From POTUS-wannabe Pocahantas comes this policy proposal:
Democrat presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren wants to use federal excise taxes to reduce gun and ammunition sales.
Her gun control, made public in August on Medium, shows Warren believes the current ten percent excise tax on firearms is too low. She wants to raise that tax to 30 percent while increasing the tax on ammunition to 50 percent.
Because excise taxes are paid directly by the consumer–the taxes are added to the price of the goods–this means a $500 gun would immediately cost $515 and the price for a $20 box of ammo would immediately rise to $30.
Warren claims this taxation policy would “bring in new federal revenue” that can used for “gun violence prevention.” And she simultaneously suggests the tax would raise the price on guns and ammo to a level sufficient to stifle sales.
So using her “economics” it would go something like this:
- Currently, 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39mm (eeevil AK ammo) @ $300* yields $33 (@11%) in excise tax revenue
So therefore Madame Marxist suggests that with her plan:
- 1,000 rounds of eeevil AK ammo @ $300 would yield $150 (@50%) in excise tax revenue… whoopieeeeee a net gain of $127
stolentaxed by the gummint.
Except of course that in the real world, AK ammo sales would fall to 100 rounds and yield only $15 in excise taxes (a 50% loss in revenue). “Yay yay yay, but ammo sales have fallen!” she would pronounce. But why would sales fall so precipitously, she asks? Because of the higher tax?
Because, you Commie coksucquer, during the months before you could enact this poxy tax increase, we AK owners would buy countless millions of rounds of ammo, so that we’d have enough stored for the lean years — just like we did before the term of that other socialist asshole Barack Obama — and resume buying once an actual American became president again.
Ditto all those eeevil AR-15s and AK-47s you hate so much: we’d buy so many before you could touch them, the gun factories would have to institute 365-day / 24-hour shifts just to cope with the demand.
I swear, I’m a huge fan of the First Amendment and I like to hear politicians spell out their proposed policies; but I would also propose that anyone using idiotic economics theory (like the above) to create policy should be forced to wear a dunce cap and be beaten with wet spaghetti — just because of their naked stupidity.
And this phony bitch wants to run things?
* (example) Wolf Performance (WPA) is $304 / 1,000 at Cheaper Than Dirt at time of writing.
The other problem is that such tax disproportionately hits those who practice and train thus expending a lot of ammo. The Left is trying to prevent training so they can say that untrained people can’t be trusted with guns.
But for a criminal, one box of ammo is a lifetime supply.
That’s someone else’s lifetime.
A lying criminal only has one tool in it’s toolbox, more lying and criminality. IOW, Warrens solution to urban negro’s with stolen guns shooting other urban negro’s with stolen guns is to steal even more money from law abiding citizens that have no intent to shoot anybody. That confession on her part disqualifies her from holding any gov’t employee position. Aren’t there enough criminals on the gov’t payroll already?
Fauxcahontas wouldn’t recognize the constitutional legal principle of prior
restraint if it reared its ugly head and bit her in her poxy whiny larynx.
And if ANY Marxist or one of the clown-car clots running for the Democrat Presidential nominee (but I repeat myself) is an economist, and that includes ol’ Karl himself, I’m a world class Neurosurgeon.
I’m sure you’re as good at neuro surgery as Lysenkov was at agronomy and biology 🙂
What story included the German doctor saying that the operation was successful but the patient died? With that kind of success, I could be the best. With minimal training.
WPA for $200 + sales tax per case at TargetSportsUSA…
Somebody was asleep in math class. 30 percent of $500 is $150, thus a $500 gun would cost $650, not $515. Sheesh. And the plural of negro is negroes, not negro’s. Sheesh again.
That’s what I thought, too. But then I checked the linked source and the figure is correctly listed as $650.
Something got messed up during the cut and paste.
Daaamn that PR tax. 11% that I never voted on or agreed to. The gun community fawns all over it cause … ducks. Screw the ducks. Now the commies throw it back in our faces. Go ask the freakin NSSF, who love the PR tax, why we shouldn’t have Warrens plan !
Name another Constitutional right that you have to get a permission slip or pay a tax to exercise.
And what Gun Professor said.
you honestly think ANY government will reduce that tax once it’s been put in place?
You’re more gullible than I thought, way more gullible.
exactly.
I really do prefer “Fauxcahontas”. It truly much better describes her, and her “life antics”. (Why implicitly defame old Po’?) The only really good news coming out of this putrid candidacy is the way it helps devalue Harvard, and all it the pc crap it stands for!
Did I read this correctly:
“…gun prevention violence…”
But I know nobody with the initials ‘E. W.’ in her right mind would dream of such an activity.
Careful about those wishes, ‘E. W.’… that ‘gun prevention’ sounds messy, and prone to unpredictable pendulum swinging.
I don’t currently own an AR15, or an AK47. I just don’t have the money or the desire at this point for one. However, if it starts to appear that a ban had a snowballs chance in hell of being enacted, I will have one on the way, probably an AR15 in both 5.56mm and .300 or .350, depending on price.