The Backpack Tax

[Belsnickel]

Something many people may not know is the mechanism by which conservation of wildlife is funded in this country. There are two laws, the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell–Johnson Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, that create this funding effort in the United States whereby excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, etc., are collected and allocated to the states based on license sales, number of hunters and anglers, all that. This is all great, this has been around since 1937 on the hunting side and, because of the success of Pittman, 1950 on the fishing side.

The problem is that there has been a declining number of hunters and anglers over the years. There is also a threat to wildlife habitats, our wild places that many people enjoy. Hikers, bikers, campers, water skiers, recreational boaters, etc. There has been a decline in funding to protect these places over the years which has threatened our public lands because Pittman and Dingell funds make up the majority of the money states have to maintain these places. Groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership have been saying for decades, now, that recreational users of our public lands should also help pay for the preservation of these lands. This is what is called "the backpack tax" as it would create an excise tax on items like backpacks, tents, and other equipment commonly used for outdoor activities.

Now, "the backpack tax" isn't a new idea. There is an industry group that was created in the '80s with the primary purpose of combating this idea. But now, as we have seen this problem further exacerbated, this debate it ramping up, again.

Now, I don't expect much action on this with the current political climate and with a director of BLM in favor of selling off our lands, but what do you think about this idea to help fund wilderness conservation?

[*michaelsean*]

I mean that seems fair to me, and I can't imagine people who go to those place would mind paying a little more to make sure they remain.Plus it's not like you buy these things all of the time. I'm sure someone will say they should tax cigarettes instead though.

[Dill]

(08-13-2019, 09:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that there has been a declining number of hunters and anglers over the years. There is also a threat to wildlife habitats, our wild places that many people enjoy. Hikers, bikers, campers, water skiers, recreational boaters, etc. There has been a decline in funding to protect these places over the years which has threatened our public lands because Pittman and Dingell funds make up the majority of the money states have to maintain these places. Groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership have been saying for decades, now, that recreational users of our public lands should also help pay for the preservation of these lands. This is what is called "the backpack tax" as it would create an excise tax on items like backpacks, tents, and other equipment commonly used for outdoor activities.

Now, "the backpack tax" isn't a new idea. There is an industry group that was created in the '80s with the primary purpose of combating this idea. But now, as we have seen this problem further exacerbated, this debate it ramping up, again.

Now, I don't expect much action on this with the current political climate and with a director of BLM in favor of selling off our lands, but what do you think about this idea to help fund wilderness conservation?

Yow.  I purchased a hunting-fishing license every year from age 12-22. I'm 68 now and have only purchased one since then.  My children will never go hunting or fishing.  If that is a national trend, while the population continues to grow, then we have a problem.

What if the BLM director sells off public lands to fund parks and such?

The burden should not all be on hunters, especially if there numbers are declining. Maybe the tax could be extended to recreational vehicles as well.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Taxing tents is just going to mostly be hurting the homeless. Wealthier people are renting places, or getting a RV/Camper.

Kids use backpacks to go to school, which is nothing to do with backpacking in nature. If you restrict it to just trail backpacks, people are just going to buy nice non-trail backpacks and use them.

Both proposed taxes will end up just hurting people who aren't your targeted crowd. You also run the risk of creating financial incentive for kids, who are already going outdoors less and less, to stay inside rather than enjoy the outdoors and exercise.

[6andcounting]

I purpose we cut the free lunch program for elementary school children and threaten to jail homeless people who aren't filing their income taxes on their panhandling income to pay for it.

[Belsnickel]

(08-13-2019, 06:02 PM)Dill Wrote: What if the BLM director sells off public lands to fund parks and such?

The burden should not all be on hunters, especially if there numbers are declining. Maybe the tax could be extended to recreational vehicles as well.

The problem is that when public lands are sold, they are often sold to corporations that end up destroying the wild that the land was intended to protect.

(08-13-2019, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Taxing tents is just going to mostly be hurting the homeless. Wealthier people are renting places, or getting a RV/Camper.

If you think this, then you don't really understand the outdoor industry or how these places are utilized.

(08-13-2019, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Kids use backpacks to go to school, which is nothing to do with backpacking in nature. If you restrict it to just trail backpacks, people are just going to buy nice non-trail backpacks and use them.

This is one of the arguments against the tax. However, already we have individuals being taxed on this sort of thing that aren't necessarily using the benefits. For a long time, target shooters have contributed to these funds even if they do not hunt. For instance, I don't believe SSF hunts, any, but he does own firearms and engages in recreational shooting. So he is paying into this system without benefits. So this is an argument that either means we need to completely overhaul the system, or it isn't a valid argument against adding a tax to other items.

(08-13-2019, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Both proposed taxes will end up just hurting people who aren't your targeted crowd. You also run the risk of creating financial incentive for kids, who are already going outdoors less and less, to stay inside rather than enjoy the outdoors and exercise.

Yeah, kids aren't the ones buying these things and the taxes are already passed on to people not utilizing the benefits. I could also make the argument that maybe if people were educated on the taxes they were paying when they buy a backpack that they would be more inclined to get outside because they could take ownership of the public lands they have now supported.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There are less and less people enjoying the great outdoors every year and I fear that adding a tax to gear will turn more people away. That is if it's felt in the wallet, it will turn people away.

But, if the tax is small enough, like half a percent or maybe one percent on everything, not just hikers and campers, then have an ad campaign for the next three to five years for everything from target shooting to camping to hunting and fishing...get people excited about the outdoors again.

Show how easy and fun camping and fishing can be. Just don't target one group of outdoorsmen, target everyone.

EDIT: oh, and the money made doesn't go to the Feds but goes to the state where the gear is bought. If it goes to the Feds, it will be spent elsewhere. And, the money made goes to public lands, not roads or sewers or whatever, unless there are for that park or land. Hell, if enough money is made, the state can start buying up land to turn into conservation parks like Hamilton County did with Campbell Lakes. It was a quarry and the county bought it and turn the land into four fishing lakes.

Second EDIT: I wouldn't mind paying a little extra as long as its a little. I'm on a fixed income and money is really tight, I can't afford to pay to much more.

[Benton]

(08-13-2019, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Taxing tents is just going to mostly be hurting the homeless. Wealthier people are renting places, or getting a RV/Camper.

Kids use backpacks to go to school, which is nothing to do with backpacking in nature. If you restrict it to just trail backpacks, people are just going to buy nice non-trail backpacks and use them.

Both proposed taxes will end up just hurting people who aren't your targeted crowd. You also run the risk of creating financial incentive for kids, who are already going outdoors less and less, to stay inside rather than enjoy the outdoors and exercise.

And in many cities now, those Lodgers pay a tourism lodging tax.

I used to be opposed to it as the tax would largely hit families with school age children. Now that our gun violence solution largely hangs on banning backpacks, I guess I don't care as much.

[Dill]

(08-13-2019, 10:38 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: EDIT: oh, and the money made doesn't go to the Feds but goes to the state where the gear is bought. If it goes to the Feds, it will be spent elsewhere. And, the money made goes to public lands, not roads or sewers or whatever, unless there are for that park or land. Hell, if enough money is made, the state can start buying up land to turn into conservation parks like Hamilton County did with Campbell Lakes. It was a quarry and the county bought it and turn the land into four fishing lakes.

[Dill]

(08-13-2019, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Taxing tents is just going to mostly be hurting the homeless. Wealthier people are renting places, or getting a RV/Camper.

Kids use backpacks to go to school, which is nothing to do with backpacking in nature. If you restrict it to just trail backpacks, people are just going to buy nice non-trail backpacks and use them.

Both proposed taxes will end up just hurting people who aren't your targeted crowd. You also run the risk of creating financial incentive for kids, who are already going outdoors less and less, to stay inside rather than enjoy the outdoors and exercise.

School taxes already "hurt" everyone.  Not all taxes are about some targeted crowd. 

I.e., a tax to save public lands is not like a tax on tobacco products or alcohol.  It is rather like a tax on public education.

It is about maintaining a common good.

[Dill]

(08-13-2019, 09:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that when public lands are sold, they are often sold to corporations that end up destroying the wild that the land was intended to protect.

Of course they would. That was kind of a joke, a Trump solution. I am not for selling off public lands to anyone.

I don't see why we can't squeeze a bit more tax out of private businesses using public lands--e.g. for grazing and lumber--instead of subsidizing them.