TexasCHLforum.com

Just to stir the pot, I sent an email to Tim Burgess, who the article named as the tax's proponent, with a link to the story. He hasn't replied yet though.

apostate wrote:

Jusme wrote:What they didn't even mention, was the fact that with sales of firearms and ammo, decreasing in Seattle, they are losing the normal revenue from sales taxes. I would bet that any money collected, from the "gun tax", is not even close to lost revenue.

Well, you have to realize the Seattle city council recently approved a tax on sugary drinks.

Oh, and "Some council members favored including diet soda, which is more popular with wealthier white consumers. That was one recommendation made after the city put the plan through a racial-equity analysis."

Implied facepalm.

What they didn't even mention, was the fact that with sales of firearms and ammo, decreasing in Seattle, they are losing the normal revenue from sales taxes. I would bet that any money collected, from the "gun tax", is not even close to lost revenue.

I guess, the voters in Seattle don't have to be Mensa members to elect City Council members.

ScottDLS wrote:It's working exactly as planned...gun sales are plummeting.

But only in Seattle. All of the gun dealers are moving to outlying cities, and thriving.

bblhd672 wrote:

Seattle paid a total of $550,000 for the study aimed at connecting gunshot victims with social services in hopes of not seeing them in the emergency room again.

So Seattle believes that giving people more free stuff, ala social services, will fix the problem. Socialists

Sounds to me, like more incentive to either get shot again, or shoot someone else.

What I like is their "conclusion" that most gun violence, is due to drug activity and gangs. Must have taken a doctoral Nobel laureate to figure that out.



I really can't understand why the promoters of this tax, won't talk about how well it seems to be working.