Hank,

I really don't know what you're upset about - not a single post here has been inflammatory nor insulting to you. Nobody has given you a hard time about anything. You began a topic which others, including myself, expounded upon. I mentioned the bit about the article showing how to correctly figure the tax because the amount you stated was incorrect. I thought it would be a shame if you had been overpaying all this time. I was trying to help, I apologize if you took it the wrong way.

I had the excise tax amounts on my computer already - it's something I keep up with and am current on. It was no trouble to post it here.

I don't have time to bill anyone nor send out receipts for magazine subscriptions. When you contacted me about it, I mentioned the workload I was under and that I would try to find time over the weekend to write something up. I did not have that time - the new issue took priority. I may have some downtime after the color portion is printed over the first of next week. Then I'll have two days before I have to start on the next issue.

Again, I'm totally perplexed as to why you're upset. The one thing this site doesn't allow is any sort of insulting or flaming, and none of that occurred anywhere in this thread. It all reads as a pretty pleasant exchange of good information as far as I can tell.

.............

I guess I must have missed something too. I've been on rod building sites where people really jump hot and flame each other. I've had it happen to me on one in particular. I've read back over this entire thread 3 times for the life of me can't find a single inflammatory or mean spirited post. I also didn't see anything rude or personal directed at anyone. I only wish the consideration that was given to Hank and others here had been given to me on other sites when I posted something or the other.

I'm not sure what Mike's post had to do with the excise tax issue but not that it matters. I thought this was a great exchange of information and probably brought to light some things that some of us builders didn't know. I certainly learned a few things.

????????????? I thought this was all a very friendly exchange. What did I miss?

After reading back over these posts again, it now dawns on me that Tom Kirkman is the one being insulted here. I don't know how I missed Hank's comments on the first go around. And like always, Tom responded in a kind manner. An example more should follow.

Hank if you are trying to insult Tom because he wouldn't write and mail you a receipt, you have your USPS MO receipt that comes with every money order. My accountant tells me that cancelled checks and Postal MO receipts can all function as acceptable receipts. You might have to check with yours. But to go off and make those kind of comments just because you didn't get a hand receipt is a little off base IMO. Tom does an awful lot for an awful lot of people. I'd have to cut him some slack on not being able to mail out individual receipts for magazines.

If any of my contributions to this thread added any to Hank feeling ganged up on, I sincerely appologise. I only tried to relate my experiences with the tax system. Like Mr. Tom, I had the money distributions in front of me on my computer. I almost posted them as he did...just for reference as it is interesting to see how the money is divided up.

After reading back through the thread, as several others have as well, I did find something that puzzles me. Hank said (and please don't think I'm picking on you, Hank...I'm not I promise) something about a $400 rod. The gist of it was that he priced out a rod to a customer that was $400 after parts & labor. In the end it was a $400 rod and he could not add on additional money for the excise tax or state sales tax as that would exceed the value of that $400 rod. He had to eat those taxes and pay out of the $400 he received from the sale of the rod. My question is why can't you charge the tax on that $400? That is the way of business. I just sold a ribeye dinner to a customer not 5 minutes ago. The menu price is $14.95, but with tax it comes out to be $16.00. Not one customer that I have expects to pay exactly what the menu price is. They understand that state taxes apply to every purchase they make in North Carolina. This also applies to my rod building. I may price a rod at $400, but in the end the customer will be paying that plus applicable taxes.

I do hope Hank isn't really upset about this thead. As others have already stated, I don't see any derogotory statements made toward Hank. He has always shared great information on this board and I surely hope he will continue to do so.

Jay

Jay if you read Hank's very last post. You can read between the lines and see what his beef is. He's upset at Tom because Tom either wouldn't or couldn't mail him a written receipt for some magazines. This thread was just a convenient means for him to vent his anger at Tom. If I'm wrong I apologize but the continued references to "it runs deeper than this topic" and the "dirty laundry" and the stuff about the receipt all sort of tie together. Pretty silly if you ask me.

If somebody wants to take a shot or two at me because I didn't have time to mail them an individual written receipt, that's fine - it sort of comes with the territory. I'm used to it. I have a tremendous amount to do each day and long ago dropped any notion of being able to please everyone.

But I will suggest that we either need to consider that this topic has run its course or get it back onto the original discussion of the excise tax. I appreciate that Hank started what, for the most part, has been an excellent discussion.


................

I should add that the vast majority of all fishing rod sales in the U.S., at the first point of sale between the manufactuer and the wholesaler/jobber, go for less than $25. (The average price of fishing rods sold in the U.S. is about $40 - $50. Wal-Mart is the #1 fishing rod retailer.) The excise tax is figured at the first point of sale, so the tax paid on most rods is in the $2 range. I would think that it would be unlikely that any reduced tax on the very, very few rods that would sell for more than $100 could possibly affect the overall excise tax fund total to any real extent. But as I said, the number crunchers are still at work. The Fish and Game Department does not want to see any reduction in funding so they'll be on top of this and present the expected outcome shortly.

.............

I am sot of confused. Following is an article from the May 2005 issue of BASSMASTER which say the tax may be increased from 10% to 21%. Anyone know anything about this??





*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

"Sportfishing Tax Recommendation
STAFF REPORT
IN LATE JANUARY, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 424 page report entitled: "Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditure." The report recommends eliminating the excise tax on fishing equipment except for the manufacturers' excise tax on "rods, poles and reels," and recommended increasing the tax from the current 10 percent to 21 percent.
"By more than doubling the excise tax on rods and reels, the increased cost will almost certainly drive anglers from the sport and dramatically damage not just the fishing tackle industry, but the fishery resources which the excise tax is intended to benefit," said Mike Nussman, American Sportfish Association's president & CEO.
The sportfishing industry has always supported the 1950 Sport Fish Restoration Act. This Act uses the manufacturers' excise tax as a means of investing in the fishery resource and angler access at the state level. It has been proved that abundant, accessible and well-managed fisheries provide a reason for anglers to fish and purchase fishing equipment — more fish, better business. Currently, excise tax collections on fishing equipment account for approximately $100 million annually.
"This report is definitely not an investment in the future of sportfishing and is unequivocally biased against the industries that pay the taxes that create the revenue," said Jim Range, the Washington, D.C., representative for the American Fly Fishing Trade Association. The sportfishing industry strongly opposes proposed recommendations concerning revision of the
manufac turers' excise tax on fishing tackle. According to the ASA, along with theAmerican Fly Fishing Trade Association, the recommendations, as written, are viewed as jeopardizing the
future funding of fishery conservation in the United States." ftPl



28 BASSMASTER • MAY 2005

That article is not entirely accurate. There has been some support for raising the tax from 10 to 21% or $10, whichever is lesser. This would mean an increase in the tax on items that sell, at the first point of sale, for less than $100. It would mean a reduction in the tax paid on items that sell, at the first point of sell, for more than $100. Very few fishing items actually sell at that point for more than $100.

As I said earlier, there is some number crunching that needs to be done on the various proposals to see which might increase or decrease the overall funding and where any savings or increases would ultimately wind up.. The current proposal under review only mentions the 10% or $10 figure, not the 21% figure. The BassMaster article is also incorrect on the amount the Sportfishing FET brings in each year.


..................

Thank's Tom. Again you and this site provide a wealth of great information.