Proposed repeal of Pittman Robertson Act - Thoughts?

[KIBarrister]

Mostly the freedom caucus as near as I can tell (the furthest to the right, and the most "the only good government is no government" part of the GOP).

Since when does the GOP have actual libertarians in its midst? Color me skeptical.

 

[teratos]

Since when does the GOP have actual libertarians in its midst? Color me skeptical.

Brown, the color is brown.

 

[[Kev308]]

Repealing the Pittman Act is a step towards banning hunting.

 

[gtodave]

So if a tax on your speech paid for something legit, you would be cool with that?

We have fought so long to get these rights recognized and now we are going to continue to fight to get them recognized as first class rights. Allowing a tax on the implements necessary to exercise a right makes it a second class right. It might seem "lame" to you, but I take my rights seriously.

I take my rights very seriously too. As I mentioned, I'm anti tax all the way around. But this would be the last tax I'd remove. (Please note that that means that I'd still remove it)

 

[teratos]

I take my rights very seriously too. As I mentioned, I'm anti tax all the way around. But this would be the last tax I'd remove. (Please note that that means that I'd still remove it)

I think symbolically, it is very important for us to make sure the 2A is on equal footing with the 1A. We fought long and hard to get this red-headed step amendment to where it is today. I understand you like the purpose of the tax. I think this is a matter of principle. The right deserves the respect a right is due. Allowing a tax on this right and not on another cheapens it, and I don't like that one bit.

 

[ericoak]

I still haven’t seen a good explanation for why PR should apply to guns and ammunition that you practically can’t hunt with. The vast majority of ammo sold is 9mm and .223/5.56 FMJ, of which 99.99% will not be used for hunting. Damn Fudds.

 

[traveller]

Repealing the Pittman Act is a step towards banning hunting.

That's the biggest risk with this .You may find the radical left signing on to a freedom caucus bi and find it wrapped into a reconciliation bill as part of some horse trade.

 

[Melnic]

I'm teeter toddering on this one.
One side says that firearms should NOT be equated to hunting.
2A is not about hunting and any correlation between 2A and Hunting is wrong IMO

I'm all about a portion of tax $ going to conservation though.


Hunting licenses make sense. I pay for a bunch of hunting and fishing licenses already.

Is this tax paid by the FFL selling it cause I don't recall seeing this tax when i buy a rifle.

 

[traveller]

The federal excise tax on telephone service did not infringe on anyone's free speech rights. Those taxes are just a way for the .gov to raise funds.

 

[DaveP]

A LOT of PR funds have been spent on everything BUT what they were intended for.

Saw a review that said only a few states, Maine included, were using as intended.

And the Feds led the misuse.
Retired Fed biologist blew the whistle after being forced out.
James M. Beers, look him up.
From 2010.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has misappropriated at least $45 million in excise tax funds set aside for game conservation, turning the special accounts into cash cows for pet projects of the Clinton-Gore Administration.

According to a GAO report and at House Resources Committee hearings, this latest funding scandal is a Clintonesque twist on another type of "wildlife," with conservation tax dollars paying for trips to Brazil, Holland, and Japan, and reimbursement for lavish meals, liquor, and limousine rentals.

In at least one instance, pressure was applied to an employee of the FWS to fund a grant proposal submitted by a zealous animal-rights group, The Fund for Animals, which is dedicated to the elimination of the very hunting heritage that those monies are collected to support.

The top land-acquisition priority for the FWS for fiscal 1999, according to Service spokeswoman Barbara Maxfield, was the purchase of an island to be set aside as a national wildlife refuge. The Clinton-Gore Administration proposed using $30 million in Duck Stamp fees and hunting excise tax revenues to buy Palmyra Atoll, located 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, populated by 10 ducks.

That's right, 10 ducks. The administration wanted to devote an enormous sum of hunters' dollars to buy an island virtually no one could reach, where hunting is banned, to help 10 ducks."

 

[lazarus]

A LOT of PR funds have been spent on everything BUT what they were intended for.

Saw a review that said only a few states, Maine included, were using as intended.

And the Feds led the misuse.
Retired Fed biologist blew the whistle after being forced out.
James M. Beers, look him up.
From 2010.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has misappropriated at least $45 million in excise tax funds set aside for game conservation, turning the special accounts into cash cows for pet projects of the Clinton-Gore Administration.

According to a GAO report and at House Resources Committee hearings, this latest funding scandal is a Clintonesque twist on another type of "wildlife," with conservation tax dollars paying for trips to Brazil, Holland, and Japan, and reimbursement for lavish meals, liquor, and limousine rentals.

In at least one instance, pressure was applied to an employee of the FWS to fund a grant proposal submitted by a zealous animal-rights group, The Fund for Animals, which is dedicated to the elimination of the very hunting heritage that those monies are collected to support.

The top land-acquisition priority for the FWS for fiscal 1999, according to Service spokeswoman Barbara Maxfield, was the purchase of an island to be set aside as a national wildlife refuge. The Clinton-Gore Administration proposed using $30 million in Duck Stamp fees and hunting excise tax revenues to buy Palmyra Atoll, located 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, populated by 10 ducks.

That's right, 10 ducks. The administration wanted to devote an enormous sum of hunters' dollars to buy an island virtually no one could reach, where hunting is banned, to help 10 ducks."

That’s not why the island was bought, by whom, nor how. But okay.

Palmyra Atoll - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[KIBarrister]

I think symbolically, it is very important for us to make sure the 2A is on equal footing with the 1A. We fought long and hard to get this red-headed step amendment to where it is today. I understand you like the purpose of the tax. I think this is a matter of principle. The right deserves the respect a right is due. Allowing a tax on this right and not on another cheapens it, and I don't like that one bit.

Preach, brother, preach!

I'm teeter toddering on this one.
One side says that firearms should NOT be equated to hunting.
2A is not about hunting and any correlation between 2A and Hunting is wrong IMO

I'm all about a portion of tax $ going to conservation though.


Hunting licenses make sense. I pay for a bunch of hunting and fishing licenses already.

Is this tax paid by the FFL selling it cause I don't recall seeing this tax when i buy a rifle.

Hunting licenses make no sense. You need to pay for a license to hunt wild game on your own property? All taxation is theft.

The federal excise tax on telephone service did not infringe on anyone's free speech rights. Those taxes are just a way for the .gov to raise funds.

You can still talk to someone without using a phone. But yeah, I’m all for repealing those taxes too. Repeal them all. Every last one.

 

[fabsroman]

I'm late to the party, but let me just toss in: All Taxation is Theft. I don't care how "good" of a cause it goes to. Governments using taxation to assist any purpose is universally the least efficient way to accomplish anything.

So, let's just start with this one:

How would you fund our national defense without tax revenue?

How would you fund our national road system without tax revenue?

There are some things that cannot be provided for short of government and tax revenue.

Pretty sure I could come up with some other items that would never get accomplished because people are greedy and would always want somebody else to pay for the project.

Who would secure the borders?

 

[Inigoes]

So, let's just start with this one:

How would you fund our national defense without tax revenue?

How would you fund our national road system without tax revenue?

There are some things that cannot be provided for short of government and tax revenue.

Pretty sure I could come up with some other items that would never get accomplished because people are greedy and would always want somebody else to pay for the project.

Who would secure the borders?

Don't forget about speedy trial and paying court fees.

 

[410bullets]

My question is, how did they pay for them before?

Or, if they did repeal income taxes, could put a national sales tax on all goods and services.

 

[RRomig]

Preach, brother, preach!

Hunting licenses make no sense. You need to pay for a license to hunt wild game on your own property? All taxation is theft.

In MD you do not need a hunting license to hunt on your own property.

 

[Boondock Saint]

So, let's just start with this one:

How would you fund our national defense without tax revenue?

How would you fund our national road system without tax revenue?

There are some things that cannot be provided for short of government and tax revenue.

Pretty sure I could come up with some other items that would never get accomplished because people are greedy and would always want somebody else to pay for the project.

Who would secure the borders?

None of those questions are relevant to the fact that taking something from someone without their consent is theft.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

Prior to the income tax the government was funded through tariffs from foreign trade. Considering the trade imbalance that’s a non-starter today.

 

[fabsroman]

None of those questions are relevant to the fact that taking something from someone without their consent is theft.

Whenever they pass a law, they take some of your freedom. I guess that would be considered theft too.

However, we digress. My response was to KIBarrister. He stated that the government is the least efficient way to accomplish anything. If there are no taxes, how would we fund our national defense? Assuming arguendo that we can obtain enough charitable contributions for national defense, should we abolish the "inefficient" Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Customs, etc. and hire independent contractors to take care of those areas? Would independent contractors be more efficient than the government at providing for our national defense?

 

[fscwi]

Repealing the Pittman Act is a step towards banning hunting.

The signs at McKee Beshers public hunting area use to have a statement something like "made possible by funds from the Pittman Robertson Act." New signs were put up a year or so back and no longer have any reference to the PRA.