Seattle Councilman Proposes Ridiculous Firearm and Ammo TaxBy Joshua Krause Recently, Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess proposed a piece of legislation that would tax gun and ammunition sales, and force gun owners to report any firearm that is lost or stolen. As egregious as this measure sounds, ordinarily it wouldnt be out of place. After all, governments routinely tax all manner of products and services, and force their onerous regulations on just about everyone. What sets this measure apart from most bills though, is the reason why theyre doing it. Gun violence is very expensive, Burgess said, noting that the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Seattles Harborview Medical Center last year surpassed $17 million, with taxpayers covering more than $12 million of that. Its time for the gun industry to help defray those costs and this is a very reasonable way to do it. The tax, imposed on gun sellers, would be $25 on each firearm sold in the city and five cents on each round of ammunition. Sales of antique firearms and some other sales could see relief from the tax while individuals selling no more than one gun per quarter would be exempted. Not reporting a lost or stolen gun to police would be enforced as a civil infraction carrying a fine of up to $500. Zach Silk, campaign manager with the Washington Alliance for Gun Safety, hailed the proposals. We often attach taxes to things that cause harm to our communities and we know that guns are causing harm, he said. So let me get this straight. Burgess wants to tax violence, am I right? Does that make any sense? Even it werent an utterly nonsensical thing to do, does it make sense to tax honest gun owners for the activities of criminals? (I know he says that this is a tax on gun dealers, but obviously the costs will be passed on to their customers). Think about it. There were over 16 million gun applications in 2012. That means at least several million Americans buy a firearm every year. However, there were only 16,121 homicide deaths in 2013, of which 11,208 involved a firearm. Seattle is apparently responsible for a couple hundred of those, but its safe to say that just like everywhere else in this country, the vast majority of firearms that are bought and sold are never used to inflict any kind of physical harm. So, basically, theyre forcing honest, law-abiding gun owners to pay the damages inflicted by criminals, and theyre going to fine people whove had their property stolen. Typical progressives. Make everyone collectively pay for the mistakes and malice of the few. Whatever happened to just punishing criminals? Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshuas reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshuas website is Strange Danger. What the hell happened to Seattle? It use to be a nice place to visit. I wont be visiting this place any longer Taxing the honest people for crimes committed by others? The person that suggested this needs to have a Psych Eval Randall, under that presumption, that would mean there should be no tax money given to police correct? Only fines enacted upon criminals, including corporate criminals (like any government in the US would allow a company to be truly fined), would be allowed? I am just trying to figure out how things would be funded in your world or if the entirety of the government would just be abolished. Gun violence is very expensive, Burgess said, noting that the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Seattles Harborview Medical Center last year surpassed $17 million, with taxpayers covering more than $12 million of that...So this tells me Criminals are getting health care for free?am I reading this correctly? People in Seattle should be mad The gun businesses in Seattle should just move to Texas And all the Gun Stores in Seattle should move outside Seattle, if they want to stay in WashingtonAnd let Seattle go the way of Detroit or Chicago either one Let the criminals run amuck with no resistance from their victims Taxing gun sales are already being done adding more taxes is not the answer to a Criminal Justice problem. Criminals are shooting each other and innocent by standers because they are criminals Unarmed people run from criminals when they cant defend themselves But, if the population at large were armed and go through some type of minimal training, criminals would go elsewhere Criminals only thrive in gun free zones, like Detroit and Chicago and New York and Los Angeles etc. Taxing the gun store owner only passes the TAX to the consumer and prices the gun out of reach for most law abiding citizens This Tax will only create more victims Anyone in jail or prison has always gotten free healthcare. It is required that the government provide the healthcare in those instances in the same way that they are required to maintain minimum standards of security/food/water and the like within those buildings. By always in this instance I do not mean forever, just since it became explicitly unlawful for the governments to not at least attempt to keep prisoners healthy. This tax will probably do nothing, just like most taxes. It is unlikely to cause any new victims or deter or cause anyone to change any behavior. It is not a substantial enough increase, nor is it designed in such a way, to make most people change their behavior. Washington and Seattle do have some taxes designed to change behavior. Take their taxes on cigarettes for example. Back when I was last visiting the area, several years ago when I still smoked, in Washington Camels were $8-10 per pack while over in Oregon they were $4-6. Makes sense to me, tax guns and ammo. What is the uproar about? Tax free speech, including yours. Whats the uproar about? Youve got no problem with re-instituting the poll tax, right? RIGHTS ARE NOT TAXABLE, you dimwit! Sales of anything is taxable. If you were to manufacture your own guns and ammo, from material you manufactured yourself, then it would not really be taxable. And free speech is taxable. You pay taxes on the internet connection that allows you to speak on this website do you not? You are truly a dim bulb. I have to pay for electricity to light my apartment. That is a FEE, not a tax. Free speech is NOT taxable: if I tell you how stupid I think you are on the street, there is no tax on that free speech. If I write a letter to the editor about what a dimwit you are, it is not taxed. If I post flyers about you being semi-retarded, I pay no tax! HALLELUJAH! I pay a tax on my internet service or phone, but that doesnt stop me from telling people I encounter that youre a putz. The electricity is not a fee, it is a commodity and you pay for the amount you use. On top of that, unless you are in a very unique locale, there probably is a fee for the connection and/or maintenance of the service and then there is also a tax on the electricity. There may be multiple layers of taxes in fact depending upon where you live. And if you pay money for someone else to make those flyers you pay tax on that transaction. This is the thing that you are not understanding. You are paying a tax on a finished good. The reason for the tax may not be ethically sound in this instance, but it is a tax. Heck there is even a way to avoid it that many people will be taking advantage of. It is called loading your own bullets or shells or buying outside of city limits. Why you seem to feel that a question is an attack on your person might make a person question your mental stability and your personal attacks demean your positions to such an extent that any opinions you express end up getting ignored. Guns have no rights; they are commodities and as such can be taxed. Time to stop with the hysterical outbursts and name-calling, William. Taxes on commodities, whether hammers or ammo, are not poll taxes. Voting is not a commodity, nor is free speech. Individuals have rights, not commodities. Seattle sure is turning into a real progressive utopia isnt it? Yes, it is: in 2014, it was one of the fastest growing cities in economic activity, with an unemployment rate of 4% (US was 6.3 in 2014), job growth more than twice the national rate and estimated to be 41% in the next ten years, and an income per capita 50% higher than the national rate. It has a robust high tech industry and a robust art community. In the first year of the new minimum wage, unemployment fell by 17%. The minimum wage is $15 an hour with the latest unemployment rate dropping to 3.4 in May 2015, showing that higher wages does not lead to higher unemployment. As for Seattles crime rate, In 2010, it ranked 78th among 94 cities with at least 200,000 people, according to the most recent full-year report from the FBI, with 9 times fewer homicides than top ranked New Orleans. Washington State laws are not restrictive regarding firearms. Regarding a tax on guns and ammo (a whopping 5 cents each!), the author calls this a progressive form of tyranny: Make everyone collectively pay for the mistakes and malice of the few. Yeah, just like car insurance and home insurance, where risk is pooled. Insurance is a progressive form of tyranny! And another progressive tyranny are taxes on cars, gas, clothing, etc. Seattle is both one of the most economically successful cities in the nation (recently it was 2nd fastest growing), as well as a city that has not destroyed its beauty, and one of the safest. If 5 cents per ammo (MY God! That would be $2 dollars if I had 40 rounds!) is progressive tyranny, so is a $15 minimum wage. Long live such tyrannies! Long live one of the most successful cities in the world! In the first year of the new minimum wage, unemployment fell by 17%. Nice try, you lying bastard. The $15 minimum wage took effect April 1, 2015. Thats THREE MONTHS, not a year. Between January and December of 2014, while Seatacs business owners (and their customers) were absorbing the cost of paying minimum wage employees $15, unemployment decreased 17.46%, falling from 6.3% to 5.2%. It turns out that you CAN increase the minimum wage (even in large increments) and increase overall employment at the same time. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/ I confused Seatac (next to Seattle) with Seattle: since Seattle raised minimum wages to $15, its economy has continued to grow and everything I documented about its success is still true. I was not lying, I made a mistake, but the claims made about Seattle remain true. You need to calm down. Its time to stop calling people bastards. We are here to learn, not to exercise hate speech. Kings County, which includes Seatac, Seattle, and Tacoma (2 of which now have $15 an hour minimum wages) continues to see unemployment decline. The Seattle Times reported May 26 of this year: King Countys jobless rate dips to 3.3 percent; lowest in 7 years. This is 40% lower than the US national average and lower than before the new minimum wage laws were passed. The experience of other nations is that raising the minimum wage is a job creator (as well as adding tax revenue to the govt and reducing welfare costs, thus lowering debt): research (was) published in March 2014 by the Low Pay Commission in the United Kingdom, where a national minimum wage was introduced in 1999. The report says: Since 1999 the Low Pay Commission has commissioned over 130 research projects that have covered various aspects of the impact of the national minimum wage on the economy. In that period the low paid have received higher than average wage increases but the research has, in general, found little adverse effect on aggregate employment. The European Commission undertook a review of studies on the employment effects of European Union member state minimum wages in 2014. The review said: In terms of empirical studies of the effects of minimum wages in practice, the impact of a minimum wage in overall labour costs is on the lower paid end of the labour market and research tends to support the view that the impact is rather small (statistically insignificant). abc.net So while raising the minimum wages does not create unemployment, it most certainly increases tax revenue and lowers government welfare overhead. Overall, 52 percent of families of fast-food workers are enrolled in one or more public assistance programs, compared with 25 percent of the workforce as a whole. Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program accounted for nearly $4 billion of the $7 billion figure. The Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program accounted for the rest. . bloomberg.com forbes.com reports: Walmarts low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15. We are paying for that welfare. In the US 110 million people receive government subsidies, and PBS reports that if the minimum wage was raised by $1.75, it would bring in an extra 82 million a year in taxes, as well as cutting welfare costs. epi.org reports: About half of all workers in the bottom 20 percent of wage earners (roughly anyone earning less than $10.10) receive public assistanceWorkers in the bottom 20 percent of wage earners receive over $45 billion in government assistance each year..If the minimum wage were raised to $10.10, more than 1.7 million American workers would no longer rely on public assistance programs. the current minimum wage of $7.25 is worth roughly 25 percent less than the minimum wage in 1968, when it equaled $9.58 in todays dollars. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would provide nearly $32 billion in additional wages to more than 27 million workers.11 The resulting increase in family incomes would unquestionably improve living standards for millions of working families. At the same time, many families that were forced to rely on safety net programs may no longer qualify for assistance.. In addition, those making higher wages (1 in 4 workers makes $10 or less an hour; in addition the share of low income earners is increasing) would spend more and thus stimulate economic activity. They would use less welfare, they would pay more taxes. The price of a hamburger might go up 50 cents, or Walmarts might make less than the 120 billion in gross profits it made in 2014. But millions of workers would have a higher standard of living, govt tax revenue would rise and costs fall, and more money would be spent by the workers with wage hikes, boosting local economies. This would result in less taxes and lower government debt. It would also create a more stable workforce for industries with low wages and it would take wealthy corporations which depend on govt welfare to keep wages low off of corporate welfare schemes. The best predictor of academic success is family income, so higher wages would result in higher academic performance, which would benefit the nation as a whole with a more educated workforce, which would make more, pay more taxes, and rely much less on welfare. The fact is that the nations with the most stable and productive economies have the highest minimum wages because, overall, it is good for the people and good for the economy. Dont like paying the $17 million? LOCK GANG BANGERS UP AND KEEP EM LOCKED UP. $17 million Read more at: http://tr.im/vU3VL In San Diego, if you want to buy shotgun shells, you have to get to Big 5 or Walmart on Wednesday before they open the doors. Ammo is being bought up by the government.Thats there way around the Constitution. Guns are going to be worthless unless you make your own ammo. And its just a matter of time before they start buying gunpowder. You will have to buy all the elements and make it yourself. Im telling you, the government knows things we dont and they want guns out of our hands. We are far better off with an armed public than we are with a gunless public. As far as all the crazy kids killing people, starting with Columbine, blame the parents. Just look at the pictures of all the kids that do it. They are all on SSRIs, so the parents know that there is something wrong with their kid. Why dont they make sure the kids dont get access to their guns? The 21 year old kid in SC that killed all those good people IN A BIBLE STUDY. Parents had to know he was weired! Yet, grandpa buys him a gun. And Obama uses everyone of those occasions to talk about gun control. What did he say to the thugs in Baltimore about rioting. They were all black and Obama is 1/2 black. Why doesnt he address them? He spouts off about gun control. Well, 95% of those black kids rioting, were not carrying around guns. They were just looting. Obama could have had a legacy, he will have none. But what should have been his legacy, is leading black kids. The people need a leader and havent had one since Martin Luther King was killed. He should just encourage them to read Letters from Birmingham Jail. I read those in college and changed my whole opinion of both Martin Luther and black kids. That man was there hope and was brilliant. Why would Obama not want to be the next Martin Luther King. Maybe when he gets out of the White House, he can be that guy? No, not going to happen. I question if he has ever read Martin Luther Kings writings. Has he ever even quoted him? Id like to know the answer to that? 