Repealing the Pittman-Robertson act?

I think it unlikely this would become law.

Gentle reminder: let's not let this thread become a debate about gun laws. As you know, political threads are not welcome. Please keep comments directed to the topic of the Pittman-Robertson Act.
 
That act doesn’t affect fisheries. The 1950 Dingell-Johnson Act modeled after the 1937 Pittman Robertson Act is the one that provides $ to fisheries programs. It was expanded in 1984 with passage of the Wallop-Breaux Amendment.
 
Mike said:
That act doesn’t affect fisheries. The 1950 Dingell-Johnson Act modeled after the 1937 Pittman Robertson Act is the one that provides $ to fisheries programs. It was expanded in 1984 with passage of the Wallop-Breaux Amendment.
Click to expand...
True, but if you read the article, the proposed bill includes eliminating or reducing the excise tax on fishing equipment as set up in the Dingell-Johnson Act and Wallop-Breaux Amendment.

But here are some of the things currently proposed in the bill:

  • Excise taxes on firearms and ammunition repealed
  • Excise taxes on bows and arrows repealed
  • Limitation on tax imposed on fishing rods and poles
  • 3% rate of tax for electric outboard motors
  • 3% rate of tax for tackle boxes
 
This one strikes me as a bit odd. I can see and appreciate both sides of the argument. The majority of my recreation involves outdoor related hobbies: fishing, hunting, backpacking/hiking, and camping. Those are really what I enjoy and what I love. I have always understood the Pittman-Robertson act to be a "good thing." You learn about it in hunter's safety education and the good that it has done. It is being attempted to be repealed in the name of preservation of rights and gun ownership, a fear that taxes can be increased so much that most people simply cannot afford to purchase firearms and/or ammunition, thereby being another limit on gun ownership and the second amendment and, dare I say, a legal form of gun control at this time.

Without being political here, there is an obvious push by many politicians and the public to restrict the ease of access to firearms and ammunition and it has been tried many ways. There is also a huge and staunchly opposed group to any sort of gun control. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't necessarily feel that repealing the Pittman-Robertson act is the right answer. Wouldn't it make more sense to put a cap in place where the tax cannot go any higher than it currently is?
 
The whole premise of this argument is nutty. Taxing something doesn't prevent someone from accessing the thing being taxed. The premise of the bill is far too slippery a slope. Where do you draw the line? Should firearms be free? Should there be a cap on firearm costs? You could argue that making firearms cost money restricts people from accessing them. Not to mention that the taxes on fishing equipment has nothing to do with firearms. This is ridiculous and it will never fly.
 
silverfox said:
The whole premise of this argument is nutty. Taxing something doesn't prevent someone from accessing the thing being taxed. The premise of the bill is far too slippery a slope. Where do you draw the line? Should firearms be free? Should there be a cap on firearm costs? You could argue that making firearms cost money restricts people from accessing them. Not to mention that the taxes on fishing equipment has nothing to do with firearms. This is ridiculous and it will never fly.
Click to expand...
You're right. Nothing prevents anyone from accessing anything ever except for death itself, that is the only stopping power. Making something extremely expensive is a way to limit an item from the general public though. Is there anything currently capping the tax? If not, could it be raised to 80%? 90%? I don't know, but that would certainly hurt the budget of buying a new Browning Maxus or a case of 12 gauge shells. You know, budgeting what's really important when the funds get tight. And I can see how hardcore gun nuts would want to debate that if it is currently legally a possibility.


Either way, this is a stupid push though.
 
jifigz said:
You're right. Nothing prevents anyone from accessing anything ever except for death itself, that is the only stopping power. Making something extremely expensive is a way to limit an item from the general public though. Is there anything currently capping the tax? If not, could it be raised to 80%? 90%? I don't know, but that would certainly hurt the budget of buying a new Browning Maxus or a case of 12 gauge shells. You know, budgeting what's really important when the funds get tight. And I can see how hardcore gun nuts would want to debate that if it is currently legally a possibility.


Either way, this is a stupid push though.
Click to expand...
Right. That's what's driving this. A countermeasure to the recent bill that was introduced to impose a 1000% tax on certain firearms as a form of gun control. It really says something about the state of politics in our country when we've got representatives attempting to get their way through perverting perfectly functional, and beneficial legislation. God forbid they try to negotiate across the aisles or work together in any way.

In theory, this notion of excessive tax increases as a means to control something is an interesting question. Unlike normal tax/fee rate decisions where economists have to balance tax rates to maximize revenue without discouraging the revenue-generating activity, the intended purpose of a 1000% tax on firearm purchases is actually designed specifically to deter people from participating. So they can ignore the downside to hiking taxes because revenue isn't the goal.

I think if an excessive tax rate bill were to pass, it would immediately trigger lawsuits and would probably result in some legal precedent limiting the use of that tactic. So we don't have caps on tax rates now because it's supposed to be a naturally balancing system, but if that bill somehow passed, we might end up with caps on taxes. Honestly, the repercussions of a 1000% tax on firearms (or anything else) already function as a check against excessive tax rates. That bill probably has as much of a chance of passing as the repeal bill does. Even some gun control representatives are apprehensive about the sky-high rate. They have elections to win again you know?
 
BradFromPotter said:
I wonder how many fly tyers & rod builders who made a profit from these products completely ignored this tax?
Click to expand...
They are just as likely not paying any taxes at all on sales revenue from these activities.
 
When I bought my Richardson Boxes many moons ago, they charged me excise tax as separate line item. I don't know if they still do, but they did then.

I've also purchased more than a few custom rods and technically should have been charged excise tax but no rod builder added it on to the bill as separate charge.

That being said, I don't think it's fair that only fishing tackle, and firearms related purchases are taxed. If you utilize the resource, you should have to pay so I'd support an expansion of the products being taxed...

...then they could lower the tax rate (of course they NEVER would) and it wouldn't be a burden or deterrent on purchases by a select few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top