Outrageous new tax

[calmloki]

A bit of casual reading on new tax law:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-11-52.pdf

Contained within is this latest bit of governmental revenue enhancement:

.32 Tax on Arrow Shafts. For calendar year 2012, the tax imposed under
§ 4161(b)(2)(A) on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft
of a type used in the manufacture of certain arrows is $0.46 per shaft.

What's next? A $0.03 tax on each 500 yard container of dental floss?

[Meadbh]

Bad news for Robin Hood!

[Texas Proud]

There are a lot of these kind of excise taxes out there that you probably do not even know about...

[braumeister]

From the Washington Post:

Quote:

Ryan is a bow-hunter and avid supporter of the archery industry; he once served as honorary chair of the Archery Trade Association. H.R. 5394 reformed the excise tax on arrow shafts amending the “Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price.” Domestic arrow manufacturers argued that the old system gave an advantage to foreign arrow-makers.

From archery to air fresheners, Paul Ryan’s five weirdest legislative proposals

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud There are a lot of these kind of excise taxes out there that you probably do not even know about...

Indeed. One of the significant savings of being a homebrewer is due ti the fact that one does not have to pay (through the purchase price of the beer) all the excise taxes.

[timo2]

This is OT from arrows, but not excise tax: If I recall history correctly, the excise tax on alcohol was one of the big influences of domestic policy in the 20th Century. First, the temperance folks wanted to institute the income tax to replace the alcohol excise tax that all the various taxing entities used as an important source of revenue. That freed the way to knock out one argument against Prohibition. Then the various taxing entities eventually wanted the alcohol excise tax back, and helped with the pressure to repeal Prohibition. Even though it would be in addition to the Income tax.

[travelover]

Those poor archers are getting the shaft.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Those poor archers are getting the shaft.

<rimshot>

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by timo2 This is OT from arrows, but not excise tax: If I recall history correctly, the excise tax on alcohol was one of the big influences of domestic policy in the 20th Century. First, the temperance folks wanted to institute the income tax to replace the alcohol excise tax that all the various taxing entities used as an important source of revenue. That freed the way to knock out one argument against Prohibition. Then the various taxing entities eventually wanted the alcohol excise tax back, and helped with the pressure to repeal Prohibition. Even though it would be in addition to the Income tax.

This is the major reason why so many people are dead set against imposing a state income tax in Texas. Even the proposals which are revenue-neutral, which would have sales and/or property taxes reduced proportional to the income taxes raised, suffer the same perception: The sales and property taxes will soon be back to what they were before they were cut, *and* now we have an income tax on top of it. A new type of tax, even if accompanied by tax cuts elsewhere, is seen as a "trojan horse" for just introducing more taxes overall.

[timo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 This is the major reason why so many people are dead set against imposing a state income tax in Texas. Even the proposals which are revenue-neutral, which would have sales and/or property taxes reduced proportional to the income taxes raised, suffer the same perception: The sales and property taxes will soon be back to what they were before they were cut, *and* now we have an income tax on top of it. A new type of tax, even if accompanied by tax cuts elsewhere, is seen as a "trojan horse" for just introducing more taxes overall.

That would probably happen, someday. On the other hand, nothing is free. The choice is how much of the advanced infrastructure of civilization a State wants to support.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by timo2 That would probably happen, someday. On the other hand, nothing is free. The choice is how much of the advanced infrastructure of civilization a State wants to support.

True, though to many the choice of "low taxes and fewer goodies" or "higher taxes and more goodies" would be preferable to the feeling that taxes will keep getting higher even as we still get fewer goodies. In other words, people aren't willing to pay more if they increasingly feel like they aren't getting what they are paying for currently.

[timo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 True, though to many the choice of "low taxes and fewer goodies" or "higher taxes and more goodies" would be preferable to the feeling that taxes will keep getting higher even as we still get fewer goodies. In other words, people aren't willing to pay more if they increasingly feel like they aren't getting what they are paying for currently.

I'm not sure what 'goodies are'. The advanced infrastructure of civilization I was referring to was things that support business, and thus the population. Things like power grids that work; ensuring all parts of a State can communicate effectively via the internet and mobile; that the bridges don't fall down; things of that nature that make commerce and education of the populace efficient. Right now, very few states have all of those features, if any. Those are all expensive, but they help people and their businesses create a robust civilization.

For me, I've lived equal periods in the rural mountain west and in urban areas, and the economy has always been better in areas where transportation and communication are well maintained, which inevitably means at least some tax dollars. Unfortunately, the same did not apply to education. That was always hit and miss by location.

[Koolau]

Just me or anyone else smell bacon? I've chosen not to comment on this topic - much as I love bacon. YMMV

[ShortInSeattle]

Complicated taxes are what irk me. All of these things must be audited, tracked, and managed. That is an expense that goes far beyond the tax itself. The tax isn't as problematic as the overhead.

SIS

A Seattle business owner, where there are "head taxes" and "square footage taxes" in addition to "destination based sales taxes." Sheesh.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShortInSeattle Complicated taxes are what irk me. All of these things must be audited, tracked, and managed. That is an expense that goes far beyond the tax itself. The tax isn't as problematic as the overhead. SIS A Seattle business owner, where there are "head taxes" and "square footage taxes" in addition to "destination based sales taxes." Sheesh.

Talking about bad taxes... I was surprised when our company started to collect sales taxes in Washington.... in addition to the sales tax you pay, they want you to pay a 'business tax' that is not collected from the buyer... and we do not have any presence in the state!! Our boss is not happy....

[Independent]

The arrow tax sounds ridiculous because it seems to be constantly getting adjusted.

In fact, it's part of a bigger program that's designed to provide benefits to hunters through "wildlife restoration" and other programs. These programs are funded through taxes on firearms and archery equipment. There's some information here:

USFWS-WSFR Wildlife Restoration Program


I could easily say that the federal gov't should just stay out of this. If states want to do hunting/fishing programs within their borders, that's a different story.

If any level of gov't is going to do this, it makes some sense to say that the people who benefit most from the programs are also the people who pay the tax. Kind of like funding roads with a gasoline tax.

But, the devil is in the details. Which weapons are used for hunting, which for self-defense, which for just target shooting? So there are arguments about the borders.