Italian mayor starts fund that'll give anyone 250 euros towards purchase of gun.

[ArcadiaGP]

Interesting. Gun subsidies. Shame we don't have those here

Italian mayor announces fund that will give anyone 250 euros towards a GUN | Daily Mail Online

 

[jamil]

Interesting. Gun subsidies. Shame we don't have those here

Italian mayor announces fund that will give anyone 250 euros towards a GUN | Daily Mail Online

At least his heart is in the right place on the human right to bear arms. But his head is in the wrong place if he thinks he should take money away from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I don't see it that way, Jamil. The subsidy is for protection. It's a brilliant idea. He no longer trusts the government to protect its people, so he is making that responsibility easier for the citizens.

 

[Expat]

Can I get subsidized for mine.... I could buy more then...

 

[MisterChester]

I don't see it that way, Jamil. The subsidy is for protection. It's a brilliant idea. He no longer trusts the government to protect its people, so he is making that responsibility easier for the citizens.

By taking money away from others? Everyone has a right to self-protection, but the responsibility doesn't belong to others.

 

[miguel]

Man, I just would enlist in the free **** army with the gibmedats if Uncle Same would start subsidizing guns!

 

[MCgrease08]

I don't see it that way, Jamil. The subsidy is for protection. It's a brilliant idea. He no longer trusts the government to protect its people, so he is making that responsibility easier for the citizens.

I would agree with this. Governments collect taxes for "the public good" all the time. This seems like a worthy use of taxpayer money.

I might have more of an issue with it if the city implemented a new tax to pay for this, but the article didn't say. If they are simply diverting tax money that's already been collected then what's the problem?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would agree with this. Governments collect taxes for "the public good" all the time. This seems like a worthy use of taxpayer money.

I might have more of an issue with it if the city implemented a new tax to pay for this, but the article didn't say. If they are simply diverting tax money that's already been collected then what's the problem?

If government has too much of the People's money, they should refund it to the people who paid it in, equally according to the amount paid in, not look for other ways to spend it.

It reminds me of a story I read (and just found the text of on Snopes)

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too ... It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jludo]

I would agree with this. Governments collect taxes for "the public good" all the time. This seems like a worthy use of taxpayer money.

I might have more of an issue with it if the city implemented a new tax to pay for this, but the article didn't say. If they are simply diverting tax money that's already been collected then what's the problem?

Exactly, I'm ok with governmetn redistribution of wealth if it's for something I want.

 

[Jludo]

Beretta must be hurting for business, figure this'll be a good boost...

 

[Que]

So, if you agree with the subsidy it's a good thing. If you don't agree with the subsidy, it's a bad thing. If the money is coming from the same place, aren't THEY just holding out their hand, expecting something for free? I'm sure he would get a lot of votes from many on INGO.

 

[SSGSAD]

If government has too much of the People's money, they should refund it to the people who paid it in, equally according to the amount paid in, not look for other ways to spend it.

It reminds me of a story I read (and just found the text of on Snopes)



Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for that ..... I have seen it B4, but not lately !!!!!

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Just print more money......

 

[jamil]

I don't see it that way, Jamil. The subsidy is for protection. It's a brilliant idea. He no longer trusts the government to protect its people, so he is making that responsibility easier for the citizens.

A lot of people don't see things my way. I just think the government has no business taking money away from the people who earned it to give to people who don't--for any reason.

It's not the government's role to make responsibility easier for citizens, especially by confiscating their money to do it.

 

[GIJEW]

Normally, I'd see this as an abuse of taxes and scoff at the notion that you can get something for nothing in a socialist state--regardless of income level. Seeing that he's doing in response to the government releasing criminals and causing a predictable crime wave, I think it's a good idea, both arming the public and getting the attention of the government.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

OK, They should do this; Suspend all taxes levied against the firearm industry and purchases therefrom. The price of guns drop by the targeted 30% and no money is taken from anybody or redistributed to anybody.

 

[Kutnupe14]

At least his heart is in the right place on the human right to bear arms. But his head is in the wrong place if he thinks he should take money away from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't.

This.... all of it

 

[Arthur Dent]

OK, They should do this; Suspend all taxes levied against the firearm industry and purchases therefrom. The price of guns drop by the targeted 30% and no money is taken from anybody or redistributed to anybody.

The actual effect would be that targeted 30% would simply become extra profit for the firearm industry.