Note: I usually use 3% as an inflation rate over long periods just to be conservative, realizing full well that it is usually higher than that.
So,
(1.0386) X 200 = 2,541.16, without going online over it.
I suppose you could quibble about the "3" if you want and come up with a higher present value, but that only reinforces my argument, so thank you. Some would argue that the real current inflation rate is closer to 8% or so.
I think Wiki uses about 3.5%.
Just for grins, WLJ's $3,826.78 present value results from using 3.49 % inflation, call it 3 1/2%.
His $3,936 present value results from using 3.525 % inflation. Call it 3 1/2% plus a red pubic hair.
Hawkmoon, I suspect that the 1934 gun grabbers jumped for joy when someone came up with the concept that they could get away with restricting firearms usage by creating high taxes for various things. But "licensing" or not, it still served their purpose in restricting firearms.
I for one do not understand why a 17.999 inch shotgun barrel is so much more dangerous (and taxable) than an 18.001 inch barrel. So the tax is a dishonest way of "licensing" firearms in the form of a $200 tax stamp "license." You don't have that license, and you have a 17.999 inch barrel shotgun, you go to jail.
I submit therefore that the $200 tax stamp is in fact a "license." And of course, since inflation has devalued that number --hell, $200 nowadays is just a fairly good night out on the town --they figured out that, as an example, they better just cut off the registration list for machine guns. This essentially banned new transfers of them.
As they say, if they can ban one, they can ban them all. All they have to do is fabricate a new legal concept to circumvent the highest law of the land.
Terry, 230RN
Edited for housekeeping.
