Instead of "tax stamps" - flat tax on firearms

[T.Lex]

Ok, I wasn't sure where to post this - General Firearms, NFA - but decided on here. But, if a mod disagrees, I'm open to having it moved.

Anyway, as noted in another thread, I just finished re-reading Unintended Consequences by John Ross, which is an absolute must-read for any gun owner. In that book, though, much ink is spilled on the irrational differentiation between NFA and non-NFA weapons. Particularly, in the lethality of them. Guns 'r guns.

So, it got me thinking. Instead of the irrational system of tax stamps, what alternative might there be? The gov't isn't too keen on giving up any sources of revenue, so if we did away with NFA tax stamps, it would have to be replaced with something. And, if that something could actually generate MORE revenue for .gov, it might be doable.

Which brought me to the idea of eliminating NFA tax stamps, but replacing it with a 5 or 10% federal sales tax on all firearms bought through a dealer. The "firearm" definition might be retained, in that for some guns it would be the lower/upper/bolt carrier/etc. so accessories would be exempt. Private sales would be exempt from the sales tax. The difference in price would be nominal for most people. And, any "chilling effect" would be minor, too.

It would open up NFA markets to more purchasers, though. And, I gotta believe that it would generate more revenue.

Any thoughts?

 

[Twentyfootdaredevil]

Are you suggesting a %10 tax on top of the current tax already in place for ALL firearms? That would be around $120-150 a month for me.

I have no intention of buying a NFA firearm anytime soon so why would I or several other people that don't own class III want to pay that?

 

[IndySSD]

Are you suggesting a %10 tax on top of the current tax already in place for ALL firearms? That would be around $120-150 a month for me.

I have no intention of buying a NFA firearm anytime soon so why would I or several other people that don't own class III want to pay that?

So you spend 1200-1500$ a month on new firearms? If you have 20-30,000 dollars a year to buy new guns you're going to own one of everything before 2020 but you don't want anything class3?

A little voice inside me is saying you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...

 

[williamsburg]

.....why would I or several other people that don't own class III want to pay that?

exactly

 

[45fan]

Or maybe, just maybe, the tax stamp should be proven unconstitutional, and do away with it, or any other federal "tax" that increases the cost to purchase or own a firearm. I am not happy with the current level of taxation, why in the world would I be even remotely interested in increasing federal revenue for something that should not be taxed in the first place?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We already have this. The Pittman-Robertson tax.

Instead of the irrational system of tax stamps, what alternative might there be?

Ummm, the Federal Collectors' License that some crazy guy has been writing about as an alternative and complete replacement of the NFA for 20 years now.

Remember me? Hello? Hey, someone listen.

 

[eldirector]

Socialized firearm purchases? Sure, why not.....

 

[T.Lex]

We already have this. The Pittman-Robertson tax.

Interesting! I was not familiar with that.

So, let's say we boost that to ~13% (only a 2% increase), but funnel that increased revenue into unrestricted gov't funds... and it becomes at least cash-neutral from a fiscal perspective.

And frankly, the bit about "But I don't want NFA stuff" reminds me of the, "But I don't shoot assault weapons" problem.

In a strike-while-the-iron-is-hot mentality, with the .gov fiscal issues, there may be an opportunity to open up some of the restrictions if it is couched in terms of revenue.

My fear is that it would really hit some NFA dealers in the pocketbook. Ideally, that would be avoided by increasing the demand side of the equation.

 

[jeremy]

I would be more likely to back Legislation to repeal the NFA than to add another Tax to anything...

We already pay entirely to much to the Government for not enough of a return on the cost...

 

[T.Lex]

One step at a time. Incrementalism is the name of the game.

But, with rare exceptions, politics is a barter system. To get something, you have to give up something. I would class last year's SB 292 (the local pre-emption) as an exception, although to get a final product, there were even some concessions. But, the net effect was a "win" for gun rights.

To get a repeal, or near-repeal, of NFA, something would have to be traded. The thought crossed my mind of a fake-concession, like some sort of federal recognition of state carry permits, but that's too much of a longshot IMHO. I'm generally against any sort of new federal carry permit. And, I'd rather not see the "closing" of any private sale "loopholes" either.

I'm open to other ideas, though.

Edit:
Upon reflection "repeal the NFA" really is the f'n brilliant part! A thousand apologies for not seeing all the way through this. Leaving the 1968 Act in place, but repealing the 1934 act could undo a great many problems, and leave some huge gray areas. And, that's really what we're talking about when we talk tax stamps - repealing the 1934 act! I think it would remove the various length requirements, including SBS stuff (of course, Indiana's law would still apply).

If selling that idea involved an increase of a few percent of federal firearms tax, I think it might be worth it!

 

[CarmelHP]

If revenue was a desire, they could simply declare an amnesty and re-open the registry.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, but I'd like to get away from registration at all!

 

[yotewacker]

I can't see what all of the fuss is about. I pay $200 for a stamp to own a machine gun. Then if you decide you no longer want it. Find a stamp collector, They get deer in headlights when they see one. You can't buy them everywhere and you can get your $200 back to go buy another one. so it's a can't loose transaction.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Interesting! I was not familiar with that.

It is a hidden tax. Why do you think the VAT tax is so popular?

Heck, how many gun owners have no idea that when you buy a revolver or .308 rounds that you are subsidizing duck hunters?

So, let's say we boost that to ~13% (only a 2% increase), but funnel that increased revenue into unrestricted gov't funds... and it becomes at least cash-neutral from a fiscal perspective.

OK, but then we move to the Collectors' Licensing regime which with federal preemption opens up the huge markets of California and New York.

 

[T.Lex]

OK, but then we move to the Collectors' Licensing regime which with federal preemption opens up the huge markets of California and New York.

But, I guess I'm thinking that if you have to game the system, why not change the system?

And, since I don't live in California or New York I'm somewhat down with the idea of post-Heller state's rights in this regard. With a minimum "floor" of guaranteed personal rights to firearms, let the states regulate above that floor.

If the majority of fools in foolish states want foolish laws, let 'em have 'em.

 

[gglass]

Didn't I just see you at the OWS rally?

 

[Westside]

 

[DownByTheTracks]

...Which brought me to the idea of eliminating NFA tax stamps, but replacing it with a 5 or 10% federal sales tax on all firearms bought through a dealer. The "firearm" definition might be retained, in that for some guns it would be the lower/upper/bolt carrier/etc. so accessories would be exempt. Private sales would be exempt from the sales tax. The difference in price would be nominal for most people. And, any "chilling effect" would be minor, too....
Any thoughts?

Why should dealers be penalized? The 7% sales tax already turns many customers to buying online, make that 12-17% and it's lights out.

 

[T.Lex]

Didn't I just see you at the OWS rally?

LMAO

That's funny - repped.

But, keep in mind, I'm willing to pay a bit more for ANY firearm, not just NFA stuff.

Why should dealers be penalized? The 7% sales tax already turns many customers to buying online, make that 12-17% and it's lights out.

Well, for dealers, it is a price of doing business. And, the firearms tax would apply to online sales, too. As KF noted, there is already a mechanism in place for the collection of 11%.

Plus, I think the market for NFA products would boom. Right now, there are artificial impediments for people to buy NFA items. Remove those impediments, and more people will purchase. (Think Prohibition.) So, what dealers "lost" would (by my guess) be made up for with more total sales.

Think of how cool it would be if every gun store/show booth had a rack of suppressors for sale? You don't think more people would buy them if they only had to pay an additional 10% of the purchase price instead of an additional $200?

 

[insanemonkey]

I don't like the idea of introducing a new tax on something that is already taxed. Taxes have a funny way of going up on things that certain people in power don't like.

I don't like the $200 tax, but I would much rather see efforts put towards removing NFA restrictions. Such as having to register the items. I could deal with the $200 flat tax, if I could walk into a gun store and buy an NFA item with the same check as any other firearm. No extra waiting period or paperwork.