New $25 Gun Tax

[Fern]

Ah hah! I'll beat you at your own math.
Let's say it was half (as you suggested.) So, for every firearm they sell, they gain an extra $25.

The problem is, with a tax rate around 9%, for every firearm that's sold outside the county instead of inside the county, let's say a $300 (cheap) long gun - that's $27 lost in sales tax revenue (not that all of it would have gone to the county). $300 is pretty cheap for a gun (not that there aren't models cheaper); I'd guess the median gun price is quite a bit more than $300 though.

So, the gun tax would likely cause a loss in sales tax?

Good point.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting. I never heard of it before that I can recall.

Fern

I do not know but guess would be that the tax goes on the manufacturer per unite, not on the buyer except, naturally, the costs get passed through.

 

[Fern]

I do not know but guess would be that the tax goes on the manufacturer per unite, not on the buyer except, naturally, the costs get passed through.

You'd be correct.

I looked it up upon hearing about it. The manufacturers send the money collected to the govt quarterly.

Fern

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I do not know but guess would be that the tax goes on the manufacturer per unite, not on the buyer except, naturally, the costs get passed through.

No...no...no taxes have no effect on prices which affect consumers in la-la-leftist hand.

LoL - Glad I have you quoted on this though.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In short, he assumed that the law makers do not care about gun violence, a question which goes to their moral character and not the motive of the law they wanted enacted, and a condition we can know nothing about because we can't get in their heads, so I asked him about his own moral state, does he care. It's really just that simple assuming your genuinely asking.

His point was the same as yours -- that this was about getting money, not about caring about violence. Since he did not express any opinion indicating any opposition to measures that actually do reduce violence, there was no reason to question his moral state.

The motives of politicians are standard fare for discussions on boards like this one. Questioning a poster's "moral state" for pointing out that these politicians implemented this solely as a money grab, when that is obvious to everyone including you, is just the standard character assassination that you engage in constantly.

I do care about gun violence. I oppose laws that are enacted under even a veiled pretense of addressing it when they do not. I oppose laws that demonize law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of criminals. I oppose laws that take more tax dollars and flush them into a giant rathole. I oppose laws that are blatantly obviously not going to accomplish anything of any significance.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Oh, one more thing. The person behind this tax is indeed suggesting that it will reduce gun violence:

“We cannot allow gun violence to become commonplace,” Preckwinkle said, calling gun violence an “epidemic.”
...

“I know this tax will not unilaterally solve the violence issue we face here in Chicago and other parts of Cook County, but it is without a doubt a necessary piece of the puzzle.

 

[Moonbeam]

Charles Kozierok: His point was the same as yours -- that this was about getting money, not about caring about violence. Since he did not express any opinion indicating any opposition to measures that actually do reduce violence, there was no reason to question his moral state.

M: His point was not the same as mine. I said that the stated purpose of the law according to the law makers was to raise revenue. His point was that they pretend to care about gun violence to scam people into buying into laws the real purpose of which is to suck money out of people for obviously evil purposes. I implied nothing about real motives and phony manipulative ones. I stated the motive provided in the link. I questioned his moral state, not because of whatever his stance might be on caring about gun violence but because he pretended to know what he cannot know, the stance of lawmakers on that subject themselves. He implied that people who may care a great deal about gun violence do not care at all because all they are interested in is the money. When I see a person based on my understanding and insight into how people project, utter a conservative point of view that slimes the motives of democrats, while not having any possible means to know what is actually in their hearts except by robot conjecture, I see contemptible behavior, a person assuming that others would act like he would act in their situation. It is also possible, projecting my own beliefs, that these folk may care a lot but are hampered from dealing head on with the issues that might reduce gun violence, like better mental health and prison rehabilitation, etc. They are doing what they think they can legally.

CK: The motives of politicians are standard fare for discussions on boards like this one. Questioning a poster's "moral state" for pointing out that these politicians implemented this solely as a money grab, when that is obvious to everyone including you, is just the standard character assassination that you engage in constantly.

M: Wrong, totally wrong. A money grab and a sin tax are not the same thing. A sin tax is a tax that places a special burden on a limited user population. A money grab can be that or anything else that raises money. To suggest that laws are passed to scam the public is pathetic, and particularly so when we can't know if somebodies motives are altruistic or evil. To assume that everybody is a piece of shit takes a piece of shit to make that assumption. I will be bringing that up whenever I feel it is true. You got that Poncho?

CK: I do care about gun violence.

M: M: I know you oppose gun violence. You started numerous threads to find what you thought would be reasonable answers only to be told you're a gun grabbing surrender turd by the fine absolutist gun imbeciles in our midst. I felt no need to ask YOU about this.

CK: I oppose laws that are enacted under even a veiled pretense of addressing it when they do not.

M: That's cool. You seem very confident in your ability to tell when a veiled presence exists and I do not.

CK: I oppose laws that demonize law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of criminals.

M: Of course, a child can tell you that's not fair.

CK: I oppose laws that take more tax dollars and flush them into a giant rathole.

M: Me too.

CK: I oppose laws that are blatantly obviously not going to accomplish anything of any significance.

M: Me too but what is blatantly obvious to me is the very first thing I'm going to question. It is not your truth I am opposed to, but when it applies.

The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley. We are the prisoners of the unexamined assumptions onto which we ground our beliefs. The unexamined life is not worth living. Pride goeth before a fall, etc., etc., etc.

 

[michal1980]

The first objection to the law was that it would do no good stopping gun violence which I pointed out had nothing to do with the intention of the legislation, the actual intention of which was to do something about the cost of gun violence to the tax payer by raising revenue to pay some of the cost from gun owners rather than raising it elsewhere.

the vast vast majority of legal gun purchasers contribute NOTHING to gun violence.

So you are taxing people that are not contributing to any problem.


But your too stupid to do anything but defend a tax increase.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh, one more thing. The person behind this tax is indeed suggesting that it will reduce gun violence:

Look at the context:

The $600,000 the tax is expected to raise this year would help defray the costs of treating indigent gunshot victims at Stroger Hospital, county officials have said. The taxpayer-funded public hospital treats about 670 gunshot victims each year at an average cost of $52,000, Preckwinkle said.

"Gunshot victims make up more than 30 percent of the patients our trauma center sees,” Preckwinkle said. “I know this tax will not unilaterally solve the violence issue we face here in Chicago and other parts of Cook County, but it is without a doubt a necessary piece of the puzzle."

The clear implication is that the law will not of itself solve the violence issue but it will help solve that piece of the issue that comes as a bill to the emergency wards at 52K a pop. Preckwinkle couldn't have better differentiated the fact that what the bill won't do is end violence with guns as an instrumentality, but only help with that part of the issue that relates to the financial burden gun violence is creating. It is beyond me how you could read anything else but that into those words.

 

[Moonbeam]

the vast vast majority of legal gun purchasers contribute NOTHING to gun violence.

So you are taxing people that are not contributing to any problem.


But your too stupid to do anything but defend a tax increase.

Please, Michael, if you get any ideas dismiss them immediately as stupid and irrational. A sin tax is predicated on the notion that people who say drink responsibly are going to pay for those who do not. I believe it is a fact that such laws exist. I believe, therefore, that passing them meets constitutional muster and that stating that fact as a defense of such laws is a valid defense of them. What I did not do, however, and show me where I did if you disagree, is state that I believe the law is a good idea. All I have done is point out the irrationality of numbers of folk who visited this thread and posted inane comments like those you just did.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The $600,000 the tax is expected to raise this year would help defray the costs of treating indigent gunshot victims at Stroger Hospital, county officials have said. The taxpayer-funded public hospital treats about 670 gunshot victims each year at an average cost of $52,000, Preckwinkle said.

670 times $52,000 is $34.8 million.

$600,000 is 1.7% of that total.

Yeah, that's going to make a huge difference.

As for Ms. Winkleprick, she said:

“We cannot allow gun violence to become commonplace,” Preckwinkle said, calling gun violence an “epidemic.”

That's not about providing a few bucks to hospitals. It's about making people think this will do something to curb gun violence.

His point was that they pretend to care about gun violence to scam people into buying into laws the real purpose of which is to suck money out of people for obviously evil purposes.

That's a lie. Here's what he said: "This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money."

There was nothing there about "evil purposes", just that they want more money, which all of us have agreed. You invented the crap about "evil purposes", just as you invented this:

He told me, in effect, that he is a piece of shit.

And this:

But I know that he is that way because he is dead to empathy, especially empathy for himself.

And, well, a large percentage of everything you write in every thread in which you participate.

Ultimately I blame myself, however, for feeding you, when I know better. I'll avoid that mistake in the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

The vast majority of guns cause no damage at all, unless they are used illegally or carelessly (both are crimes).

(Cigarettes are not purchased to sit locked away for years in a cabinet or safe, guns are.)

But more importantly, I think you may be changing the topic here without acknowledging it, perhaps without recognizing it.
As I said in my post you quoted:



If the stated justification for the proposed tax is that it is a 'sin tax', I think they've got even more constitutional problems.

A sin tax has two objectives: (1) raise revenue and (2) discourage the use or consumption of a thing.

The Constitution specifically enumerates the right to bear arms, or own a gun, and to then add a new law broadly discouraging gun ownership would be contradictory. That makes no sense.

Rights like those of free speech, voting, owning guns and due process which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have long been afforded more protection than those not enumerated (like any right to alcohol or cigarettes). (I am not exactly sure why, e.g., IMO the govt has no constitutional right to outlaw pot, but I digress.)

Many people believe requiring an ID to vote discourages voting and is therefor unconstitutional. I think this may be correct even though the charge for an ID is very modest (seems many also feel this way even if the ID is free). Well, if charging for the right to vote is unconstitutional so is charging for the right to bear arms.

I see no way that trying to justify this proposed tax as sin tax passes constitutional muster. I simply don't think you can pass a law whose intent is discourage a constitutional protected right. (Reasonable restrictions can be placed upon such constitutional rights, but a law broadly discouraging a right is something entirely different than a reasonable restriction.)

As it stands now, they're trying to justify the proposed law based on some costs to society. But as I explained above I don't think they've come close to establishing a direct link to those costs and ALL gun owners. Also, I would suggest that the problem(s) generating those costs to society is not the gun itself, but the behavior of the individuals. If that's the case, you're taxing the wrong base. It shouldn't be gun owners, but instead those with criminal behavior.

Fern

The right to drink alcohol is in the constitution. It is taxes and it is discouraged in many situations.

 

[chucky2]

No they are not. The hospitals and prisons aren't full of baseball bat perps and victims. Gun violence and not these other things are costing society a lot of pain and money. Your examples were drawn for a conservative fantasy bubble I don't think exists and I expect to see no nationwide scurry to outlaw bats. For Christ sake, try to stay real.

Yes, they are. Look, I can't help it's the same logic. I'm not even remotely trying to defend it, and I don't know anyone who is remotely sane on the issue who would either. If you want to argue that it's not the same logic, please let the FBI know their own stats are wrong. They might be interested in hearing that.

Next up: Tax on hands and feet due to "hands and feet violence"..they contribute massively to hospital bills as well, better get to taxing them.

Yikes...this logic is frightening...

Chuck

 

[DrPizza]

My best guess on where they got that $600,000 figure: estimated the number of guns sold annually, multiplied by $25. I really doubt they attempted to guess at the number of people who will simply purchase firearms in the next county over.

 

[OverVolt]

My best guess on where they got that $600,000 figure: estimated the number of guns sold annually, multiplied by $25. I really doubt they attempted to guess at the number of people who will simply purchase firearms in the next county over.

Uhh yup. They never hit their target revenue. Moonbeam was saying he values his time enough and so do others so hardly anyone would avoid the tax.

I'm not sure he realizes its a single county. You can probably get out of there with a 10minute drive.

 

[DrPizza]

And, since I went looking (and just to muddy the water a bit)
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/04/01/cook-countys-25-gun-tax-goes-into-effect/

Surrounded by gun violence victims and religious leaders at a church in the Pilsen neighborhood, Preckwinkle touted the new gun tax on Monday, but acknowledged it’s not a silver bullet in the fight against gun violence.
“I know this tax will not unilaterally solve the violence issue that we face in Chicago and Cook County, but it’s a piece of the puzzle,” she said.
Yolan Henry – whose daughter, Nova, and granddaughter, Ava, were shot and killed in 2009 – voiced her support for the new tax.
“I am here today to speak for my daughter, Nova Henry; her daughter, Ava Safiyah Henry-Curry; and a multitude of other victims that have been killed previously, and afterwards,” she said.

Gun sellers and owners have sued Cook County over the tax plan, saying it violates residents’ Second Amendment rights. They noted in their lawsuit that supporters of the gun tax have said it should reduce the number of guns in circulation, a sign it would infringe on the right to bear arms.
Commissioner Edwin Reyes (D-8th) told the Sun-Times the county should consider repealing the tax if the cost of defending the lawsuit would be greater than the revenue the tax would bring in.

From another article:

“This has been a very difficult year, and a particularly difficult summer for the city and the county in terms of gun violence,” Preckwinkle said from county offices in Chicago. “And I think it’s incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to discourage that violence.” She said the proposed tax on ammunition, now off the table, and the retained levy on firearms were “meant to help us get some traction toward that goal.”

So, I predict that first of all, they won't gain as much money as they expect, since it's so easy (and not really inconvenient) to purchase outside the county. They're going to lose a significant amount of regular sales tax. AND NOW, they're going to have to pay a significant chunk of money to defend against a lawsuit.

Seems pretty foolish to me.

One last thing... $600,000 toward medical bills for gunshot victims is a pittance.

 

[DrPizza]

And another:

The proposed Cook County gun tax is “anticipated” to generate about $600,000 during the next fiscal year, according to Toni Preckwinkle, County Board president. That and money from the county’s public health system will establish a $2 million fund to make grants to nonprofit organizations with proven experience in violence prevention or community outreach; it would be overseen by a seven-member advisory committee. At least $100,000 would be dedicated to education and enforcement efforts aimed at stemming “straw purchases” — firearms that are purchased legally but later used in criminal activity.
The committee will include Preckwinkle or her designee, three members of the Board of Commissioners, a person with law enforcement experience and two representatives from community organizations. It will also look at options for establishing a “gun court” in the county. The group will look at prototypes in other jurisdictions, according to Kristen Mack, Preckwinkle’s spokeswoman.

 

[Moonbeam]

CK: 670 times $52,000 is $34.8 million.

$600,000 is 1.7% of that total.

Yeah, that's going to make a huge difference.

M: You are full of your opinion that it makes no difference. I do not know. I made no claims the bill would be any good, help or make any sense. I only pointed out what the link said and what the bill makers stated as their intention. I did not say it was their intention or that it wasn't. I man no assumptions about it. I do not know, for example, if they have a 1.7% budget shortfall they need to fill.

CK: As for Ms. Winkleprick, she said:

That's not about providing a few bucks to hospitals. It's about making people think this will do something to curb gun violence.

M: Again, you know what her words really meant. I do not. I only stated what she said. Did you talk to her privately where she told you what she really meant?

CK: That's a lie. Here's what he said: "This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money."

M: Lets look at the whole thing: He answering the question how many criminals buy legal guns and answered:

"Most of them? Those guns don't magically appear. A person buys a legal gun then sells it to a criminal on something like craiglist. This is not a complicated riddle."

This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money.

What is he saying, that legal buyers are running guns to criminals for profit and son of a bitch, the price went up 25 dollars? Is the price hike because the legal buyers have to pay the tax or are they ripping off the criminals for an extra 25 profit? But if the stated intent of the law was to garner additional taxes to pay for social needs how does that become cash grabbing instead of responsible fiscal policy, taxing to deal with a critical need? Of course you had he have already determined you know the answer that it's a rip off by criminal evil politicians who only want money and money and money and more money, as much as they can grab no possibility whatsoever they might have good intentions. Not saying their intentions, if good are also intelligent, but I didn't give an opinion of that subject.

CK: There was nothing there about "evil purposes", just that they want more money, which all of us have agreed. You invented the crap about "evil purposes", just as you invented this:

M: We did not agree. You maintain it's money grabbing as he does, but I referred back to the stated intention. I have no opinion offered as to whether it is money grabbing or sincere intent because I haven't an inside track into what the law makers really think they are doing. In short I believe that when somebody speaks of money grabbing politicians they do not mean politicians who are trying to serve the people by directing revenue toward solving the shared problems we have, but rather a bunch of worthless assholes. In my opinion you malign some people here whose intentions you only imagine you divine.

CK: And this: M: But I know that he is that way because he is dead to empathy, especially empathy for himself.

CK: And, well, a large percentage of everything you write in every thread in which you participate.

Ultimately I blame myself, however, for feeding you, when I know better. I'll avoid that mistake in the future.

M: Let me tell you something about empathy, Charles. I am aware that I drive you crazy and it is for that reason alone that I did no seek to join the DC forum, a forum I had hoped to see happen and join for years and years. I read there now and again and it's painful because there have been a number of things I have wanted to say. You will have no reason to blame yourself there.

 

[Doppel]

Vast majority of gun crime in Chicago is committed with illegally purchased guns. This is a simple tax grab, another random desperate anti-gun piece of legislation that will do nothing to stop any crime whatsoever.

That and money from the county’s public health system will establish a $2 million fund to make grants to nonprofit organizations with proven experience in violence prevention or community outreach

Translation: people legally in possession of guns, by virtue of nothing but the fact they own a gun, will be expected to disproportionately pay for efforts to reduce violence that happens to occur with guns--in almost all cases illegally purchased guns.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, $2M fund for "nonprofit" organizations. Hahaha...so now we know what this is really about. Crook Co. funneling money to people. God I love this county!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, $2M fund for "nonprofit" organizations. Hahaha...so now we know what this is really about. Crook Co. funneling money to people. God I love this county!!!

Actually you are only in love with your capacity to turn anything you read into a conformational opinion of any bias you already believed. Now I am pretty sure CK would say that funneling money to the public, money grabbing, and pretending to care about gun violence to fleece the people or any attempt to raise money to deal with the societal costs of gun violence on the community is all one and the same thing but the data you base your contempt of this country is this:

"a $2 million fund to make grants to nonprofit organizations with proven experience in violence prevention or community outreach; it would be overseen by a seven-member advisory committee. At least $100,000 would be dedicated to education and enforcement efforts aimed at stemming “straw purchases” — firearms that are purchased legally but later used in criminal activity.
The committee will include Preckwinkle or her designee, three members of the Board of Commissioners, a person with law enforcement experience and two representatives from community organizations. It will also look at options for establishing a “gun court” in the county. The group will look at prototypes in other jurisdictions, according to Kristen Mack, Preckwinkle’s spokeswoman."

 

[chucky2]

When you live in this county (county, not country), you learn to read things for how they will be in Reality, not how they are presented as fact in the papers. There have been so many scandals, so much corruption from things just like this, that one cannot in any type of good conscience read that bilge and not understand it for what it really is. Why you keep insisting to just read it and regurgitate it is beyond me. I'd think you know better, which means you either don't, or, are trolling. Which one is it?

Chuck

 

[xBiffx]

When you live in this state, you learn to read things for how they will be in Reality, not how they are presented as fact in the papers. There have been so many scandals, so much corruption from things just like this, that one cannot in any type of good conscience read that bilge and not understand it for what it really is. Why you keep insisting to just read it and regurgitate it is beyond me. I'd think you know better, which means you either don't, or, are trolling. Which one is it?

Chuck

Fixed. But it wasn't exactly broken either.

 

[chucky2]

Haha, I'm good with that.

 

[Moonbeam]

When you live in this county (county, not country), you learn to read things for how they will be in Reality, not how they are presented as fact in the papers. There have been so many scandals, so much corruption from things just like this, that one cannot in any type of good conscience read that bilge and not understand it for what it really is. Why you keep insisting to just read it and regurgitate it is beyond me. I'd think you know better, which means you either don't, or, are trolling. Which one is it?

Chuck

County not country, sorry. What you call reading and regurgitating I call quoting. I wanted to show on one side what was said and on the other what you saw in reading it. They are very different things. When you say that when you live in this county you learn to see the reality behind what is printed because of endless scandals and corruption, that 'you' really refers to you in the first person. Clearly others who live in your county do not feel the same way, a majority, likely, since these criminals were elected. The point here is that what you are and what you see is a product of many things, things that are unique and personal. We are all like that. But have you ever considered that what you believe is true is only true for you and because you believe it, that had you grown up in a different environment in identical conditions to those criminals you despise you might think just like them?

When you speak of the endless scandals and corruption and the feeling about that, a good conscience brings, you speak, I think, about existential pain, the anger and sadness that the evil of the world brings. I also know this pain. That pain long ago drove me to find a way to prove to the world there is such a thing as the good, my good as I thought it should be. In the process of that attempt I was forced to conclude that everything I believed to be good was only my opinion and that life was actually totally without meaning, that good and evil do not exist. I learned, in short, that I know nothing, that what I believed was my way of not feeling that pain. Oddly enough, however, when you can't avoid it and feel it, it goes away.