Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Critics fire back at Seattle gun, ammo tax they claim is aimed at killing business

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Critics fire back at Seattle gun, ammo tax they claim is aimed at killing business

    This happened in the Marinas Islands recently, a US territory. $1000 gun tax per gun there. Positivists cannot eliminate 2A so they make it expensive to own and shoot a gun.
    Mike Coombs feels like he is in the crosshairs of Seattle lawmakers, who this year implemented a special tax on the guns and ammo his Fourth Avenue store has sold for more than 40 years

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/24...l?intcmp=hpbt2
    Last edited by Law abider; 05-24-2016 at 06:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Isn't this a reason for our RKBA ?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Bill45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160
    Positivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
    Wikipedia
    Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.

    WTF

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Well, if a high tax on guns and ammunition is legal, then an equally high tax on books, printer ink and pamphlets is equally legal. After all, if it's not infringing to tax something prohibitively, it's not infringing.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Well, if a high tax on guns and ammunition is legal, then an equally high tax on books, printer ink and pamphlets is equally legal. After all, if it's not infringing to tax something prohibitively, it's not infringing.
    Excellent point.

    Wasn't there a tax like that in colonial times?

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    At least one firearm dealer who did a rather thriving business has move his business OUT of Seattle. Net result of this tax law is that Seattle will fall far short of their estimated revenue from the tax, not to mention the loss of the local sales tax portion collected on these sales.

    Seattle seems to be an island of utter stupidity in our State. I for one refuse to do business there unless absolutely necessary and that means I can't get what I need or want somewhere else. Time for more people to do likewise.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Excellent point.

    Wasn't there a tax like that in colonial times?
    Yup. Things like that were one of the reasons we rebelled.

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Yup. Things like that were one of the reasons we rebelled.
    Our forefathers rebelled because they were being governed and taxed with no representation.

    Today, because of voter apathy, we in the same situation. A very few have far greater power than they should because nobody steps up and challenges them.


    If people woke up and stopped sending the same morons off to Congress, the State Legislature, or City/Councils, and instead replaced them with individuals that would truly represent their constituents, there'd be no issue. (or at least far less).
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Liberals and democrats represent their constituents interests.

    Conservatives and Repubicans should represent their constituents' principles.

    I was elected, made conservative decisions (no new taxes, no new spending) on principle and served one term for goring a favorite ox of everybody.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Liberals and democrats represent their constituents interests.

    Conservatives and Repubicans should represent their constituents' principles.

    I was elected, made conservative decisions (no new taxes, no new spending) on principle and served one term for goring a favorite ox of everybody.
    The problem is that the larger your campaign contribution, the more inclined the politician is to listen to you. If a corporation contributes more than any other individual, well, that corporation is the important constituent to represent.

    A bigger problem is that any way you can reform that would likely make things worse. If an individual has rights but two or more people standing together in agreement have reduced rights or no rights...

  11. #11
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    corporation personhood has been a contentious and tenacious concept since our colonial times as our forefathers dealt with UK corporations sanctioned by the royal family dealt with the colonies.

    of late, the turning point occurred approximately six years ago when the highest court in the land ruled corporations can contribute massive monetary funding to the political campaigns of their choice, thus, IMO buying the loyalty of the legislator, mayor, council member, judge, ad nauseam sitting in control of JQPublic.

    not sure the ruling will ever be overturned as those in power enjoy the massive funding to 'do their own thing' while campaigning.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    I think the Citizens United has produced the McConnell effect - where the multi-national corporations that are members of the US CofC finance republican primary candidates that are not Constitutional - witness Todd Young beating Stutzman in the primary. Definitely lots of $ rolling around against Joe-sixpack candidates - both on republican and democrat sides.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Blaming our political situation on corporations misses the mark. Like our government, corporations are made up of people. And just like everyone else, they are: ignorant, greedy, well-meaning, deluded, clever, support cronyism, and guided by preconceived notions. All politics have always been this way. I challenge you to assign a date before which we were "pure".

    Its simple human nature.

    1. If you give people power they screw things up. The more power, the more damage.

    2. If you restrain their power they find ways to increase it and then follow rule number one.

    Taking power back is difficult. Good luck to all.

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    Blaming our political situation on corporations misses the mark. Like our government, corporations are made up of people. And just like everyone else, they are: ignorant, greedy, well-meaning, deluded, clever, support cronyism, and guided by preconceived notions. All politics have always been this way. I challenge you to assign a date before which we were "pure".

    Its simple human nature.

    1. If you give people power they screw things up. The more power, the more damage.

    2. If you restrain their power they find ways to increase it and then follow rule number one.

    Taking power back is difficult. Good luck to all.
    1776 !!

    ipse

    added:...take away the mega millions corporation's spend towards campaigns as well as deduct the money from their corp tax base, if they contribute to the tax base at all, and see how well those running for office do and where their loyalty swings to. good olde boy system was still a viable enterprise and citizens knew for certain where the campaign was going.

    Ipse
    Last edited by solus; 05-31-2016 at 03:43 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    corporation personhood has been a contentious and tenacious concept since our colonial times as our forefathers dealt with UK corporations sanctioned by the royal family dealt with the colonies.

    of late, the turning point occurred approximately six years ago when the highest court in the land ruled corporations can contribute massive monetary funding to the political campaigns of their choice, thus, IMO buying the loyalty of the legislator, mayor, council member, judge, ad nauseam sitting in control of JQPublic.

    not sure the ruling will ever be overturned as those in power enjoy the massive funding to 'do their own thing' while campaigning.

    ipse

    Regardless, Corporations themselves have no vote. The shareholders themselves do. Consider that Corporations are merely following the wishes of their shareholders when they support certain candidates.

    What people need to wake up to is that they need to start using that object on their shoulders for more than just a place to park a hat. To wake up to the fact that they could well be in the drivers seat if they would only vote, both in local and national elections, but in Shareholder meetings as well.

    Apathy has caused the problems we see to day. It's sad that in the last several Presidential Elections the best turnout was in 2004 with 60.5% of the registered voters bothering to cast a ballot. Of the remaining percentage I wonder how many of them are among the chronic complainers about government.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Regardless, Corporations themselves have no vote. The shareholders themselves do. Consider that Corporations are merely following the wishes of their shareholders when they support certain candidates.

    What people need to wake up to is that they need to start using that object on their shoulders for more than just a place to park a hat. To wake up to the fact that they could well be in the drivers seat if they would only vote, both in local and national elections, but in Shareholder meetings as well.

    Apathy has caused the problems we see to day. It's sad that in the last several Presidential Elections the best turnout was in 2004 with 60.5% of the registered voters bothering to cast a ballot. Of the remaining percentage I wonder how many of them are among the chronic complainers about government.
    Here is the shareholder proposal for Exxon-Mobil from last weeks' annual meeting - it is on the long, legal SEC style, so bear with, but basically any public corporation buries its lobbying expenses so shareholders don't have a clue what they do with the money, or how much, like XOM funding climate study research, etc - a Billion places to hide it....

    ITEM 9 – REPORT ON LOBBYING
    This proposal was submitted by United Steelworkers, Five Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, the beneficial
    owner of 116 shares and lead proponent of a filing group.
    “Whereas, we believe in full disclosure of our company’s direct and indirect lobbying activities and expenditures
    to assess whether our company’s lobbying is consistent with ExxonMobil’s expressed goals and in the best interest
    of shareholders.
    Resolved, the shareholders of ExxonMobil request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:
    1. Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying
    communications.
    2. Payments by ExxonMobil used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in
    each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.
    3. ExxonMobil’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model
    legislation.
    4. Description of management’s and the Board’s decision making process and oversight for making payments
    described in sections 2 and 3 above.
    For purposes of this proposal, a ‘grassroots lobbying communication’ is a communication directed to the general
    public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and
    (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation.
    ‘Indirect lobbying’ is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which ExxonMobil is a
    member.
    Both ‘direct and indirect lobbying’ and ‘grassroots lobbying communications’ include efforts at the local, state and
    federal levels.
    The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee or other relevant oversight committees and posted on
    ExxonMobil’s website.
    Supporting Statement
    As shareholders, we encourage transparency and accountability in ExxonMobil’s use of corporate funds to
    influence legislation and regulation. ExxonMobil spent $26.07 million in 2013 and 2014 on federal lobbying
    (opensecrets.org). These figures do not include lobbying expenditures to influence legislation in states, where
    ExxonMobil also lobbies but disclosure is uneven or absent. For example, ExxonMobil spent $699,362 on lobbying
    in California for 2014 (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/). ExxonMobil’s lobbying on climate change has attracted
    media attention (‘Exxon Knew about Climate Change Decades Ago, Spent $30M to Discredit It,’ Christian Science
    Monitor, Sep. 17, 2015).
    ExxonMobil is a member of the American Petroleum Institute, Business Roundtable and National Association of
    Manufacturers, which together spent over $65 million on lobbying for 2013 and 2014. ExxonMobil is also a
    member of the Western States Petroleum Association, which spent $13,553,942 on lobbying in California for
    2013 and 2014. ExxonMobil does not disclose its memberships in, or payments to, trade associations, or the
    63
    portions of such amounts used for lobbying. Transparent reporting would reveal whether company assets are being
    used for objectives contrary to ExxonMobil’s long-term interests.
    And ExxonMobil does not disclose membership in or contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and
    endorse model legislation, such as being a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
    ExxonMobil’s ALEC membership has drawn press scrutiny (‘ExxonMobil Gave Millions to Climate-Denying
    Lawmakers despite Pledge,’ The Guardian, Jul. 15, 2015). More than 100 companies have publicly left ALEC,
    including BP, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum and Shell.”

    The Board recommends you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:
    ExxonMobil, like many U.S. companies, labor unions, and other entities, engages in lobbying in the United States
    at both the federal and state levels to explain or advocate the Corporation’s position when necessary. ExxonMobil
    complies fully with all state and federal requirements concerning lobbying activity and related disclosures. Pursuant
    to the federal Lobby Disclosure Act, ExxonMobil publicly reports on a quarterly basis to Congress its lobbying
    expenses and the specific issues lobbied. The reports are accessible to the general public on the U.S. Senate’s
    website at senate.gov. Lobby reports are also filed with state and local jurisdictions as required by law.
    ExxonMobil also provides support to a variety of think tanks, trade associations, and coalitions in order to promote
    informed dialogue and sound public policy on matters pertinent to the Corporation’s interests. Some of the support
    provided to these organizations may be used by the firms for lobbying. The total figure reported in ExxonMobil’s
    public Lobby Disclosure Act filings includes expenses associated with the costs of employee federal lobbying, as
    well as those portions of payments to trade associations, coalitions and think tanks that are spent on federal
    lobbying.
    The Corporation believes the rigor of these requirements provides sufficient transparency and accountability of our
    public advocacy activities to the general public, including shareholders. The Congress and Executive Branch are the
    appropriate recipients of the proponent’s specific positions on our nation’s policy disclosure laws, and any reforms
    they seek.
    The Corporation has an established practice to determine which public policy issues are important to ExxonMobil,
    which includes gaining input from affected business lines and functional departments such as Law and Public and
    Government Affairs. Key issues are reviewed by the Management Committee and Board of Directors of the
    Corporation. ExxonMobil’s position on key policy issues are posted in the Current Issues section at exxonmobil.com,
    and our lobbying activities are aligned with those positions. In addition, our policy and procedures governing
    lobbying, including oversight, can be found in the Accountability section of the same website. We believe detailed
    disclosures concerning internal deliberations on public policy issues could be competitively harmful, and would be
    of questionable utility to shareholders.
    ExxonMobil promotes discussion on issues of direct relevance to the Company. We contribute to a wide range of
    academic and policy organizations that research and promote dialogue on significant domestic and foreign policy
    issues. Our contributions do not constitute an endorsement of every policy position or point of view expressed by a
    recipient organization. As is true of all non-profits we support, we conduct an annual evaluation of the merits of
    each organization and reserve the right to initiate, sustain, or withdraw support at any time.
    ExxonMobil believes that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action. Managing these
    risks requires innovation and collaboration. We are dedicated to working to reduce the risks of climate change in
    the most efficient way for society, while recognizing the importance of reliable and affordable energy in supporting
    economic growth. We actively engage in constructive dialogue on climate change policy with a wide variety of
    stakeholders, including governments, non-governmental organizations, academia and the public.
    Policymakers around the world currently are considering a variety of legislative proposals and regulatory options
    related to climate policies. ExxonMobil advocates an approach that ensures a uniform and predictable cost of
    carbon; allows market prices to drive solutions; maximizes transparency to stakeholders; reduces administrative
    complexity; promotes global participation; and is easily adjusted to future developments in climate science and
    policy impacts. We continue to believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is better able to accommodate these key
    criteria.

    ExxonMobil updates shareholders annually on our views on climate change and how the Company plans capital
    expenditures, assesses and plans for policies limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and works to reduce emissions as
    part of the Corporate Citizenship Report. The Company also periodically responds to specific shareholder requests.
    Currently available reports and responses are viewable on exxonmobil.com.
    A robust civil society requires the airing of different voices and perspectives as part of the nation’s ongoing public
    policy debate. In light of the importance and implications of sound public policies, ExxonMobil will continue to
    engage actively with stakeholders who have an interest in key issues that affect the Company and industry.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Rank copyright violation.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    XOM is a 'public' company - call SEC for requiring disclosure of 'copywrite' filings....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    and you pulled the material from? fair attribution is given to SEC? or Exxon Mobile?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    What people need to wake up to is that they need to start using that object on their shoulders for more than just a place to park a hat.
    Who parks a hat on their parrot?
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  21. #21
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    http://www.sec.gov/privacy.htm

    Website Dissemination
    Information presented on www.sec.gov is considered public information and may be copied or further distributed by users of the web site.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    http://www.sec.gov/privacy.htm

    Website Dissemination
    Information presented on www.sec.gov is considered public information and may be copied or further distributed by users of the web site.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Because its a public record.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    of late, the turning point occurred approximately six years ago when the highest court in the land ruled corporations can contribute massive monetary funding to the political campaigns of their choice, thus, IMO buying the loyalty of the legislator, mayor, council member, judge, ad nauseam sitting in control of JQPublic.

    not sure the ruling will ever be overturned as those in power enjoy the massive funding to 'do their own thing' while campaigning.
    One of the justices on the supreme court noted that there was really only two ways they could rule, without violating either existing statutes or the constitution itself. And one of those ways held greater potential harm to constitutional rights than the other. So they made the least harmful ruling, and we have the Citizens United decision.

    The other way they could have ruled, was to extend the campaign finance rule to all political groups that spend money to influence politics (equal protection clause). Doing so would have made groups like the EFF, the ACLU and the NRA illegal on the spot. It could even go so far as to abolish political parties.

    Having groups of citizens able to use their money collectively was a far better outcome.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    One of the justices on the supreme court noted that there was really only two ways they could rule, without violating either existing statutes or the constitution itself. And one of those ways held greater potential harm to constitutional rights than the other. So they made the least harmful ruling, and we have the Citizens United decision.

    The other way they could have ruled, was to extend the campaign finance rule to all political groups that spend money to influence politics (equal protection clause). Doing so would have made groups like the EFF, the ACLU and the NRA illegal on the spot. It could even go so far as to abolish political parties.

    Having groups of citizens able to use their money collectively was a far better outcome.
    Ending the political parties would be a great thing.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •