New income gun will not differ from state income cigarettes only start collecting: Phillip Morris

What is the real reason the government can tax the weapons and bullets?

imagesStand-up comedian Chris Rock once put forward the idea that America can dramatically reduce violent crime, charging a blanket rate of $ 5,000 for a bullet.

“Because if a bullet cost $ 5000 will be no more innocent civilians,” a comic thought.

“People will think twice before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $ 5,000.”

This is Chris Rock funny guy. Some people consider him a genius. But the increase in chatter about plans to reduce the number of violent Americans by introducing strict new taxes on guns and ammunition creates disturbing impression that some of our legislators are taking their cues from the comic.

Some of the fantasy placed in violence at the center of political ideas that America can tax its way to less Trigger Happy nation, or if not, just the price of some potential killers from the market.

In Maryland, for example, legislation has been introduced to add a 50-percent tax on most of the ammunition and create a $ 25 annual registration fee of weapons.

The legislation of the State of Nevada is preparing that would impose taxes of $ 25 per gun and 2 cents per bullet. Not to be out done, Massachusetts has introduced measures that would place a 25 percent tax on the sale of a weapon and ammunition.

This is not a $ 5,000 bullet. But this is still a problem on several levels.

Money raised from the Massachusetts ammunition and gun tax hike supposedly be used to fund mental health programs, police training, and programs for victims of violent crime.

Who can resist such great material society?

But here’s why this effort – and others like it – is doomed to failure, as a politician, even if they become law. That’s the problem, according to David Lynskey, the person who is the author of the measure of Massachusetts:

“We know that smoking has a significant impact on public health. Similarly, the use of firearms has a significant impact on health and social security,” he told the Los Angeles Times.

This is a smoke screen in a nutshell. So, what does all this talk cessation of violence have to do with cigarettes?

This is a clever marketing attempt to marry the gun violence and smoking as something identical health risks. After all, cigarettes are directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans, the weapons each year.

That is why the anti-gun groups are desperately trying to alter the anti-smoking tax template as a way to place a new financial burden on those in the market of arms and bullets.

But it will not work, and I’m not talking about complicated Second Amendment, which speaks of the right to bear arms, while remaining silent on the regulation of tobacco products.

I say disingenuous practice of many state governments, including Ohio, until recently, still balancing their budgets on the backs of smokers, using the $ 246 billion, 25-year agreement with the major tobacco companies to pay their bills. This historic settlement was created to promote smoking cessation programs, which the state agreed to work until they decided – most of them anyway – that they wanted to use the money to pay their bills, instead.

The same pattern will be repeated with new taxes draconian gun.

Last year, for example, Massachusetts has collected $ 821 million of tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes to the state. However, he spent a little over $ 4 million for smoking cessation programs. This is a pittance.

Why so few?

Ohio is much worse in the number of tobacco according to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2012, he collected $ 1.1 billion in tobacco revenue generated from state taxes on tobacco products and what, if anything is left of his part in the 1998 tobacco settlement, but allocated none of the money to fight smoking programs.

$ 10.1 billion, the state received from the Big Tobacco settlement a long time to play in the many, not the health-related costs, less than 10 years after the state agreed to spend on anti-smoking efforts.

So why is the gun tax should be otherwise?

As many as 18,500 residents of Ohio will die this year as a result of their own smoking, and annual health care costs associated with smoking in the state, is expected to top $ 4.3 billion.

However, the state will not use any of their tobacco revenues to counter the deadly reality.

The picture is clear.

Our cash hungry federal and state governments are willing to use the last fatal tragedy, to soak up the law-abiding Americans buying guns and bullets in the name of reducing violence.

Yes, something needs to be done to help curb the carnage.

But as experience with tobacco money showed the government officials were merely smoke on public health problem, their efforts to tax guns and ammunition are not so much to reduce violence, since they are at filling state coffers with cash.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • MySpace
  • MyShare
  • Simpy
  • Reddit
  • YahooBuzz
  • Mixx
  • Folkd
  • LinkedIn
  • MisterWong
  • Squidoo

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image