Posted on 07/02/2012 11:28:28 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
You're correct - and don't forget, that is to fund health insurance for kids.
Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!
Didn’t Pat Moynahan (sp?) propose that back in the 1990s?
His idea was to tax ammo so high that people couldn’t afford it.
Don’t bet that this can’t or won’t be on their minds.
If they do, lets give them our ammo. From the business end.
As long as they don’t charge the tax...retroactively. ;~)
They can tax anything they want now. You’ll be paying property tax out of the ying-yang for your firearms—if you can afford it. They found the golden key.
What is non military about a saw off shotgun.
They have been in the military before rifles were.
Anything that the government says is a "health risk", they will tax it sky high. The government will say you have the freedom to buy ice cream, tobacco, or ammunition, but because of the "health risks" associated with it, it will have such high taxes with it that it will become unaffordable.
They can easily call a box of ammo a heath risk, and since they pay for health costs, they need to tax it higher. They will say that the people that practice unhealthy lifestyles must pay a higher tax than those that lead a healthy lifestyle.
The tax percentage on ammunition will probably be much higher than the percentage they put on tobacco. The percentage will match their hatred for it.
We have?
Yes, we have.
Judge blocks Fla. law restricting doctor gun talk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2778882/posts
Fla. lawsuit: Can doctors ask patients about guns?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2748280/posts
Does that ring a bell?
This is exactly the point of socialized healthcare.
There isn’t an aspect of your life that won’t have an impact on healthcare costs for the collective.
They can control EVERYTHING you do, eat, drink, breathe, etc.
Of course, the one “health risk” they won’t be addressing is homobuttsex. That health risk will be totally ignored, if not required... j/k, sort of.
They have been taxing our cell phones. There is a universal fee on our bills which covers free phones for the poor. We had no choice but yet we pay it. I suppose one could be forced to pay a tax if they DON’T have a cell phone. Same for life insurance, if one doesn’t have it, they can be taxed and I expect that is coming. How bout cable tv, if you chose not to have cable you will be taxed. I suspect all of this is just a few years and attorneys away.
I blew off that much ammo yesterday at the range.
But I am relatively certain that if the cost of a box of, say, .45ACP ammunition suddenly went from $19.95 to $1,995.00, those responsible would eventually see a great deal of such ammunition. But not in the stores.
Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!
Just wait until they decide to tax parents who do not send their kids to public schools.
You’re right about that.
The problem was that nobody showed up at the “Miller” hearing to make that point.
Why were they asking? I don’t really see anything wrong here. All someone has to do, is not answer or just say they don’t own any.
They can try, but it’d be a silly way for them to commit suicide.
Because firearms are considered a health hazard like smoking and obesity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.