G8 Interntional Firearms Tax

xm15e3

How popular would this be in Ireland? I'm certain the UN would support such a tax.

G8 Leaders May Consider Global Arms Tax
By Mike Wendling
CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
June 02, 2003

Evian, France (CNSNews.com) - A global tax on weapons to fund anti-hunger programs has been suggested by Brazil's president, and at least one G8 leader - French President Jacques Chirac - supports looking into the idea.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio da Silva proposed the arms levy as one of a number of plans at a meeting with developing world leaders on the sidelines of the main G8 summit Sunday.

Chirac later said that such a tax could be an alternative to the so-called "Tobin tax," a proposed but never implemented international levy on currency transactions.

"Perhaps a tax on the sale of weapons would be quite justified," Chirac said. "I'm very much in favor of studying this proposal. For the time being, that's all he's asked.

"There's lots of trade in weapons, and there's no doubt whatsoever that this trade attracts everyone's concern," he said.

Da Silva didn't give further details about the tax, how it would be administered or what kind of weapons it would cover. But Lee Feinstein, a fellow at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations and a former U.S. State Department official, cast doubt on the viability of such a levy.

"The arms trade has been greatly diminished in recent years," he said by phone on Monday.

Feinstein said the tax would provide the "wrong incentive."

"You wouldn't want humanitarian aid to be dependent on arms sales," he said. "In general, I would be very skeptical about these kinds of things."

Sparks

One important point to make here is the distinction between three classes of weapons :
1) Military weapons, used by armies and other groups for military purposes.
2) Self-defence and hunting firearms, used by private individuals for non-military purposes.
3) Sporting firearms, used by private individuals for sporting purposes.

Class 1; The largest revenues and largest numbers of items traded. And taxing them at 100% wouldn't even stir my eyebrows. I'd have absolutely NO problem with it, and would encourage the tax to apply to all military weapons, not just firearms.

Class 2; I could accept having some taxation, so long as it was reasonable (say, up to VAT levels). But I'd want the collection of the tax to take place further up the retail chain and I'd want to see what was done with the money - and it would have to be viciously ringfenced. After all, these firearms have valid uses. For those that dislike hunting, I suggest a trip through an alaskan wilderness without a large-calibre rifle. After your (illegal, incidentally) trip, I think you'd reconsider your opinion to at least allow for the possibility that self-defence is a valid reason to own a hunting rifle in some cases.

Class 3; I'd have a problem with a tax here - if the point is a tax on weapons, then class 3 should not be taxed. Sporting firearms, as weapons, make great clubs and that's about it. They're designed for sporting purposes and those design choices negate their use as weapons.


Having said that, I don't think we'll see this tax go through - it would cripple large areas of the US economy.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3

"You wouldn't want humanitarian aid to be dependent on arms sales," he said. "In general, I would be very skeptical about these kinds of things."

The idea, obviously, is that revenues from the arms tax would be additional to humanitarian aid. The present US government would be unlikely to sign up to this, as they don't fancy the idea of an international body they don't control running a significant development funding programme. Makes it so much harder to impose those lovely conditions.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
One important point to make here is the distinction between three classes of weapons :
1) Military weapons, used by armies and other groups for military purposes.
2) Self-defence and hunting firearms, used by private individuals for non-military purposes.
3) Sporting firearms, used by private individuals for sporting purposes.

....

Having said that, I don't think we'll see this tax go through - it would cripple large areas of the US economy.

That's very rational. Unfortunately, groups 1 and 2...and even 3 are often the same weapon. At least with small arms.

An AR15/M16, designed completely for military purposes, is far more suited to hunting big game in the lower 48 than my .338 Win Mag. The .338 is considered minimal for Alaskan animals (Brown Bear) that hunt back.

M16/ARs are also much better self defense/home weapons than anything other than a 12 gauge, not to mention that they are extremely popular competition rifles.

The US Assualt Weapons ban attempted to make the distinctions you made, the unintended result was civilians with superior rifles than the military counterpart. (Compensators gave way to more accurate crowned barrels). ARs are great sport rifles.

The real problem with the idea is that it violates the US constitution (and probably others), as do all external taxes, and could never be ratified or implemented by the US government without a stacked SC.

It would hurt our defense contractors, but it would stifle Chinasport (Norinco).

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by xm15e3

The real problem with the idea is that it violates the US constitution (and probably others), as do all external taxes, and could never be ratified or implemented by the US government without a stacked SC.

No it doesn't
U have the right to bear arms(as in US)
But the government has the right to tax them

Anyway, I think the tax should be levied on the producers rather than the consumers.

xm15e3

Actually the state governments can tax the citizens directly, the US Federal gov. has claimed (on questionable basis) the right to directly tax income. However, US citizens are prohibited (If I remeber correctly, I'll find the exact acticle/section) from paying taxes to a foriegn entity. UN, NATO, whatever.

I know it is done currently, ie. US taxpayers help fund UN programs, but only through funny accounting practices by the Federal Government.

Now, what is the diference in taxing the consumer or the producer? At the point of sale, the consumer pays the tax regardless.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by xm15e3

Now, what is the diference in taxing the consumer or the producer? At the point of sale, the consumer pays the tax regardless.

So that gun totting militia men can't tell the difference. Yes I know the cost of the tax will be past on to consumers but it shouldn't be visible... :ninja:

Victor

Originally posted by xm15e3
The real problem with the idea is that it violates the US constitution (and probably others), as do all external taxes, and could never be ratified or implemented by the US government without a stacked SC.

Not necessarily, simply agree a (near) standardised tax level between countries and countries keep the tax to spend on their own specific programs.

And as regards classification. Small arms (weapons carryable by one person) kill the vast majority of people.

Sparks

Victor,
Man-portable arms are not always small arms. Take the RPG-7 for example - one person can carry and fire it easily, but it's not classed as small arms.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
Man-portable arms are not always small arms. Take the RPG-7 for example - one person can carry and fire it easily, but it's not classed as small arms.

I would disagree and so do these people http://www.iansa.org/

International Action Network on Small Arms - Small Arms in Post-War Iraq

Sparks

Victor,
I can't find a definition of "small arms" on iansa's site. But from here :

According to the definitions drafted by the UN Commission of Experts and approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1997, the following weapons are included in the categories of small arms and light weapons:
Small arms:
Revolvers and self-loading pistols
rifles and carbines
sub-machine guns
assault rifles
light machine-guns

Light weapons:
Heavy machine-guns
hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers
portable anti-aircraft guns
portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems
portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems
mortars with calibres of less than 100 mm

So an RPG-7 would be a light weapon, not small arms.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Victor
Not necessarily, simply agree a (near) standardised tax level between countries and countries keep the tax to spend on their own specific programs.

And as regards classification. Small arms (weapons carryable by one person) kill the vast majority of people.

That would probably be the only way to do this in the US. There would be plenty of support for it from Schumer, Boxer, Fienstien ect. But I don't think they will hold office past 2004, the gun issue is becoming a political third rail.


With that said, I think it is a bad idea that will do little to solve world hunger. IMO, poverty usually the results from the absence of "rule of law", followed by the resulting lack of secure property rights. I would also argue restricting gun ownership in these countries will only aggravate the problem.

Is it that small arms kill the vast majority of people, or is it a lack of distribution of small arms? Nothing makes imposing ones political will on a population more difficult than a population with rifles. It's the bottom line in distributed power.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
Victor,
I can't find a definition of "small arms" on iansa's site. But from here :

So an RPG-7 would be a light weapon, not small arms.

I'm not sure if the difference between small arms, and light weapons is very relevent. The proposed (pipe dream) tax would include all arms.

The US constitution referes to arms, which was has been interpreted as being weapon carried by a single man. Because of this it is still legal for US citizens to own machinguns, assault rifles, and grenade launchers...with an FFL of course(www.mr40mm.com)

I definately would question the UN's authority to determine the English language, especially for legal purposes. Of course I would question the UN's authority to do anything other than act as a formal debate society. Alger Hess wrote much the the original charter and served as the original SG, that pretty much should eliminate it's credibility in the free world.

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
Alger Hess wrote much the the original charter and served as the original SG, that pretty much should eliminate it's credibility in the free world.

Sure, and most of the founding fathers of the US owned slaves, which pretty much such eliminate its credibility as a bastion of freedom in the free world.

Its called progress.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by xm15e3
With that said, I think it is a bad idea that will do little to solve world hunger.

I'm not sure if the immediate objective is financing hunger resolution. But the secondary effect of removing armed conflict, means people can get on with farming / building / working.

Originally posted by xm15e3
With that said, I think it is a bad idea that will do little to solve world hunger. IMO, poverty usually the results from the absence of "rule of law", followed by the resulting lack of secure property rights. I would also argue restricting gun ownership in these countries will only aggravate the problem.

Huge numbers of people had guns in Somalia and Lebanon. Guns replace the rule of law with Gun Rule and Gang Rule. If you can't afford a gun in such a society, your rights are worthless. If the other "gang" is bigger, your rights are worthless. Poverty usually results from the inequitable distribution of resources. South Africa had / has rule of law and secure property rights, but huge poverty.

Rights should be vindicated in a court (or similar), not with a gun - I know sometimes both are related, but courts must have primacy over guns.

Originally posted by xm15e3
Is it that small arms kill the vast majority of people, or is it a lack of distribution of small arms?

When a minority reaches about 15%, the majority tends towards mistrusting it (as in Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia). If the gun owning population (farmers, sportsmen, the State, criminals) stays at a level where the gun owning majority does not threaten (in a serious way) the majority, then there will be no conflict. Likewise if a largish number of people own guns, the rest of the population will begin to feel threatened and get their own weapons. Conflict (at some level) then becomes inevitable - what one was settled with angry words or fists are settled with guns.

Originally posted by xm15e3
Nothing makes imposing ones political will on a population more difficult than a population with rifles. It's the bottom line in distributed power.

Then how come so many Americans actually pay their income taxes then? Imposing political will is often about the legitimacy of that political will, not whether guns are owned or not.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Victor

Rights should be vindicated in a court (or similar), not with a gun - .

That was pretty much my point, the rule of law as opposed to rule of man.

Where did your 15% minority number come from? I'm not arguing it, it an interesting theory.

As far a income taxes, incrementalism works. It was originally 2% applied to an extreme minority. By the time it got out of hand, Americans were used to the practice. Most Americans see income tax as the only sure way to get rev., nothing P!sses me off when they argue against the NRST with "The money has to come from somewhere" . FFS