"Assault Weapon" Tax Credit Bill would Encourage Manufacturers

Gun Watch ^ | 7 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

 Representative Rosa DeLauro

Democrats in the House of representatives are expected to reintroduce legislation that would grant a federal $2,000 tax credit for turning in a gun to a local, state, or federal government authority.   The guns listed normally sell for far less than $2,000.  There are many millions of them legally possessed by individuals.  Admittedly, even if the bill were passed, it is unlikely that more than a few million people would take advantage of it, so the drain on the Treasury wold be less than 20 billion dollars.  That is hardly noticeable in our runaway, trillion dollar, budget.  But as a famous senator once quipped, a billion here, and a billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.

What is truly insane about the bill is that it would not accomplish anything except to transfer money from the treasury to individuals who knew enough to take advantage of the bill's provisions, and to enrich gun manufacturers.

From thehill.com:

Gun owners would receive tax breaks for voluntarily turning in high-powered assault rifles under new legislation proposed Monday.

The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

I read the bill(pdf). You have to be completely ignorant of economics, too lazy to read legislation that you cosponsor, or especially insane, to introduce or co-sponsor such legislation.  The bill grants a flat $2,000 tax credit for one “assault weapon” as defined in the bill. You get a $1000 tax credit the first year, and another $1,000 tax credit the second year. The firearm has to be legally owned.  From the bill(pdf):

‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—In
the case of an individual
6 who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the
7 United States or a State or local government (or po-
8 litical subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal,
9 State, or local public safety program to reduce the
10 number of privately owned weapons, on the election
11 of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit
12 against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount
13 equal to $2,000.

Many inexpensive firearms qualify.  A Hi-Point carbine qualifies. You can buy lots of them for less than $250 each.  From the list of qualified firearms in the bill:

 6 ‘‘(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,

Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a forward grip qualifies. A Savage .22 semi-auto can be had for about $143 retail, and a qualifying forward pistol grip added for a piece of broom handle and some duct tape, or likely as an aftermarket accessory for $11.  From the list of qualified items in the bill:

 13 ‘‘(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an
14 ability to accept a detachable magazine, and
15 that has—
16 ‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
17 ‘‘(ii) a threaded barrel,
18 ‘‘(iii) a pistol grip,
19 ‘‘(iv) a forward grip, or
20 ‘‘(v) a barrel shroud.

Talk about another boon for gun manufacturers.  This legislation practically begs you to buy a cheap, new, qualifying firearm (so you can prove legal possession with a receipt) and turn it in for $2,000 in tax credits.

The bill is about tax credits.  It is not a deduction. It is a direct tax credit. If you owe as much as $1,000 taxes in a year, it is like free money.   The bill makes even less sense than the political theater of gun "buy backs".  There have been numerous studies showing that these "buy backs" accomplish nothing except to attempt to indoctrinate people that guns are bad and should be turned in to police.  The message that is actually sent is "it is good to keep some cheap guns on hand, so that if foolish politicians have a "buy back" we can make some money on it.

That is the message this bill would send, magnified a hundred fold by the power of federal taxation.  Spend $50 to buy a stripped receiver to turn in, and get a net profit of $1,950 in tax credits.

A *receiver* for named rifles qualifies, so you can buy stripped lower AR receiver for $50... and it qualifies.  From the bill:

 1 ‘‘(J) A frame or receiver that is identical
2 to, or based substantially on the frame or re-
3 ceiver of, a firearm described in any of subpara-
4 graphs (A) through (I) or (L).

I would like to say that this bill will never pass. I would like to say that not even a majority of congressmen are this insane.  But we have had similar measures pass in previous legislatures.   Arizona passed a bill that gave so many tax credits to people to buy "green" vehicles that they were able to get them for free, with the State picking up the tab.   The bill almost bankrupted Arizona before it was cut short.

Really stupid bills can pass, given enough media hype.  In the 1950's, the United States banned the interstate sale of switchblade knives.   It was all based on media hype.

While most congressmen are not this stupid, most of the time, the introduction and co-sponsoring of this bill means that some in Congress really are this insane, ignorant, lazy, or stupid.  I hate to say that a congressman from Arizona is one of the co-sponsors of this bill.   The bill reaches levels of stupidity reserved for the mythical legislation that was passed to repeal the law of gravity.

Here are the co-sponsors, from thehill.com:

The co-sponsors include Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

I have yet to see an equally ignorant bill from Republicans.  I am not saying that Republicans are saints.  They are not.  A bill like this from Republicans would receive intense scorn from the old media.   But because the old media is as ignorant about guns and economics as these representatives, and willing to ignore silliness on the left, these Democrats get a pass.

They are on the far, far, left, in safe districts, and they will not be criticized.   There is no critic of the bill in the article noted above.   Perhaps the "repeal the law of gravity" analogy is too harsh.  It is closer to attempting to empty the ocean with a bucket, by pouring the water on the beach, all the while chanting: "See the sea level is falling!"  with each passing wave.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[MasterGunner01]

Strike a blow for liberty and the 2nd Amendment — build an 80 percent AR lower receiver. One of the of nicest is the polymer James Madison Tactical (here: http://www.jamesmadisontactical.com/) lower. The polymer receiver comes with the necessary jigs to complete the lower. All that's needed is a drill press, vise, hobby knife, drill bits, and an end mill. A little patience and work results in a very light and nearly indestructible lower AR receiver. Purchase an AR butt stock, lower internals, and upper receiver kits and you have a very nice 5.56 NATO carbine. All completely legal.

[Mike Darancette]

The feral gangsters don’t pay taxes.

[TurboZamboni]

Portraits in Moonbattery: Rosa DeLauro
http://moonbattery.com/?p=40492

Ron Wood’s twin brother.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Agreed. My bad. See my other apologetic comment.

Great arbitrage opportunity—buy at, say, $700 or less for a low grade “assault” weapon, sell for $2000.

[Vendome]

Principle of the matter for one.

For another, you will not make $1,500 or $2k.

You get a tax deduction, if you itemize, if you can and the net effect is only a reduction in “real dollars” or a “net present value” of $500 maximum.

[Vendome]

See here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3276957/posts?page=25#25

[marktwain]

No, it is tax *credit*, not a deduction.

You do not need to turn in a $500 rifle, or even a $150 one. A $50 stripped receiver will do.

Net profit, $1,950.

It is all in the article.

In reality, you do not even have to turn in *anything*. All you have to do is have some government official, at any level, give you a receipt for the tax credit. There is no recording requirement, no audits, no paper trail...

[freeandfreezing]

Only retarded dwerps...

Or clever firearms owners looking to upgrade to a better rifle.

[riverrunner]

It says tax credit not deduction.

[taxcontrol]

Please let this bill pass, I have two 3D printers and could use the extra cash.

/semi sarc

[SampleMan]

Conservative white males are the only people who pose a danger with “assault rifles” right? So this buy-back should really be limited to just conservative white males.

Further, it should be amended to $10,000 per weapon turned in.

[SampleMan]

A tax credit is worth 100%. This isn’t proposed as a deduction.

[Pearls Before Swine]

My bad, noted in two previous responses. I should definitely know better.

It makes the arbitrage possibilities even more absurd.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I can see it now, a package deal at your local gun store.

Buy One ...

Get One Free ...

[Disambiguator]

But it also means that we can use the bill to show how insane and stupid anti-second amendment legislation and Democrat politicians are.

Just posting pictures of Rosa DeLauro can accomplish that. She has "the look" down pat.

[Pollster1]

As a retarded dwerp, I would take advantage of this offer.

http://www.eparmory.com/Buy-Five-Get-One-Free-Black-p/buy5.htm

Six 80% lowers for $250. Six hours of work. Technically, I would have six “assault weapons” with a profit of $1957.50 per hour. I could do that daily for a month and make a huge profit, enough to arm all my reliable neighbors with high-quality semi-automatic sporting rifles and enough ammo to protect the Constitution and our neighborhood from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It would be the best use of FedGov money in my lifetime.

[Vendome]

Didn’t see that.

Although, tax credits still require a deductible amount within your obligation.

The majority of filers do not itemize.

I pay enough taxes to fun two people so this could be an awesome deal to reduce my outright taxes and still make a profit.

[Vendome]

Thnx for the clarification.

Still need to have a substantial obligation to reduce them by a profitable amount.

[iacovatx]

“But it also means that we can use the bill to show how insane and stupid anti-second amendment legislation and Democrat politicians are.”

That is a good point that may be missed by opposition campaigners. This is an ad for the opposition, too, if it is used correctly.

[Drew68]

Only retarded dwerps...

I'd take advantage of it in a heartbeat, turning in a $50 AR receiver or some other POS rifle for $2000 Obama Bucks! KA-CHING!!! And I'd use that $1950 in profit to get something really cool like a Springfield Armory Scout Squad or a DS Arms FN/FAL.

Sadly, this law has no chance of ever going anywhere.