Post by: bullcanyon on January 10, 2024, 08:01:08 PM
Anyone have the skinny on this new attempt to tax us more?
Post by: KNOPHISH on January 10, 2024, 08:29:29 PM
Post by: 10mmg on January 10, 2024, 08:42:57 PM
Post by: wadu1 on January 10, 2024, 09:11:11 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,284040.0.html (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,284040.0.html)
Post by: hunter399 on January 11, 2024, 12:25:13 AM
I can't remember 21 million or something.
Thought it was said to come from some tax on "recreational" sporting goods.
Well there you go,you got the skinny.
Then our commission promotes these animal/conservation places.
"Return of the carnivore"
Which brings there groups more donations.
Fills CEO pockets full .
It's all a pyramid scam ,that's all legal till it's not.
All the recent changes have been "carnivore".
I'm about to ask them when there gonna return our mountain caribou to NE Washington.
Wheres that biodiversity?
Sorry for the rant,that post was late at night.
You'd have to fact check my post,I was on one when I posted.
Post by: Sneaky on January 11, 2024, 07:24:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2024, 07:41:45 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 11, 2024, 07:56:25 AM
Post by: birddogdad on January 11, 2024, 08:20:41 AM
Post by: GWP on January 11, 2024, 10:59:47 AM
Post by: timberfaller on January 11, 2024, 11:07:04 AM
Post by: Fidelk on January 11, 2024, 12:45:43 PM
Post by: Shrimper on January 11, 2024, 02:09:34 PM
Quote
RE: Comment RR: HB 2238 Ammunition tax (AGAINST)
Low, Rep. Sam
From: sam.low@leg.wa.gov
To:
Thu, Jan 11 at 12:29 PM
Brent
I agree with you! Thank you for taking the time to write,
Sam Low
WA State House of Representatives – 39th Legislative District
430 John L. O'Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504
Sam.Low@leg.wa.gov
(360) 786-7967
Post by: Bob33 on January 11, 2024, 02:18:11 PM
Pman........100% agree. The only addition I can think of is to point out that ammo, firearms and hunting/fishing licenses have additional embedded taxes that fund most if not all wildlife programs. As opposed to taxes NOT being contributed to such programs by the anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-meat eating "communities".That is correct. The Pittman-Robertson act includes an 11% excise tax paid on the wholesale cost of ammunition. If ammunition sales are diminished, PR funding for conservation will be diminished.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on January 11, 2024, 02:20:33 PM
The businesses who left Seattle also took their B&O and sales tax revenue away from Seattle. This "golden bullet" to fund anti violence programs ended up falling on its face. How many businesses will leave the state? just ignorant and shortsighted.
Post by: timberfaller on January 11, 2024, 02:42:12 PM
D reps will vote YES,
Who has the most votes in Olympia???
Start calling the D's.
Better yet, vote them out of office! Most problems will be solved then! :tup:
Post by: bigmacc on January 11, 2024, 04:21:18 PM
R reps will say NO to it,Well, in a nutshell, you’re spot on.
D reps will vote YES,
Who has the most votes in Olympia???
Start calling the D's.
Better yet, vote them out of office! Most problems will be solved then! :tup:
Post by: Sneaky on January 12, 2024, 08:40:13 PM
1. A tax on ammunition unfairly places burden and blame on lawful gun owners for gun violence and mental health issues. Statistically, the vast majority (75%) of gun violence that occurs in Washington is attributed to suicide (Alliance for Gun Responsibility). Suicide is a mental health issue that should be of utmost concern to ALL citizens of Washington. The burden of funding government programs aimed at reducing gun violence and suicide should not fall solely on one user group. The effort to reduce problems that exist in society as a whole should be funded by all participants of society.
2. In the text of the bill, there is a glaring lack of specificity as to how these funds would be used if taken. The text reads that the new tax would go "to programs that aim to prevent suicide and to reduce firearm-related domestic violence". What does that actually mean? Do these programs currently exist? If so, they have already shown to not be effective. Are these programs government programs? Non-profits? Are there measures in place to monitor that the funds are being used effectively? Are there statistical goals or milestones that the funds aim to meet? There are simply too many questions to ensure that the money taken from hard-working Washingtonians by way of a new tax would be used fairly, properly, and effectively.
3. Extra taxes that support mental health, the core problem in all gun related violence, are already being levied from ammunition sales nationwide. In case you were unaware, The Pittman-Robertson act of 1937 already imposes an 11% tax on ammunition. This excise tax generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually and has very specific parameters on how the money is used, unlike this proposed legislation. The funding from this tax has been used extensively to promote firearm safety and restore America's wildlife and natural spaces. PR money has been used to fund hunter-education programs which teach firearm safety, a critical missing component in our education system. Further, PR money provides for preservation and improved access to open spaces where people can enjoy the outdoors. Research has shown that time spent outside and physical excercise are some of the most important and effective ways to maintain your physical and mental health. Imposing yet another tax on ammunition would reduce PR dollars by reducing the amount of ammunition and other taxed products that lawful firearm owners can purchase.
4. In 2016, a similar tax was imposed in the city of Seattle with the aim of reducing gun violence. Again, the tax lacked specificity in how the funds would be spent. The text of the ordinance reads that he city would "use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City." Again, this ordinance was used to fund phantom "programs", which likely meant that there was no solid plan for how to use hard-working peoples money after they collected it. Furthermore, since 2016, gun violence in Seattle has increased dramatically, demonstrating that the tax was completely without effect and only served to hurt local business and lawful gun owners. According to the city of Seattle Crime Dashboard, in 2016 there were 250 reports of shots fired, 10 fatal shootings, and 57 non-fatal injury shootings. In 2023, there were 487 reports of shots fired, 42 fatal shootings, and 149 non-fatal injury shootings. I can't picture a better demonstration of failure. There were literally four times the amount of fatal shootings after imposing a gun violence reduction tax. I think this should tell us that taking someone elses money and giving it to "programs" is not the answer. Thank you for your time in reading this and I ask that you please vote no on this bill as it is fundamentally flawed.
Post by: TommyH on January 13, 2024, 08:24:14 AM
Hello and thank you for your audience in receiving this message. I strongly oppose the idea of imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of ammunition as it is unfair, lacks specificity in the use of the funding it would generate, and fails to consider taxes that are already levied on ammunition. Additionally, similar municipal taxes have completely failed to curb gun violence and mental health issues. While not inclusive of all negative aspects of this idea, my main thoughts are as follows:
1. A tax on ammunition unfairly places burden and blame on lawful gun owners for gun violence and mental health issues. Statistically, the vast majority (75%) of gun violence that occurs in Washington is attributed to suicide (Alliance for Gun Responsibility). Suicide is a mental health issue that should be of utmost concern to ALL citizens of Washington. The burden of funding government programs aimed at reducing gun violence and suicide should not fall solely on one user group. The effort to reduce problems that exist in society as a whole should be funded by all participants of society.
2. In the text of the bill, there is a glaring lack of specificity as to how these funds would be used if taken. The text reads that the new tax would go "to programs that aim to prevent suicide and to reduce firearm-related domestic violence". What does that actually mean? Do these programs currently exist? If so, they have already shown to not be effective. Are these programs government programs? Non-profits? Are there measures in place to monitor that the funds are being used effectively? Are there statistical goals or milestones that the funds aim to meet? There are simply too many questions to ensure that the money taken from hard-working Washingtonians by way of a new tax would be used fairly, properly, and effectively.
3. Extra taxes that support mental health, the core problem in all gun related violence, are already being levied from ammunition sales nationwide. In case you were unaware, The Pittman-Robertson act of 1937 already imposes an 11% tax on ammunition. This excise tax generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually and has very specific parameters on how the money is used, unlike this proposed legislation. The funding from this tax has been used extensively to promote firearm safety and restore America's wildlife and natural spaces. PR money has been used to fund hunter-education programs which teach firearm safety, a critical missing component in our education system. Further, PR money provides for preservation and improved access to open spaces where people can enjoy the outdoors. Research has shown that time spent outside and physical excercise are some of the most important and effective ways to maintain your physical and mental health. Imposing yet another tax on ammunition would reduce PR dollars by reducing the amount of ammunition and other taxed products that lawful firearm owners can purchase.
4. In 2016, a similar tax was imposed in the city of Seattle with the aim of reducing gun violence. Again, the tax lacked specificity in how the funds would be spent. The text of the ordinance reads that he city would "use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City." Again, this ordinance was used to fund phantom "programs", which likely meant that there was no solid plan for how to use hard-working peoples money after they collected it. Furthermore, since 2016, gun violence in Seattle has increased dramatically, demonstrating that the tax was completely without effect and only served to hurt local business and lawful gun owners. According to the city of Seattle Crime Dashboard, in 2016 there were 250 reports of shots fired, 10 fatal shootings, and 57 non-fatal injury shootings. In 2023, there were 487 reports of shots fired, 42 fatal shootings, and 149 non-fatal injury shootings. I can't picture a better demonstration of failure. There were literally four times the amount of fatal shootings after imposing a gun violence reduction tax. I think this should tell us that taking someone elses money and giving it to "programs" is not the answer. Thank you for your time in reading this and I ask that you please vote no on this bill as it is fundamentally flawed.
:yeah: :yeah: