Firearms and Sales Tax

Messages
14,642
Reactions
34,294
Well stated! It’s funny watching people duke it out over which tax is better and should be allowed over the other lol

I especially like the casual dismissal of the Constitution you previously mentioned; as if all of the sudden it doesn’t matter because we’ve already allowed it to be violated! Wait, that sounds like a familiar attitude doesn’t it??

To the debate at hand, even though I am being unconstitutionally forced to do so, when I render unto Caesar in Oregon, it is much more beneficial to have the income tax and no sales tax! Of course, depending on income and spending habits, that is likely not the case for everyone!
Hey, you know what? If you keep taking pokes at people like the part I highlighted above, people are going to start thinking you're a troll. You may want to tone it down a bit. And no, "but he did it too" is not an excuse. You're new here. Far too new to be playing that game. If you genuinely want to be part of a civil conversation, you'll think about that a little. If you're forming a clever rebuttal in your head as you read this, you don't belong here.
 

whiskeybill

Messages
475
Reactions
638
What’s interesting is WA has seen record sales tax revenue. They didn’t see it coming, so all the employees took furloughs and layoffs and services became understaffed because of unneeded hiring freezes.
Ah yes, there are those unintended / unforeseen consequences / outcomes. Who knew everyone would panic and clean out the stores over this silly pandemic. There is a certain inflationary formula at work here as well. Prices of taxable goods go up, there is a like increase in sales tax collected. Inflation driven but an increase in revenue still.
 
Last Edited:
Hey, you know what? If you keep taking pokes at people like the part I highlighted above, people are going to start thinking you're a troll. You may want to tone it down a bit. And no, "but he did it too" is not an excuse. You're new here. Far too new to be playing that game. If you genuinely want to be part of a civil conversation, you'll think about that a little. If you're forming a clever rebuttal in your head as you read this, you don't belong here.
Indeed I am relatively new here, but I will let my record speak for itself; I am definitely not a troll.

Regarding your taking offense with what I wrote, that is your right. However, I don’t think what I wrote was so far out of line to merit your attitude and implications against me. I have seen posts from many longtime members on this forum that have been far more combative, condescending, and “stretching” of the forum rules.

This includes posts/members that you appear to have been supportive of.

I respect the length of time you have dedicated to this forum, and probably agree with you on 99% of topics on this forum. That being said, I find your lecture out of place and out of line; if there are issues with my posting that need to be addressed, I will take my cues from the Moderators and respectfully follow their instruction.
 
Well stated! It’s funny watching people duke it out over which tax is better and should be allowed over the other lol

I especially like the casual dismissal of the Constitution you previously mentioned; as if all of the sudden it doesn’t matter because we’ve already allowed it to be violated! Wait, that sounds like a familiar attitude doesn’t it??

To the debate at hand, even though I am being unconstitutionally forced to do so, when I render unto Caesar in Oregon, it is much more beneficial to have the income tax and no sales tax! Of course, depending on income and spending habits, that is likely not the case for everyone!
Just to clarify, the underlined portion is not directed at you @oregonferret !
 
Messages
14,642
Reactions
34,294
Indeed I am relatively new here, but I will let my record speak for itself; I am definitely not a troll.

Regarding your taking offense with what I wrote, that is your right. However, I don’t think what I wrote was so far out of line to merit your attitude and implications against me. I have seen posts from many longtime members on this forum that have been far more combative, condescending, and “stretching” of the forum rules.

This includes posts/members that you appear to have been supportive of.

I respect the length of time you have dedicated to this forum, and probably agree with you on 99% of topics on this forum. That being said, I find your lecture out of place and out of line; if there are issues with my posting that need to be addressed, I will take my cues from the Moderators and respectfully follow their instruction.
And now we know. Went right to the excuses and counter attacks. Quelle surprise.
 
And now we know. Went right to the excuses and counter attacks. Quelle surprise.
And what exactly do you know? I’m just calling it how I see it; I stand by what I’ve said as well as my record here over the past year. I have made no excuses because I’m not attempting to excuse my actions. Given the nature of your accusations against me though, I was indeed highlighting your hypocrisy! This statement in particular I take issue with:

“You're new here. Far too new to be playing that game. If you genuinely want to be part of a civil conversation…”

First and foremost, I have already participated and contributed to many civil conversations. Secondly, you imply there is some sort of hidden club that can bend or break the rules, so long as you’ve been here a long time. From my understanding of the rules and purpose of this website, that goes against every fiber of its intent/mission.

You are entitled to your opinion and I really do respect that. However, if the expression of your opinion is also an attack on my reputation, I will defend myself.

All that aside though, I really have no issue with you and typically agree with your contributions to this site that I come across. In that spirit, I do sincerely apologize for upsetting or offending you though, it certainly wasn’t my intent! I will delete the original message that you took issue with so that this thread may move on without further distraction.

Regarding the OPs original question, I would hope that to some degree, there are protections against excessive taxation of specific products as a means to discourage their consumption. At some point, this would function as an infringement by proxy. Example: You can own a rifle, but there is an additional excise tax (like Tobacco). I don’t think there is any part or spirit of the Constitution (interpreted as intended) that would allow it.

Of course, the alive-and-well excise taxes we currently have are a grim sign that such a tactic could work for gun control!
 
Last Edited:
Messages
14,642
Reactions
34,294
And what exactly do you know? I’m just calling it how I see it; I stand by what I’ve said as well as my record here over the past year. I have made no excuses because I’m not attempting to excuse my actions. Given the nature of your accusations against me though, I was indeed highlighting your hypocrisy! This statement in particular I take issue with:

“You're new here. Far too new to be playing that game. If you genuinely want to be part of a civil conversation…”

First and foremost, I have already participated and contributed to many civil conversations. Secondly, you imply there is some sort of hidden club that can bend or break the rules, so long as you’ve been here a long time. From my understanding of the rules and purpose of this website, that goes against every fiber of its intent/mission.

You are entitled to your opinion and I really do respect that. However, if the expression of your opinion is also an attack on my reputation, I will defend myself.

All that aside though, I really have no issue with you and typically agree with your contributions to this site that I come across. In that spirit, I do sincerely apologize for upsetting or offending you though, it certainly wasn’t my intent! I will delete the original message that you took issue with so that this thread may move on without further distraction.

Regarding the OPs original question, I would hope that to some degree, there are protections against excessive taxation of specific products as a means to discourage their consumption. At some point, this would function as an infringement by proxy. Example: You can own a rifle, but there is an additional excise tax (like Tobacco). I don’t think there is any part or spirit of the Constitution (interpreted as intended) that would allow it.

Of course, the alive-and-well excise taxes we currently have are a grim sign that such a tactic could work for gun control!
:s0140:

Do you honestly think I'm going to read all that? Report to the Nurse's Office. Get some salve on that butt.
 
Messages
4,677
Reactions
5,173
I prefer a sales tax over an income tax, for the simple fact that I make more than I spend, so I want the smaller amount subject to taxation.

Also, don't forget the difference between your marginal tax rate (the rate people typically recite) vs your effective tax rate (the amount of tax you pay, after deductions and tiered income taxation are taken into account).

Here's a good income calculator that will show you difference, based on your inputs: https://smartasset.com/taxes/oregon-tax-calculator
Sales tax is State money, income tax is Federal--I prefer a flat tax, that way the people who buy the most stuff pay the most money

 
Messages
14,642
Reactions
34,294
Honestly I think you need to check yourself if you think you are being some sort of champion of the rules and procedures of this forum.

Perhaps you should read this instead? https://www.northwestfirearms.com/help/rules/
8cJ1uP0.jpg
 

K-22

Messages
917
Reactions
1,022
The government already charges us a $200 tax (stamp) for nfa items. A firearm is a firearm. Some are regulated more than others. Some are downright prohibited. When was the last time you saw someone with an akk akk gun at the local shooting range?
Do not forget the federal excise tax on guns and ammo.
10% on pistols and revolvers, and 11% on ammo and long guns.
Best,
Gary
 
As a Washington resident, I am motivated to purchase long guns in Oregon (even more so after the passage of 1639) to save on sales tax, but if I want to purchase a pistol, I of course have to do so in WA. I recently bought a a new pistol and had to pay around $50 in tax, and after doing this for years, it finally struck me: How is it constitutional to pay taxes on the purchase of a firearm? I get that it's not a "firearms tax" per say, but it is exactly that when it comes down to it. Like fresh food, firearms should be tax exempt in WA. How has this never been challenged before? It's a tax on one of out "rights." Am I missing something? It seems like it would be very cut and dry.
I just had to 500 in tax on a used pistol I transferred in… WA sucks for sure sometimes
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors May Gun Show
Portland, OR
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top