Johnathan Swift wrote a satirical piece in 1729. The piece had a long title, which is usually shortened to "A Modest Proposal". In it he proposed to solve the problem of the Famine that was then affecting Ireland by having Irish peasants eat their children. There is a nice article in Wikipedia, if you are interested in learning more about the original Swift piece. The article includes a link to a "Project Gutenberg" entry (see note 1 in the Wikipedia article), if you want to read the whole thing. It is pretty short. The proposal I outline here is not satirical but it is modest. Hence the title.
In the U.S. we have what are often referred to as "sin taxes". We tax items that some people think of as sinful as a source of revenue. Taxes are unpopular so, since these things are "sinful", it is easier to get a tax on these items passed through the legislature than than it is to get a tax passed on more mundane or useful ones. The taxes have two purposes. They are supposed to modestly depress demand for the taxed items and to raise revenue. There is no question that these taxes are legal. And the two "poster child" products that are subject to sin taxes are alcohol and tobacco. Both are subject to federal taxes.
Alcohol and tobacco are both regulated by the Federal ATF department, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I propose to impose a federal sin tax on the third category of items regulated by the ATF, namely firearms or guns, for short. The tax certainly would not outlaw guns. And, since I propose a modest rate of tax, it would do only a little to discourage them. I propose that an annual tax of $10 be imposed on most guns. If the gun had a serial number it would be taxed at this rate. If the gun was an old "antique or collectible" gun that did not have a serial number then it would be taxed at the rate of $15 per year. It would have to have been made before 1960 (roughly 50 years ago) to qualify for this category.
In the case of other guns that did not fall into this antique and collectible category and lacked a serial number, including guns where the serial number had been defaced or otherwise rendered illegible, an ATF issued serial number would have to be affixed to the weapon. A one time $50 "registration" fee would have to be paid in these situations. And the gun owner would have 6 months to get the serial number affixed, say by a gunsmith. Antique and collectible guns would also be subject to the one time registration fee but would be exempted from the serial number requirement. They could, of course, voluntarily put an ATF serial number on the gun. In this case the gun would be be taxed at the lower rate. Included in this registration process would be a detailed description of the gun. That's why an additional fee would be required.
Paying the tax would involve identifying a "registered owner". In the same way that a Social Security card is "not to be used for identification", this registered owner would "not be used for purposes of identifying the legal owner". It would only identify the person responsible for paying the tax. Every time the registered owner changed, an additional $10 "transfer fee" would be required. This is for transactions involving the transfer of ownership between private parties. In the case of manufacturers, dealers, or importers (hereafter referred to as wholesalers), a $1 transfer fee ("wholesale" fee) would be required. Each time the gun was transferred to a different wholesaler the wholesale fee would be again assessed. The $10 ($15 for a classic or antique gun) "retail" fee would be due when the gun was sold at retail. If a wholesaler bought a gun from a private party the "wholesale" fee would be assessed at the time of the transaction. Subsequently selling the gun to a new private party would necessitate payment of the "retail" fee. The retail fee would cover the tax due that year on the gun, if the gun had not already been taxed in the current year. But the full "retail" fee would be due even if the gun had already been taxed in the current year.
In the case of lost or stolen guns the gun and tax would continue to be the responsibility of the registered owner until a "lost or stolen" report was filed. In the case of guns imported or exported the gun would have to be reported to customs. In the case of importation the appropriate registration and fees would be required at the time of the importation.
The penalties for failure to comply with the law would be civil, not criminal. It would be like getting a parking ticket not a speeding ticket. The point is to raise revenue, not to make people into criminals. There are many details to be worked out including penalties for failing to pay required fees. I leave it to the ATF to work these details out. I simply note that a simple failure to pay the fee would result in an additional larger civil penalty. If the issue goes beyond a simple failure to pay a fee, e.g. if an unregistered or improperly registered gun is used to commit a crime then criminal penalties might be appropriate. I leave it to the ATF, and perhaps subsequent legislation, to address these issues.
All guns should be registered as their ownership may eventually devolve to civilian hands. But the ATF may, at its discretion, exempt the military, law enforcement, etc. from the fees. It may also exempt artillery pieces and other purely military guns at its discretion. But in borderline cases, e.g. heavy machine guns, I would recommend that the ATF err on the side of requiring registration even if they choose to waive the fee requirements. I suspect that many of these items contain a manufacturer provided serial number so modern computer systems make it easy to add these items to the registry.
There are supposedly about 300 million guns in the U.S. If each gun generated $10 per year this would amount to $3 billion per year in additional Federal revenue. Budgetary matters are often calculated over a ten year period. In this case the ten year revenue forecast would be for $30 billion in additional revenue. This would definitely not close the current budget deficit. It would, however, improve the situation in a modest way. Of course, the actual number of guns in circulation may be far less. Or efforts to impose the tax on all guns could be only partially successful. In either case the revenues forecast might be much less than I have forecast. Still, the additional funds should help, if only in a modest way.
No comments:
Post a Comment