burden of $0.62 per pack. The federal government of the United States charges $1.01 per pack.[98]
Cigarette taxes vary widely from state to state in the United States. For example, Missouri has a cigarette tax of only 17 cents per pack, the nation's lowest, while New York has the highest cigarette tax in the U.S.: $4.35 per pack. In Alabama, Illinois, Missouri, New York City, Tennessee, and Virginia, counties and cities may impose an additional limited tax on the price of cigarettes.[99] Sales taxes are also levied on tobacco products in most jurisdictions.
In the United Kingdom, a packet of 20 cigarettes typically costs between £5.22 and £8.00 at 2007 prices, depending on the brand purchased and where the purchase was made.[100] The UK has a significant black market for tobacco, and it has been estimated by the tobacco industry that 27% of cigarette and 68% of handrolling tobacco consumption is non-UK duty paid (NUKDP).[101]
In Australia total taxes account for 62.5% of the final price of a packet of cigarettes (2011 figures). These taxes include federal excise or customs duty, and Goods and Services Tax (Australia) .[102]

From Wikipedia.

Tobacco smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Taxation
See also: Cigarette taxes in the United States
Many governments have introduced excise taxes on cigarettes in order to reduce the consumption of cigarettes
.
In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity,[74] around $3400 per year per smoker. Another study by a team of health economists finds the combined price paid by their families and society is about $41 per pack of cigarettes.[95]

Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate that a 10% increase in price will reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities, and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or smoke less than other smokers in response to price increases.[96][97] Smoking is often cited as an example of an inelastic good, however, i.e. a large rise in price will only result in a small decrease in consumption.
Many nations have implemented some form of tobacco taxation. As of 1997, Denmark had the highest cigarette tax burden of $4.02 per pack. Taiwan only had a tax burden of $0.62 per pack. The federal government of the United States charges $1.01 per pack.[98]
Cigarette taxes vary widely from state to state in the United States. For example, Missouri has a cigarette tax of only 17 cents per pack, the nation's lowest, while New York has the highest cigarette tax in the U.S.: $4.35 per pack. In Alabama, Illinois, Missouri, New York City, Tennessee, and Virginia, counties and cities may impose an additional limited tax on the price of cigarettes.[99] Sales taxes are also levied on tobacco products in most jurisdictions.
In the United Kingdom, a packet of 20 cigarettes typically costs between £5.22 and £8.00 at 2007 prices, depending on the brand purchased and where the purchase was made.[100] The UK has a significant black market for tobacco, and it has been estimated by the tobacco industry that 27% of cigarette and 68% of handrolling tobacco consumption is non-UK duty paid (NUKDP).[101]
In Australia total taxes account for 62.5% of the final price of a packet of cigarettes (2011 figures). These taxes include federal excise or customs duty, and Goods and Services Tax (Australia) .[102]

From Wikipedia.

Tobacco smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smoking is not a protected right, enumerated in the Constitution. Owning, possessing and using firearms IS. It is an Enumerated right, clearly spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and supported by Supreme Court decisions to be an INDIVIDUAL right. If one can not tax the right to vote, one can not tax the right to own, possess or use firearms. That INCLUDES bullets.

 

[Oldguy]

Cite the text that you believe allows for the federal government to tax the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms w/o violating the constitution.

the tracy case
dealt with the federal power to income tax a corporation

Indeed.
No one questions the power to tax; the question is if the power to tax is applied to the exercise of a right with the intent to regulate said exercise, does that taxation constitute an infringement of that right.
There's no way to soundly argue that it does not.

Flint vs Stone Tracy said exactly that. A tax was applied to businesses exercising their corporate charters which they received from the states, and the right to issue charters is a Constitutionally guaranteed state right.

 

[bripat9643]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

It certainly does prevent behavior modification taxes. Do you think a tax on liberal newspapers would pass constitutional muster?

 

[bripat9643]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

If a poll tax is wrong, this is wrong.

For once I agree with you!

 

[M14 Shooter]

the tracy case
dealt with the federal power to income tax a corporation

Indeed.
No one questions the power to tax; the question is if the power to tax is applied to the exercise of a right with the intent to regulate said exercise, does that taxation constitute an infringement of that right.
There's no way to soundly argue that it does not.

Flint vs Stone Tracy said exactly that.

No. It does not. Cite the text to that effect.

 

[bripat9643]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

How does the statement of a moron support your point?

 

[Oldguy]

I don’t see the connection and, at least to me, you are stretching when stating this is a similar instance. In one, we have the expressed right and not in the other. I just don’t see how the 2 concepts are even remotely related.

Further, taxing guns specifically IS directly taxing a constitutional right, not something that ‘flows’ from a right.

A "right" isn't concrete. You can lay your hands on a Constitutionally protected gun, but not on the right to have it. You can exercise your right to free speech, but you can't pick it up and put it in your pocket. Rights are ideas, principles, not physical objects. Any physical objects which are protected BY the right can be taxed, apparently.

You cannot show where a punitive tax on the exercise of any right has been upheld, and so there is no 'apparent' support for your claim.

Whether it's called a punitive tax or not is unimportant. The fact that it can be taxed, and taxed heavily, is the important point. There are numerous ways to do that so long as We The People agree that heavy taxation to force a change in behavior is a legitimate power of government.

Consider this from the Supreme Court's landmark 2nd Amendment ruling in Chicago vs. McDonald:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Do you see that? "Imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." A heavy tax on a sales transaction or high fees would accomplish the same thing as a defined punitive tax and not be called that. Not only that, but unless the Court agreed to hear a challenge about the amount, it's ALREADY BEEN DEEMED CONSTITUTIONAL!

Once again, the point is that until, or unless, The People demand that the government stop taxing things as a means of forcing people to change their behavior, they'll keep doing it and they CAN, and WILL, do it to firearms.

 

[Agit8r]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Anything sold in a black market tends to have a significant markup over it's retail cost

 

[M14 Shooter]

A "right" isn't concrete. You can lay your hands on a Constitutionally protected gun, but not on the right to have it. You can exercise your right to free speech, but you can't pick it up and put it in your pocket. Rights are ideas, principles, not physical objects. Any physical objects which are protected BY the right can be taxed, apparently.

You cannot show where a punitive tax on the exercise of any right has been upheld, and so there is no 'apparent' support for your claim.

Whether it's called a punitive tax or not is unimportant.

It very much is.

1: It is -your- argument
2: It illustrates that the tax is intended to reatrict the exercise of the right.

You cannot show where a punitive tax on the exercise of any right has been upheld, and so there is no 'apparent' support for your claim.

Disagree? Cite the case and the relevant text.

 

[Agit8r]

Consider this from the Supreme Court's landmark 2nd Amendment ruling in Chicago vs. McDonald:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I've wondered before what would come of a bill that conditioned the right of gun ownership upon the ownership of real property. And I wonder if those who would place this condition upon voting would have a reasonable complaint in this instance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Consider this from the Supreme Court's landmark 2nd Amendment ruling in Chicago vs. McDonald:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I've wondered before what would come of a bill that conditioned the right of gun ownership upon the ownership of real property. And I wonder if those who would place this condition upon voting would have a reasonable complaint in this instance.

You can bet that if a punitive tax were levied on the right to vote, the right to an abortion and the right of the free press to report the news, those who champion such a tax on the right to arms would squeal like stuck pigs.

 

[Agit8r]

Consider this from the Supreme Court's landmark 2nd Amendment ruling in Chicago vs. McDonald:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I've wondered before what would come of a bill that conditioned the right of gun ownership upon the ownership of real property. And I wonder if those who would place this condition upon voting would have a reasonable complaint in this instance.

You can bet that if a punitive tax were levied on the right to vote, the right to an abortion and the right of the free press to report the news, those who champion such a tax on the right to arms would squeal like stuck pigs.

I'm just saying that as a practical measure, mass shooters tend not to own any real property. And it would be foolishness for anyone to say that a person ought not to take part in democracy, but that such a person ought to have the means of taking part in ochlocracy.

 

[candycorn]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Anything sold in a black market tends to have a significant markup over it's retail cost

Not according to Meister...

 

[candycorn]

Taxation
See also: Cigarette taxes in the United States
Many governments have introduced excise taxes on cigarettes in order to reduce the consumption of cigarettes
.
In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity,[74] around $3400 per year per smoker. Another study by a team of health economists finds the combined price paid by their families and society is about $41 per pack of cigarettes.[95]

Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate that a 10% increase in price will reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities, and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or smoke less than other smokers in response to price increases.[96][97] Smoking is often cited as an example of an inelastic good, however, i.e. a large rise in price will only result in a small decrease in consumption.
Many nations have implemented some form of tobacco taxation. As of 1997, Denmark had the highest cigarette tax burden of $4.02 per pack. Taiwan only had a tax burden of $0.62 per pack. The federal government of the United States charges $1.01 per pack.[98]
Cigarette taxes vary widely from state to state in the United States. For example, Missouri has a cigarette tax of only 17 cents per pack, the nation's lowest, while New York has the highest cigarette tax in the U.S.: $4.35 per pack. In Alabama, Illinois, Missouri, New York City, Tennessee, and Virginia, counties and cities may impose an additional limited tax on the price of cigarettes.[99] Sales taxes are also levied on tobacco products in most jurisdictions.
In the United Kingdom, a packet of 20 cigarettes typically costs between £5.22 and £8.00 at 2007 prices, depending on the brand purchased and where the purchase was made.[100] The UK has a significant black market for tobacco, and it has been estimated by the tobacco industry that 27% of cigarette and 68% of handrolling tobacco consumption is non-UK duty paid (NUKDP).[101]
In Australia total taxes account for 62.5% of the final price of a packet of cigarettes (2011 figures). These taxes include federal excise or customs duty, and Goods and Services Tax (Australia) .[102]

From Wikipedia.

Tobacco smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smoking is not a protected right, enumerated in the Constitution. Owning, possessing and using firearms IS. It is an Enumerated right, clearly spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and supported by Supreme Court decisions to be an INDIVIDUAL right. If one can not tax the right to vote, one can not tax the right to own, possess or use firearms. That INCLUDES bullets.

Rights are rights...sorry.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

I'm sure they will, but people forget, normal law abiding people dont kill others, so the people willing to kill, will get the guns someway.....and we already do background checks. Not many of these guys just walked in, bought a gun and shot dozens of people.......but that's how libtards like to portray it.

 

[Oldguy]

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

I'm sure they will, but people forget, normal law abiding people dont kill others, so the people willing to kill, will get the guns someway.....and we already do background checks. Not many of these guys just walked in, bought a gun and shot dozens of people.......but that's how libtards like to portray it.

That's not the point. We could argue the effectiveness of it all day and still not get to the baseline subject: the power of government to use taxes as a means to force a change in behavior.

That's the issue and that's what we need to stop, whether it's done to guns or cigarettes or anything else. So long as we support the governments efforts along those lines, they'll find a way to get it done, effective or not.

Simple question: Should the government have the power to use taxation as a means of compelling a change in behavior? Yes or no.

 

[editec]

Don't you guys get it yet?

The power to TAX is the power to REPRESS BEHAVIORS.

I EXPECT that this will be the way that the government will deny most people their 2nd Amendment rights without violating the constitution.

Now we can make the argument that that is really a violation of the spirit of the constiution and I would agree with that argument entirely.

But what you or I think matters not one bit.

It's what the SCOTUS decides that will either make or break this policy to TAX guns.