Taxation to control behavior - Taxing Guns

Taxation to control behavior - Taxing Guns
Taxes are necessary to run the country and keep society going. Pooling our resources for the collective efforts of the greater good, be it to build roads or bridges, or social security and medicare, is necessary to keep society running, and generally provide us with the benefits we've been accustomed to. Be it running water or the police, electricity or the military, there is clear evidence that the government can be a powerful force for change, and positively impacts the well being of people. Irregardless of your stance on higher or lower taxes, most people agree that some taxes are necessary, and therefore taxation at it's core isn't inherently bad. However, taxing people to control behavior has alway been an issue for me, for a number of reasons. The most obvious and most succinct observation would be that it's a form of class warfare, effectively increasing the price of the goods which we are taxing, which really only stands to effects those with less money, such as the poor, disproportionately than the rich. As rich people generally not only have more money, but higher disposable incomes, making things more expensive in the hopes that less people will buy them, truly only hurts the average person, and the poor. You are essentially telling poor people that they need to spend vastly greater proportions of their income on a good than the rich, simply because you don't like it. In the case of say, banning guns, if your only goal is to keep them out of the hands of criminals, why is it that everyone is being punished, and why are we punishing people by taking away their money?

Taxing alcohol or cigarettes doesn't make people want to use them less, it makes people have to spend more money on the goods, which in turn causes them to be more likely to turn to crime to fund their addiction. When it comes to guns, it's not as if the need for self defense is lower among poor people, in fact the poor are more likely to experience violence than the rich, and making it more expensive isn't going to effect those with lots of money very greatly. Conversely, criminals who stand to actually make money by committing crimes with guns or who are committing passion crimes (like say a mass murder) likely don't care all that much about the price, and it's unlikely that an increase in price would effect the ownership rates. A plumber buys tools for his trade, even if they are expensive to allow him to work; a 1,000 dollar wrench or volt gauge may seem expensive for the average person, but for a plumber this typically isn't an issue. A doctor needs a scalpel, a truck driver a truck, and spending more moeny on these goods likely effects how much money they get in return. A bank robber needs a weapon of some kind, and if they use a gun, it's not as if spending 3,000 dollars on a gun, instead of 1,000 dollars, in order to make 30,000+ dollars a year from robbing banks isn't worth the initial investment. While us normal people don't see guns as investments unless we plan to resell them or become competition shooters (of which is extremely rare among all gun owners), a criminal looking to get a start does. If paying 3,000 dollars to make 30,000 dollars is the requirement, it clearly obviously is a benefit. Yet by comparison, 3,000 dollars is a lot of money to spend if you only make minimum wage, or 15,000 to 20,000 a year, and this is money you will never see again. A suicidal mad-man such as a mass shooter who plans on getting killed by police or going to prison for the rest of their life likely doesn't care how much money he has to spend. Maxing out a credit card or selling your house before you plan on committing suicide isn't really a problem, and neither would it be for a mass murderer. All anyone can really hope to achieve by taxing guns is that the poor are less likely to buy them if they can't afford them. This effectively tells the poor that they are lesser citizens than the rich, as it would do little to deter the rich or upper middle class from buying them who have less concerns over the price. If trying to control our behavior by making things more expensive arbitrarily is done, it likely would have no impact on crime, disproportionate effect on the poor and middle class, and simply make it more difficult to own guns for the common man.

Bear in mind, I don't really mind taxing guns as way to generate revenue from a business. Cars, general manufacturing and many other businesses are taxed, in order to simply make money for the government. My issue stems from people taxing guns that is, arbitrarily raising the price of guns, to make them harder to obtain. Ideas always float around about gun control how we should make bullets twice as expensive, or three times as expensive and if we did so, criminals would be less likely to use them. The idea is that if we punish people by taking away their money, they'll be less likely to commit crimes. As a ridiculous an argument that may seem on the surface in it's own right, this still only really effects the poor, as it's unlikely a criminals mind will be changed due to a slight difference in price. It obviously won't stop the rich from buying a gun as it doesn't stand to effect them greatly when they not only have more money, but more disposable income (I.E. not spent on necessities like houses, or cars). And it likely won't effect criminals, as criminals who stand to make money from their actions or are crazy likely don't care. The only people you hurt significantly by increasing taxes on guns to make guns less available, are the average person.

People who claim they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but then tax everyone, punishing everyone for owning a gun, are contradicting themselves. Clearly this is an effort to keep the common man disarmed, and more importantly the poor. According to the BJS, persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000). [1] A free speech tax or 5th amendment tax would seem insane, but taxing the right to own weapons for self defense is somehow seemed justifiable by many. The right to self defense doesn't only apply to those with money, and placing an unnecessary burden on those trying to exercise their right just seems morally wrong. It doesn't really make sense to provide arbitrary taxes on guns as compared to any other product. In fact taxing anything to control behavior is a clear abuse of what taxation is supposed to be, which is a way to run the country, not control the people. It's a disgusting attack on the poor when people's rights are being taxed, and it doesn't seem like it would have any tangible impact on crime.

This is of course assuming in the first place that criminals generally tend to buy guns from gun stores. Only a relatively small percentage of all criminals bought their guns legally, and a smaller fraction of violent offenders legally obtained their firearms. 79% of firearms used by criminals for instance were illegally obtained, suggesting that only a fairly small fraction of guns are purchased legally, and thus would be subject to any kind of government mandated tax. Criminals tend to get guns on the street for 50-100 dollars, compared to about 500+ dollars for the average law abiding citizens. Not only would criminals be able to avoid the tax quite easily, but their guns are already considerably cheaper than what civilians must shell out due to various reasons already. But even if criminals legally obtained their guns, it likely wouldn't have enough of a dent to stop them from owning guns to commit crimes. You truly only stand to hurt the average man, and using taxes as a punishment in the first place is an abuse of authority.