So they said, no guns would be

[IndyDave1776]

Sounds like a trap to me.

Whom would I have to assault with a rifle before I qualified for the credit?

Damn straight it's a trap. First, this is only worth $750 if you are in the 35% bracket--it is a deduction, not a buyback. That said, I should hope that gun owners are brighter than the average Obots like those who played the game with 'cash for clunkers' often turning in vehicles worth more than the maximum allowance because that's what the president wanted them to do only to get blindsided with being taxed for income on the amount given as if the car had been worth zero.

I suppose you could actually have made money on this in the days of $350 WASRs, but given that most guns in this class are worth significantly more than $750 maximum you would actually receive, less if you are in a lower tax bracket, it is, once again, proof that if you see a free lunch you can rest assured that there is a hook hidden in it.

 

[singlestacksig]

Damn straight it's a trap. First, this is only worth $750 if you are in the 35% bracket--it is a deduction, not a buyback. That said, I should hope that gun owners are brighter than the average Obots like those who played the game with 'cash for clunkers' often turning in vehicles worth more than the maximum allowance because that's what the president wanted them to do only to get blindsided with being taxed for income on the amount given as if the car had been worth zero.

I suppose you could actually have made money on this in the days of $350 WASRs, but given that most guns in this class are worth significantly more than $750 maximum you would actually receive, less if you are in a lower tax bracket, it is, once again, proof that if you see a free lunch you can rest assured that there is a hook hidden in it.

if it is a credit it is a full $1000 off any taxes you owe, if it is a deduction it lowers your AGI..

 

[IndyDave1776]

if it is a credit it is a full $1000 off any taxes you owe, if it is a deduction it lowers your AGI..

OK, I misread the bill. Still not convinced about the absence of a hook, especially after time allowed for amendments if this actually goes anywhere (like maybe converting it to a normal deduction?).

 

[indiucky]

Should be titled "The Newtown Intellectual Masturbation and Grandstanding Act" if you ask me..

Excellent sentence..Rep on the way and if you are ever in Clarksville stop by the gun shop so I may shake your hand...

 

[singlestacksig]

OK, I misread the bill. Still not convinced about the absence of a hook, especially after time allowed for amendments if this actually goes anywhere (like maybe converting it to a normal deduction?).

if it is just a deduction then it is really a waste of time.. because no one will turn any in..
but does it say it has to be an intact working firearm? ..

 

[IndyDave1776]

if it is just a deduction then it is really a waste of time.. because no one will turn any in..
but does it say it has to be an intact working firearm? ..

It says that it has to be legally owned and must meet the 'evil' criteria, but I didn't see an requirement that it function.

If it passes, it will be interesting to see how it play out. I still can't get past recollections of 'cash for clunkers' which witnessed vehicles worth more than the allowance turned it at a loss relative to value only to have the owner taxed on income for the full value of the allowance. Somehow I can't see this working any better if it reaches its logical conclusion.

 

[cosermann]

I predict this bill will die in committee.

 

[jamil]

if it is just a deduction then it is really a waste of time.. because no one will turn any in..
but does it say it has to be an intact working firearm? ..

Doesn't matter. It's still subsidizing buybacks. Tax payers shouldn't have to buy people's old worn-out crap just so the hoplophobes can bask in the afterglow of the "another gun off the streets" orgasm.